The h Bar

danielunderwood

00:06

wtf did I just watch?

user 2646

02:17

LaTeX is wild

Tweeted by noop_noob on September 30, 2018 at 9:53 PM

user280247

02:34

@user2646 coool

Al Nejati

02:52

my rule is to assume the worst about someone

so if they are using the tropes and terms associated with a particular movement, for example the terms 'sjw' or 'cultural marxist', I associate them with the absolute worst of right-wing movements

and I've usually been right so far

anyway I think physicists, mathematicians, etc. (myself included) should stay away from such debates

we lack the knowledge of the historical context, sociology, and psychology to make any meaningful contribution, and usually wind up making fools of ourselves

imagine if a psychologist decided to talk about why string theory is great

user 2646

03:15

sounds like a fair enough approach

John Rennie

05:22

Charles's Law

Swapnil Das

06:55

Hi Everyone.

I want to study General Relativity from a mathematical/ mathematical physics viewpoint. My knowledge is still upto a Calc -1 level. Can someone tell me how do I get started?

John Rennie

@SwapnilDas that's awfully ambitious. GR is hard even for us physicists who are notoriously casual about mathematical rigour. Learning it from the maths point of view is another big jump.

Swapnil Das

@JohnRennie Oh, I am quite immature. Any guide to getting started?

John Rennie

@SwapnilDas the branch of maths you need is called differential geometry, so you need to learn that.

Swapnil Das

@JohnRennie I see. What are the prerequisites for differential geometry?

John Rennie

I have no idea what maths textbooks are good for differential geometry.

Swapnil Das

07:11

And does the knowledge of differential geometry solely suffice for studying GR?

David Z

@SwapnilDas Definitely multivariable calculus (I think this is often called "calculus III"), linear algebra, and differential equations, at least

John Rennie

@SwapnilDas pretty much, yes.

Swapnil Das

@DavidZ Thanks. What was Calc-2 then?

John Rennie

Maybe Google around and see if you can find a copy of Geometrical Methods of Mathematical Physics

I have the book but I quickly got bored reading it since I'm only interested in the physics not the maths.

David Z

@SwapnilDas I'm honestly not sure. The calculus classes I've taken were generally identified by subject, not by number, so I don't know what topics are covered by a typical Calc II class.

Swapnil Das

07:14

@DavidZ I think the prereq for Multivariable Calculus is single variable calculus, right?

@JohnRennie I'm slowly (though at my humble level) discovering that it is quite the oppposite with me.

David Z

Yeah, that's definitely a prerequisite. I'm not sure just how it corresponds to calculus II though.

Swapnil Das

@JohnRennie @DavidZ As you guys have done physics professionally, lemme ask you something. Is it ok if one can't just do the experiments and still wants to pursue a career in physics?

David Z

Well, yeah, there are many physicists who do very little experimental work

Swapnil Das

@DavidZ Theorists?

David Z

Exactly

John Rennie

07:17

@SwapnilDas I only ever did experimental physics and it was mostly hands on, so I don't have much experience of the theoretical world.

David Z

Or (some) computational physicists, if you don't count them as theorists

Swapnil Das

I am struggling with school level experiments! I can understand them, but can't carry them out :(

David Z

I was never much good at the experimental classes either

John Rennie

But note that these days experiments are so big and complicated that many experimental physicists don't actually do much experimenting. The technicians build the kit. The physicists mainly do design, data analysis and interpretation.

Swapnil Das

@JohnRennie Aha.

Umm, I could sound a bit ambitious but lemme still ask. What kind of physics does Witten do?

John Rennie

07:19

Take the LHC. Physicists had to figure out the design, which is a formidably complicated and fascinating task. But they didn't actually get out the hacksaws and welding torches and start assembling it.

Witten is a pure theoretician.

Swapnil Das

@JohnRennie That's what I find cool!

David Z

@SwapnilDas math :-P (string theory)

Sir Cumference

Howdy yall

Swapnil Das

@DavidZ That's what I find interesting!

@SirCumference Yo!

Sir Cumference

Sup

Swapnil Das

07:21

Chatting :P

John Rennie

@SwapnilDas this probably sounds a bit downbeat, but theoretical physics is so complex these days that unless you're a mathematical whizz you are unlikely to get far in it.

Swapnil Das

@JohnRennie Yeah I know right.

