The h Bar - 2018-10-11 (page 2 of 2)

« first day (2898 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2037 days later) »

Anonymous

6:00 PM

Predatory open-access publishing

Predatory open-access publishing is an exploitative open-access academic publishing business model that involves charging publication fees to authors without providing the editorial and publishing services associated with legitimate journals (open access or not). The idea that they are "predatory" is based on the view that academics are tricked into publishing with them, though some authors may be aware that the journal is poor quality or even fraudulent. New scholars from developing countries are said to be especially at risk of being misled by predatory practices. However, scholars from developed...

Anonymous

vanity publishing is a thing too, yes

@bolbteppa obviously you can't have GR without SR being a correct limit, but I see no reason why you'd have to make a theory that was only compatible with SR first, instead of just making a theory that's compatible with both from the get go.

that is a helpful/ relevant article, but some academics want to pay to publish maybe, or publish without peer review (rejection), and dont think its reasonable to lump all that into "predatory journals"...

Anonymous

@vzn Okay, we can expand it to predatory+vanity+ (insert words of your choice) ;)

@Blue a tricky case or borderline is trying to "publish" scientific papers without peer review, eg arxiv. if the authors had published on arxiv, what would be our response? hypothetical scenario etc

6:03 PM

@enumaris how do you even formulate GR without knowing what an inertial frame is and how physics is supposed to go in an inertial frame before relating the behavior in non-inertial frames to gravitational fields in inertial frames? I mean that one cannot even set up GR without using SR concepts, how can you set up a quantum theory of GR without relying on SR concepts?

Anonymous

@vzn arXiv is peer reviewed

@Blue not exactly. afaik they dont really consider it "peer review".

@Blue It isn't. It has certain barriers to entry but they are not equivalent to peer-review

@bolbteppa relying on SR concepts is not the same as saying you need to make a theory "compatible ONLY with SR" first. Perhaps it's easier to start with a theory that's compatible with SR first, but there's no reason to suspect one could not theory craft a new theory which is at once compatible with both SR and GR.

Anonymous

That's true. It wouldn't be equivalent to the rigorous peer review to get published in a journal

Anonymous

6:06 PM

Anyhow, arXiv articles which are not published are usually not taken seriously unless they're coming from a reputed person. I guess that is an existing policy?

@enumaris how are you going to even formulate quantum gravity without using a well-defined quantum SR to set it up if gravity relies on SR for it to be set up?

arxiv doesnt explain this much, but they seem to have section reviewers that scan papers in areas looking for basic legibility etc accept/ reject but not on the level of journal reviews. they dont publish their criteria/ reviewer names.

@bolbteppa So are you saying you need to first create a theory that is compatible with SR but not GR (like QFT). And only then can you create a theory that respects both?

@enumaris absolutely

So there is no conceivable way to get at the second theory first?

Like, in the physical world that we live in, somehow figuring out that second theory first is physically impossible?

6:08 PM

@enumaris that is historically how GR+SR were devised by einstein et al + maybe often presented in that form but think its unrealistic to impose that on all new theories, it sounds like a clearcut (thinking) bias to me.

I guess all I can say is I disagree with your point then @bolbteppa

anyway re all the discussion on (non)mainstream policy cf this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem

I can't see how it makes a lick of sense to do it any other way, you don't even know what you're doing if you don't have the constraint of SR existing, any problems BM has with SR only magnify in GR too :p

Anonymous

@vzn Yep. That at least keeps the average quality of the papers on arXiv better than Research Gate or Academia.edu or Vixra :P However, I have seen a few terrible papers on arXiv too I agree I shouldn't have used the word "peer-review" for arXiv though (that was impulsive).

It might not appear easy to go straight to GR+SR compatibility without first going through (only) SR compatibility...indeed it might appear extremely hard - maybe as hard as solving the Riemann Hypothesis or harder - but I think going so far as to say it's physically impossible to do it is just bogus.

6:21 PM

My audio system isn't working :/

(It says 'No audio output device is installed' )

Can anyone help me out?

It's a Windows 10, hp laptop.

Anonymous

Asking JR tomorrow morning

Anonymous

He's the resident Windows expert

John "Tech Support" Rennie

6

Anonymous

lol

When is his fight to the death with Bernardo scheduled?

6:24 PM

@Blue Hey, how much did you get in maths in JEE mains?

Anonymous

@SwapnilDas I don't remember

You had a good total of 230's if I can recall.

@Blue (Approximate range atleast)?

Anonymous

~75

Physics?

Anonymous

Around the same I guess?

6:27 PM

@enumaris how are you going to quantize a theory you can't even define is my point, I just don't see how it even makes sense, and we know this would just be a way to avoid the fact that relativistic BM should be easier to do than GR BM

@Blue You're a very balanced guy!

Anonymous

@SwapnilDas Yup, my scores more or less used to be balanced in the three subjects :P

Anonymous

How's your prep goin?

@bolbteppa it seems you just like to argue against stuff in principle without reading the papers doing exactly what you argue against. (yes, concede, there is a lot of conventional wisdom exactly along the lines you espouse.)

@Blue My scores are like 90+/- in Physics, 80+/- 10 in Maths and God knows+/- 10 in chem :P

10^*

Anonymous

6:29 PM

@SwapnilDas Whoa. Chem should be the easiest subject, no?

Anonymous

Just memorize the textbook

NCERT?

Anonymous

Yeah

@bolbteppa just because you don't see a way doesn't mean a way doesn't exist. I mean another way to look at things is that SR is simply GR restricted to a Minkwoski metric. Certainly Minkowski space is much simpler than a generic curved manifold, but I see no reason why one MUST make a theory work first in Minkowski space AND ONLY MINKOWSKI SPACE before one can make a theory that works in general curved manifolds.