John Rennie

For example I would have absolutely no chance!

Eulb

@SirCumference sup

Sir Cumference

@JohnRennie If someone really wants to be a theoretical physics they'll probably put in the effort to deeply understand math

@Eulb How's life

Swapnil Das

07:22

@JohnRennie When do you get to know you are one?

John Rennie

you mentioned GR - well GR would be considered simple by the current crop of theoretical physicists.

Eulb

REMINDER TO UNBAN 0celo7

Swapnil Das

@JohnRennie Wth!

Eulb

@SirCumference it's pretty okay lol

John Rennie

@Eulb please don't bang on and on about this. We've got your point and there's nothing to be gained from beating us over the head with it.

Sir Cumference

07:23

@Eulb Let's see how long before this is unstarred/deleted

John Rennie

@SirCumference 30 seconds.

Sir Cumference

i think that was 30 sec?

Eulb

room owner abuse

shrug

John Rennie

So complain and get me fired

Swapnil Das

@SirCumference Does high school math and the "real rigorous' mathematics have any correlation?

Eulb

07:24

@JohnRennie that's not how it works

Sir Cumference

@SwapnilDas Before I answer that I'm guessing you're in high school?

Swapnil Das

Yup, final year

John Rennie

@SwapnilDas if you need to ask whether you're a maths whizz then you aren't

Swapnil Das

@JohnRennie Nope, I wanted to know what makes one.

Sir Cumference

@SwapnilDas Well I'm a math major. I've noticed that if you take math major classes, high school math looks like a joke.

John Rennie

07:25

All the people I know who are really good at maths are absolutely fascinated by it nd spend pretty much their whole time playing with maths.

Swapnil Das

But IQ must play a role, no?

Sir Cumference

Everything is much more conceptual and precise in college. You're taught by people who really know what they are doing, which is rather rare among high school teachers

Eulb

@JohnRennie but if I was really anal I could write a bot to gather every offensive thing you have ever said in this chat and take it out of context and get super vocal about it to stackexchange to get you banned from chat. because you have said stuff worthy of 30 min flag ban before.

kind of like what happened to 0celo7 but his was everyone's fault

Swapnil Das

All I am doing now is the JEE math and I donno if that really counts as a deciding factor.

Sir Cumference

@SwapnilDas Sort of. IQ measures reasoning, but that certainly changes with time and experience. To that end, you'll get used to a logical mindset when you get deep into math

John Rennie

07:28

@Eulb I've occasionally gone too far and in fact I have been flagged and suspended. But I reacted to the suspension by stopping doing what got me suspended. Note that I no longer make jokes about toast tickles.

Sir Cumference

I thought I was good at math when I was in high school. When I got to college I realized I understood nothing, and I'd only memorized a bunch of rote processes

Swapnil Das

@SirCumference I see.

@SirCumference So are the '2 maths' completely different?

David Z

@Eulb I'm going to back up what John said. Don't bring it up again in this room. You may consider this an official warning.

Sir Cumference

@SwapnilDas Basically. It's less of a memorization game, so you'd have to spend time to gain an intuition on why the equations are what they are

Swapnil Das

Aha. In India upto high school, math is mostly taught as if it is a branch of 'logical history'.

Sir Cumference

07:33

Honestly it becomes much more enjoyable when you see the concepts behind everything and know the precise definitions

Swapnil Das

Must be.

Students here in India don't like proofwork. They like computation.

Sir Cumference

I'm pretty sure that's just every high school, not just India :P

Swapnil Das

Oh. I am just the opposite, therefore a bit slow.

Sir Cumference

It carries into college too until you reach the higher math courses. I only began to really understand the concepts behind math when I started Calc 3

@SwapnilDas Well if you do a math major, there's generally not many computations. On the other hand, a physics major will flood you with them.

Swapnil Das

@SirCumference I'm afraid to do a physics major because I can't carry out expts.

Sir Cumference

07:39

@SwapnilDas Expts?

Swapnil Das

experiments.

I am the worst experimentalist ever in the Universe currently.

Sir Cumference

You're only in high school, you've got time to learn :P

Swapnil Das

I know I can't. My hands aren't good enough :(

John Rennie

@SwapnilDas I knew a postdoc who worked on NMR, and he was such a bad experimentalist that he was banned from going anywhere near the equipment for fear that he would break it!

Sir Cumference

Welp I'm probably way off then

Swapnil Das

07:41

@JohnRennie Theorist?

John Rennie

No, he planned the experiments and analysed and interpreted the results. He just didn't actually do the experiments.

Swapnil Das

So inspiring lol!

Are they phenomenologists or something?

John Rennie

It's this guy. Good grief, he's a professor now!

Swapnil Das

Cambridge Professor!

Is he a chemical physicist? @JohnRennie

John Rennie

@SwapnilDas He'd probably be described as a physical chemist. Strictly speaking I am a physical chemist not a physicist because I worked in colloid science and that is generally considered part of physical chemistry.

Swapnil Das

07:47

oh yes he is :P

Ohk.

uk.linkedin.com/in/professor-jacek-klinowski-b8b2bb59

*Chemical Physicist ;)

John Rennie

Meh. A rose by any other name.

Swapnil Das

Is chemical physics physics or chemistry?

And do you need to know chemistry for that?

John Rennie

That's a matter of opinion. There is no definitive answer.

It's a broad field with vaguely defined edges, so it varies from very physics like to very chemistry like.

Swapnil Das

I see.

John Rennie

The work I did wasn't involved with any chemical reactions, though it did involve beakers full of solutions of stuff.

Sir Cumference

07:52

Woah did you wear a lab coat

Jesus christ it's 4am

I need to collapse

John Rennie

@SirCumference Yes

In fact I still have my old lab coat. I use it when I'm working on the car.

It's a bit oily now :-)

Sir Cumference

Honestly wish I could explore chemistry more, I really liked it in high school. But chemistry overlaps with a lot of my classes.

Welp I oughta head to sleep. 'Night

John Rennie

Bye

Avantgarde

08:07

Pauli effect

The Pauli effect is a term referring to the supposed tendency of technical equipment to encounter critical failure in the presence of certain people. The term was coined after mysterious anecdotal stories involving Austrian theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, describing numerous instances in which demonstrations involving equipment suffered technical problems only when he was present. The Pauli effect is not related with the Pauli exclusion principle, which is a bona fide physical phenomenon named after Pauli. However the Pauli effect was humorously tagged as a second Pauli exclusion principle...

Anonymous

08:41

@SwapnilDas Sounds like a gross generalization

Anonymous

1 hour ago, by John Rennie

@SwapnilDas if you need to ask whether you're a maths whizz then you aren't

Anonymous

1 hour ago, by John Rennie

All the people I know who are really good at maths are absolutely fascinated by it nd spend pretty much their whole time playing with maths.

Anonymous

Ah, I wish I could star those a 100 times each ^

Anonymous

The best mathematicians I've ever met/conversed with (irrespective of their age) are indeed the ones who really really enjoy playing with math rather than thinking about their performance in some hierarchy establishing competition or their abilities relative to the others.

Swapnil Das

10:31

No No, life isn't a fairy tale

The best mathematicians had a lot of natural talent, so competition was never a serious threat. If you have to survive in academia, you need to be competitive and analyze your productivity every now and then.

Anonymous

10:43

@SwapnilDas "The best mathematicians had a lot of natural talent, so competition was never a serious threat" I never claimed otherwise. Yes, you need to have a natural inclination for mathematics otherwise you wouldn't get too far in academia. 90%+ in the world are ~~evidently~~ arguably too dumb to ever become professional mathematicians. But that doesn't contradict my claim that the best mathematicians really enjoy what they do.

Anonymous

And in the very few instances where they do not, it's because they were forced to be good for whatever reason. But those cases are rare.

Anonymous

However, there are also examples of top mathematicians who entered late into the field (and weren't great in math as kids) and yet surpassed most. Those are rare instances too, yes.

Anonymous

My point wasn't that you don't need in-born intelligence to become a mathematician. You sure do. But intelligence alone isn't sufficient to drag you through the journey unless you really enjoy what you're doing. At least that's what my current impression is (which might of course change with time and experience).

Anonymous

@SwapnilDas Speaking of that reminds me of what was a huge issue last week. If you followed the Atiyah incident a bit, you'd find that he was truly enjoying presenting his lecture/material even at the age by which most people are well dead. That's a sign of a great mathematician. He might have been wrong (in fact, severely so) and yet there's a lot to learn from his life.

More Anonymous

11:18

Hey guys is this a badly phrased question or just a bad quesiton?

-1

Q: Is there a quantum analogue of Rolle's theorem?

Background I was thinking of Rolle's theorem in the context of classical mechanics I have $2$ points $A$ and $B$ and my particle goes from $A$ to $B$ then I know the velocity of the particle at a time $\tilde t$ is given by $\dot x(\tilde t)=\frac{x_a-x_b}{t_a - t_b}$ where $ \tilde t$ is a poin...

ACuriousMind

@MoreAnonymous It's not clear to me what you want. A quantum object has no definite velocity or position between two measurements, and I don't understand your reference to the path integral formulation. In any case, the paths in the path integral formulation are not necessarily differentiable (in fact almost none of them are), so Rolle's theorem doesn't apply to them regardless of why you'd want it to.

If you actually explained why you're trying to apply Rolle's theorem one might be able to give a good answer.

More Anonymous

I was thinking more along the lines of the amplitude

where one plugs in \int |x > <x|

$\int | x \rangle \langle x | dx $

ACuriousMind

That's...the identity operator.

More Anonymous

just one moment

Sorry do you have access to QFT for the Gifted amateur

?

Example 23.1

ACuriousMind

Nope

More Anonymous

11:29

sigh I'm gonna have yto type it

one moment

Let the amplitude be $G$

Sorry should have just done this from the start

ACuriousMind

Ah, that's the usual derivation of the path integral

More Anonymous

yea ...

but in the path integral one infer's the position by the operator acting on it

right?

and thus the whole path integral formulation

ACuriousMind

The operator acting on what?

More Anonymous

On the unitary operator

ACuriousMind

$G$ is not an operator, it's a scalar function called the propagator

You can't act on it with an operator, really

More Anonymous

11:42

I'm editing my question maybe it will be (hopefully) clearer after that?

ACuriousMind

To get the expectation value of position at a particular time in the path integral formalism, you need to insert an additional $x(t)$ in the integrand, i.e. $\langle x(t_1)\rangle = \int \mathcal{D}x(t) x(t_1)\exp(\mathrm{i}S[x(t)])$

More Anonymous

12:17

@ACuriousMind edited!

:D

ACuriousMind

@MoreAnonymous You don't mean that the Hamiltonian is a linear function of position and velocity. You mean that it is the sum of a function of position and a function of velocity.

More Anonymous

yea ... my bad ...

Swapnil Das

12:35

@Blue Oh, with that point I always agree. How could someone pursue a field he/she doesn't love? :P

@Blue Yes, A true mathematician indeed.

@Blue You know any examples? I'd love to know about them.

Jenayah

Hi there! Completely new here since I'm usually found on SFF :)

I didn't find a sandbox on Meta so I'm trying chat. Point is, I'd have a question about whether you can get zapped if you hold a conductor material touching several phone wires, while not being grounded.

I don't think it's the same as physics.stackexchange.com/q/109142 or physics.stackexchange.com/q/41770 (the "birds on wires" questions) since one would then be "closing" the circuit, but I'm not sure about other potential dupes (although phone wires is:q [doesn't seem to yield much](phone wires is:q).

Problem boils down to 1/ as this been asked before? (if so sorry for your time!)

2/ I'm unsure if I'd be able to understand the answer :^) studies included physics up until two years of higher education, for reference. Then, I'm unsure if it's okay to ask a question when you might not be able to grasp what the answerer is telling you?

Thanks in advance :D

Question is inspired by this comic panel I found while writing an answer on SFF:

And the ensuing comments:

See here for info about why he was fine when using the phone wires. — phantom42 Sep 24 at 16:08

@phantom42 not quite, I reckon. One has to consider that even if Cap's not grounded, he's in contact with a metallic conductor (assuming vibranium does conduct electricity) which touches several wires; I'd have thought power would take the "easiest path" and go through the shield, effectively zapping a hand at least — Jenayah Sep 24 at 16:25

Once again sorry if it's not the place to ask, if I'm interrupting something or whatever :)

ACuriousMind

13:00

@Jenayah It's fine to ask questions where you might not understand the answer, and it's also fine to ask answerers to answer in as plain terms as possible. Just be prepared that it's sometimes not possible and that they're not obliged to do so.

Jenayah

@ACuriousMind to be honest I can understand answer like this one fine, and I reckon answers to the above might be along those lines. As for answerers not being obliged to speak in laymans' terms - of course! There's not only the asker at stake, if I was a physics expert/enthusiast (well, more enthusiast than me) I'd appreciate reading a full-fledged, backed-up answer :D

CooperCape

14:54

If something has a mass of $100\pm 5$kg, then is the confidence of the mass being $>105$ 95%, or say 47.5%? (Quoting 95% because the confidence of something lying in the range of $\pm 2\sigma$ is $95%$)

Loong

@CooperCape Why "greater than", $>105$?

CooperCape

That's just what the question says

I changed the numbers to make it more obvious

Loong

Really? Then it's about 2.5 %.

CooperCape

but it essentially states "What confidence level would you assign to the statement $m>105$

How so?

Loong

You say it's 95 % for (100 ± 5) kg.

CooperCape

15:00

Well we have that the confidence of it being withing $\pm 2\sigma$ is 95%, and we seem to take the uncertainty in the value to be $\sigma$

Loong

@CooperCape Ah, so you mean 95 % for (100 ± 2×5) kg = (100 ± 10) kg?

CooperCape

@Loong Yes I believe so

Loong

I see.

Then it's about 15.9 % for m > 105 kg.

CooperCape

@Loong so did you take that +-5 would be ~32% and then divide by 2 or what?

Loong

Assuming a normal distribution …

CooperCape

15:09

Okay thanks for that

Loong

1 sigma corresponds to 68.27 % …

Akash. B

Hi

Loong

@CooperCape huh?

CooperCape

Just saying thanks?

Anonymous

It feels incredibly satisfying when you finally find out who downvoted you. :P

Anonymous

15:10

@CooperCape Yo

Anonymous

How's college goin?

CooperCape

@Blue Howdy

Pretty good in second week now

Things sorta picking up pace

Loong

But you are only looking at one half of the distribution, so 34.13 % …

Anonymous

@CooperCape Nice. They are following the semester system I presume?

Loong

The lower half is already complete, so 50.00 % …

CooperCape

15:12

@Loong Ohh right I see

@Blue Yeah we do

although I was surprised to see we have a reading week in 4 weeks

But apparently it's filled with tests that actually count

Akash. B

Come on guys include me in the chat.I 'm bored

Loong

50.00 % + 34.13 % = 84.13 %

Anonymous

@Akash.B Come on in

CooperCape

@Loong Gotcha - thanks a ton

Loong

But you are instered in "greater than", so 100 % − 84.13 % = 15.87 %

Akash. B

15:14

@Blue But I can't see a right topic to chat .Put forward a topic

Anonymous

@Akash.B I'm not too creative with that.

Anonymous

It would be funny if you make similar demands in real life ;)

CooperCape

@Loong Actually looking back where does 34.13% come from? Sorry if I'm being slow

Anonymous

@CooperCape "reading week" - what does that mean?

CooperCape

oh the 68.27%

my bad

@Blue It means we have no lectures and we study for tests

Loong

15:16

@CooperCape yes

CooperCape

Becuase somehow they're gonna test us 6 weeks in

I thought it was like 64% so I got confused

Anonymous

@CooperCape Sounds useful. We don't have anything like that

Anonymous

Most of us study only 2 days before tests

Akash. B

Yeah 😅😅

CooperCape

Yeah hopefully it should be. Gives a nice break to look over the work I guess

Had two Brian Cox lectures this week as well

They're spoiling us

Akash. B

15:18

@Blue I studies 12hours before exams

Anonymous

@CooperCape Heh. How was it?

Anonymous

@Akash.B I can relate

CooperCape

He was alright - don't know why but I was surprised when he sounded like he does on tv

Anonymous

He wouldn't put on a different voice for TV :P

Anonymous

What did he teach tho?

CooperCape

15:20

It's true I was just like wowww

Special relativity and then later this semester intro to quantum physics

Akash. B

Who's he here?

Anonymous

Nice. You guys seem to have an accelerated syllabus

Anonymous

@Akash.B Brian Cox

CooperCape

Nah we seem to have swapped terms compared to most unis

Akash. B

Hmm,I don't think I know him

CooperCape

15:22

Second semester has waves and magnetism etc.

Anonymous

If you get some free time pick up a copy of Goldstein

Akash. B

@CooperCape where are you studying?

CooperCape

@Akash.B Manchester

@Blue Goldstein?

Akash. B

Oh

Anonymous

@CooperCape Yeah, his classical mechanics book

Anonymous

15:23

It would provide a good background for quantum

Akash. B

@CooperCape are you a physics student?

CooperCape

@Blue We do qm properly in second year I think this is like what a wavefunction is etc. and probability

@Blue But I'll check it out anyway cause it'll be useful next year and probs for dynamics

@Akash.B Yeah I am

Akash. B

@CooperCape How's it?

Is it boring or interesting?

CooperCape

@Akash.B So far it's all been really enjoyable haven't met anything I particularly dislike yet

Dynamics is going a little slow atm but that's understandable cause everybodies gotta get to the same place and looking at next terms dynamics I'd rather be here than there

Akash. B

@CooperCape What about mathematics?

Anonymous

15:28

@CooperCape Meriam Kraige type dynamics?

CooperCape

@Akash.B Again going slowly but there's a few new things (basic partial diff etc.)

@Blue It's stuff like eulers equations for rotation or something

Anonymous

Ah, rigid body, rotation, torque and all that.

CooperCape

Yeah things like that

It looks quite daunting but I'm sure I'll cope

Anonymous

It probably wouldn't be too useful in the future, if you become a physicist anyway

Lozansky

With a name like that, I'm sure you will :P

Anonymous

15:32

It's more of what engineers are concerned with

Akash. B

Can anyone tell me how acceleration influence force in Newton's law?

Anonymous

But yeah, you'd need to get through this

CooperCape

@Blue That's fair enough - I get all the "have a lotta maths" options forced down my throat for choosing the theoretical course

Think I'll enjoy it though

Akash. B

@Blue can you give me an answer to my question?

Anonymous

@CooperCape Better than having to twist and join wires in the lab (and also having to remove the insulation with your teeth) :P

Anonymous

15:34

@Akash.B Sorry, not in the mood to answer questions

Anonymous

Ask in the problem solving room

CooperCape

@Blue Funny you should say that - we're specifically not allowed to do a lab that involves exactly that

Instead I get the "probably bad at labs" labs. For example tomorrows lab the first section is called "mostly algebra" and I spend an hour doing maths, then take a measurement, then do more maths.

Anonymous

@CooperCape lol

Secret

15:58

RHV=1

SpamActive=1

Deploying spam

Random Godlike statement:

> Who needs time travel when you can reconfigure all the histories at will

/EndSpam

ChoMedit

Hi. I don't have deep background on physics but I want to know how scientific methods work in real workplaces. What is the basic and minimum knowledge to analyze the experimental results on articles and papers(specifically, in high-energy physics or cosmology)? Statistics and Error analysis(<- Too broad.. but I can't reduce it more detail) is enough?

lılostafa

16:16

Female Nobel prize winner deemed not important enough for Wikipedia entry

5

Loong

> The oversight has once again highlighted the marginalization of women in science and gender bias at Wikipedia.

sounds like non sequitur to me

lılostafa

I completely agree.

Lozansky

@Semiclassical !!

bolbteppa

16:35

Yeah, ignoring a nobel prize winner until after they are awarded the prize, not like they treated her as a marginal figure up to that moment or anything

CooperCape

Say a spacecraft is on the ground travelling directly away from you at some speed $v$ that is close to $c$. If it turns a light on and off would the time the light's turned on for be longer as it's travelling away from you? (i.e $\Delta t\neq\gamma\Delta t_0$ but instead something like $\Delta t=\gamma t+\frac{v\gamma t}{c}$?)

danielunderwood

It seems kind of odd that anyone with work worthy of a Nobel prize wouldn't have a wikipedia entry

ACuriousMind

@ChoMedit To really analyze a paper in a particular field, you need to be familiar with the relevant theoretical background, be familiar with the experimental devices used, understand the statistical methods used, etc. If you're looking at hep-th and cosmology papers, in-depth understanding of quantum field theory resp. general relativity is essential

@danielunderwood With not-really-famous people, it seems to me that whether or not they have a Wikipedia entry is largely determined by whether or not they or one of their assistants is vain enough to create one :P

Now, if she had really been rejected an entry for not being notable before, that would be odd, but this isn't what the Wikipedia entry history shows: The deletion request is tagged G12, which is deletion because of unambiguous copyright infringement.

lılostafa

@ACuriousMind The Guardian article says something else (“This submission’s references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article,”)

(Which I couldn't find in the page log)

ACuriousMind

@lılostafa I can't find that in the history (which the article itself links as if it corroborated its claim!)

Loong

16:46

Her chemistry counterpart has a page since 2008, so no "marginalization of women in science" in this case.

lılostafa

It seems Alessandro Strumia was right ;)

ACuriousMind

Ah, I have found where the quote comes from - the review rejection of this draft

> This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

...which means that the submission, i.e. the Wikipedia article, does not have sufficient references to establish notability, not that the subject of the article as such is not notable.

@lılostafa ...what.

lılostafa

20 hours ago, by Mithrandir

May be of interest to folks here: https://www.particlesforjustice.org/ (apologies if I'm repeating something someone else already mentioned).

danielunderwood

It sounds to me that it's a bit of a stretch to use this example as some sort of evidence

It is interesting that she's an associate professor rather than a full professor

lılostafa

@danielunderwood Why don't you look at it the other way?

danielunderwood

16:56

What do you mean?

lılostafa

that an assistant professor has won a Nobel prize

ACuriousMind

@danielunderwood Since I don't understand the American distinction between those two, I have no idea how to evaluate that :P

danielunderwood

I think it's generally Assistant -> Associate -> Professor and my understanding is that they're essentially levels of job security if you do research in something that isn't a hot topic. I don't really understand it all that well though

lılostafa

I mean, I find it rather odd that everybody is saying a Nobel laureate didn't have a Wikipedia page and was only an assistant professor just because she was female

bolbteppa

Why is it odd

danielunderwood

17:00

I would find both of those things odd regardless of gender. I had always assumed Nobel winners were pretty well-known before winning the prize though

lılostafa

@bolbteppa that no one thinks the other way round...

bolbteppa

What is the other way round?

lılostafa

@bolbteppa someone has won a Nobel prize that didn't have a Wikipedia entry and was an assistant professor

:)

ACuriousMind

@lılostafa The point is that Nobel prizes don't come out of nowhere. They're not being awarded for new groundbreaking discoveries, but those that have already stood the test of time. The work they're being award for has been well-known to the research community for years.

bolbteppa

Thinking that way would imply her winning it was an amazing deviation from the standard 'everybody who wins it usually has a wiki and is a full on professor and as usual gets the recognition they clearly deserve', instead we get what one would expect if a women wins it - indicators of implicit/unconscious bias against women, and there are not even enough examples to build some standard picture of how it should be done when women do it

lılostafa

17:07

@ACuriousMind well if you want to find out why she wasn't as well-known as the other winners of the 2018 Nobel prize just compare their Google Scholar profiles

ACuriousMind

@danielunderwood Well, here there are no differences in the professor titles - you're either a professor or you're not. Recently there are now "junior professorships" which are not for life but can be given to young researchers without habilitation, but otherwise everyone who is a professor basically has the ultimate job security in that they're holders of public office who can't be fired for anything other than blatant misconduct.

danielunderwood

But from what I've heard, full professors are tenured while the other 2 aren't. I thought that was the job security aspect?

ACuriousMind

I don't know, that's why I said I have no idea how to evaluate what is means that she's "only" an assistant professor

danielunderwood

Ahh the academic system is weird

Anonymous

@ACuriousMind In many countries, assistant professors can be terminated from employment in case they don't have sufficient successes in form of publications, etc after a certain period of time (usually around 5 years)

ACuriousMind

17:18

@Blue ...and in the US?

Doesn't help much to know how it works in "many countries" in this case :P

Anonymous

> The rank of assistant professor generally is held for a probationary period of five to seven years, after which the individual will either be promoted to associate professor and granted tenure (i.e., cannot be fired without cause and a formal hearing process) or will be terminated from employment. As of 2007, 23.1% of academics held the rank of assistant professor.

Anonymous

Professors in the United States

In the U.S., "professors" commonly occupy any of several positions in academia, typically the ranks of assistant professor, associate professor, or professor. The same terms are used outside the U.S., although they often denote different roles from in the U.S. system. However, the majority of university lecturers and instructors in the United States, as of 2015, do not occupy these tenure-track ranks, but are part-time adjuncts.Research and education are among the main tasks of tenured and tenure-track professors, with the amount of time spent on research or teaching depending strongly on the...

Anonymous

Seems like it's talking about the US

Anonymous

Associate professorship can usually be usually be said to be secure (at least in my country). But I don't think we can call assistant professorship "secure". I guess it is the same for the US

ACuriousMind

Ah, sorry, she's an associate professor. So both associate and full are tenured it seems.

Welp, that just means that the difference doesn't tell you much since it probably depends on the university itself when and how they promote their associates to full professors.

Anonymous

17:23

@ACuriousMind True, yeah. It can vary a lot between universities, apparently

lılostafa

@ACuriousMind maybe she's promoted after being awarded the prize...

(her homepage is edited recently...)

Anonymous

> As an interviewer on the BBC Newshour put it, “Why aren’t you a full professor, given your eminence?”

Strickland, who will receive a one-quarter share of the prize, or about $250,000, for her work in “generating high-intensity, ultra-short optical pulses” for lasers, responded: “I never applied.”

danielunderwood

huh I didn't even know you had to apply

Sir Cumference

Variable star designation

Variable stars are designated using a variation on the Bayer designation format of an identifying label (as described below) combined with the Latin genitive of the name of the constellation in which the star lies. See List of constellations for a list of constellations and the genitive forms of their names. The current naming system is: Stars with existing Greek letter Bayer designations are not given new designations. Otherwise, start with the letter R and go through Z. Continue with RR...RZ, then use SS...SZ, TT...TZ and so on until ZZ. Use AA...AZ, BB...BZ, CC...CZ and so on until reaching...

Has to be the most convoluted naming system ever

Anonymous

@lılostafa I don't think so. She got her assistant professorship in 1997. It's not conceivable that she remained as an assistant for 21 years

lılostafa

17:27

@Blue The next question should have been "why not?!"

Anonymous

@lılostafa Indeed

Anonymous

Maybe they don't care about such things :P

Anonymous

Or maybe the chances for promotion were low

Anonymous

Before she got the Nobel

danielunderwood

Maybe professors have more external responsibilities? I've heard that professors do more reviews and administrative things than research, but I've always thought that that was more due to their time in the field and ability to do those things

ACuriousMind

17:30

If you actually have to apply then I can fully relate to just not applying :P

danielunderwood

lol or that

Anonymous

Is there any news of when she's getting tenure tho?

danielunderwood

Well she could already have it according to that wikipedia article, but I'd imagine her job is pretty safe at this point

Anonymous

> She is an associate professor, but she does have tenure,

Anonymous

hmm

lılostafa

17:32

There are only 3 people in her research group uwaterloo.ca/ultrafast-laser-group/about/people

danielunderwood

@Blue am I blind? I didn't see that part

Anonymous

@danielunderwood It's from another news website

Anonymous

bustle.com/p/…

Anonymous

James P. Allison

James Patrick Allison (born in August 7, 1948) is an American immunologist and Nobel laureate who holds the position of professor and chair of immunology and executive director of immunotherapy platform at the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center at the University of Texas. His discoveries have led to new cancer treatments for the deadliest cancers. He is also the director of the Cancer Research Institute (CRI) scientific advisory council. He has a longstanding interest in mechanisms of T-cell development and activation, the development of novel strategies for tumor immunotherapy, and is recognized as...

Anonymous

It's really good to see that they're (the Nobel Committee) focusing on the cancer research front

Anonymous

17:40

> His mother died of lymphoma when he was 11. His brother died of prostate cancer in 2005.

Anonymous

Oh, the irony. I can imagine the feeling of helplessness he must have gone through...

lılostafa

wow there are lots of other similar stories published elsewhere!

Donna Strickland's treatment on Wikipedia shows how women have long been excluded from science

From ^: "The entry was determined not meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements, and all three of these criteria are biased in favour of men"

Anonymous

Eh, that drama will go on for a few more days.

Anonymous

It's becoming more of a cringefest now

lılostafa

someone please show me a single notability criterion of Wikipedia that is biased in favor of men

Wikipedia:Notability (academics)

This guideline, sometimes referred to as the professor test, is meant to reflect consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements. For the purposes of this guideline, an academic is someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education, and academic notability refers to being known for such engagement. Most academics are or have been faculty members (such as professors of various ranks) at colleges or universities. Also, many academics hold or have held academic or research positions in various academic research institutes (such as NIH, CNRS, etc.). However...

Transcript for