For physical also?

Anonymous

6:30 PM

@SwapnilDas Yes, for mains it is more than enough

What the hell!

Sure shot?

JEE Mains doesn't give hard questions for physical chem?

Anonymous

@SwapnilDas Very rarely. They ask more memory based questions

Then fine, thanks a ton :)

@enumaris I agree but classically one needs the theory to hold in the Minkowski metric in order to go beyond it, at least the way it's conventionally formulated and I'd be super suspicious of ways that claim to avoid this as nonsense

@Blue I just gave a test for vectors and scored 83 :(

6:32 PM

well, that's your perogative

@enumaris SR is a special case of GR. even the names imply that. the future might start with a GR theory. Tenev + Horstemeyer + Nikolic have already gone far in this direction... for anyone with a real taste for the devlish details (eg physics phds)

I disagree with you lol

Anonymous

@SwapnilDas Ah. It's difficult to judge your performance if you lean towards single chapter tests

Yup, I know.

@enumaris I guess the question is, can classical GR be formulated without SR first? I don't think this actually makes sense to do is my point

Anonymous

6:33 PM

Better to attempt 4-5 chapters together at least. Try solving previous papers. You won't get time later

@Blue I do pretty same in integrated ones, though

@bolbteppa depends on what you mean by "without SR"

Anonymous

@SwapnilDas Then ~83 is not bad at all

@Blue The test was of 1 hour, maths :/

Anonymous

Try to balance in the other subjects

6:34 PM

I mean in a general way which doesn't isolate SR in any sense of the word

I think I could make a strong argument why it's nonsense to do this

haha

@Blue Yup, my highest in Physics is still 105 :/

Anonymous

@SwapnilDas That's nice!

Anonymous

Focus on chem then!

@bolbteppa if you are saying "without SR" in the sense of "without figuring out a coherent and fully working theory of special relativity" then I would say yes definitely; if you're saying "without using any concepts from what we know of as SR today, i.e. no using Lorentz transformations" then I would say the answer is no.

@Blue No! I can never achive my dream of 120 :(

Anonymous

6:36 PM

@SwapnilDas 120 is a not a very practical goal :P

I mean the former when I say you can create a theory that's compatible with GR and SR together from the get go.

Anonymous

You can always try to get the maximum. But say while trying to do that if you miss the easy questions in chem, that'd hurt you

@enumaris I mean in the sense of working with general coordinate transformations having no idea what or why a Lorentz transformation should even arise and having that fall out in a completely general way not having the theory in any way depend on them as being special

I.e. you don't necessarily need to have a fully working theory that works ONLY ON Minkowski space before you have a theory that works in general space times.

If you even hint at a SR concept being special in any sense you have already smuggled in all of SR, a BM gravity theory would have to not do this in any sense to get BM gravity before BM SR

6:38 PM

When I was in class 9, I appeared my first 'JEE Type'(300 marks though) test in VidyaMandir Classes. I created record in the institute by scoring 100/100 in Physics (obviously highest) and 17/100 in Chemistry (Obviously lowest) :P

Anonymous

@SwapnilDas lol

That's from where all this dream started :P

@bolbteppa what

I was ranked 9 among around 60. my maths being 90/100 (still hurts ) :P

One thing I think you're missing is that you can't even define an action in non-relativistic classical mechanics, let alone (special) relativistic classical mechanics, without inherently using properties of the inertial frame and symmetries between inertial frames, a simpler question is what is classical mechanics without ever specifying an inertial frame, how do you get the EOM without going to an inertial frame first

6:40 PM

@Blue Our toilets were the open ones in VMC. I remember my teacher scolding me regarding mole concept while I and he both were peeing.

Of course BM usually just ignores things like Galilean symmetry, the thing that makes the non-relativistic Schrodinger equation look the way it does, it's childish when you think about it tbh

I think you are moving the goal posts lol. My goal post is to have a theory that is at once compatible with both GR and SR without first fully fleshing out a theory that is compatible ONLY with SR (i.e. ONLY in Minkowski spacetimes). I'm not saying you can develop a GR compatible theory without even using the concept of inertial reference frames...

If you can't even define GR classically without first going to inertial frames (and so unavoidably requiring SR to hold) how are you going to set up a quantum version, how is that moving the goal posts?

...

in case anyone is wondering, I am around for this conversation. I just don't feel like getting into it.

Anonymous

6:43 PM

@SwapnilDas XD

How does GR requires SR to hold immediately imply you can't possibly just find a theory that works in curved spacetimes without first finding a theory that only works in flat spacetimes?

the point is ONLY

To me it's like saying you can't learn how to draw a shape before you learn to draw a straight line...

How do you define how things behave outside of inertial frames without first knowing how they behave in inertial frames? You can't even do this in non-relativistic classical mechanics, there is literally zero reason for anything to behave in any way

Anonymous

@SwapnilDas Appeared for KVPY this year?

Yes.

Anonymous

How was it?

6:46 PM

KVPY is in November bro,

I have registered :P

Anonymous

Last year?

No.

You can simultaneously know how things behave in both inertial and non-inertial reference frames. Like I said, I'm not saying you can build a SR+GR compatible theory without even the concept of inertial reference frames.

Anonymous

Ah. Yeah, it's in November. I have lost track of the dates now. Good luck!

I will say that, as far as symmetry-based derivations go in BM, this is about the best I've seen: books.google.com/…

6:47 PM

I don't see why one shouldn't be able to do an ahistorical approach and just write down the Einstein-Hilbert action. No frames, no SR. Just GR.

If you work with non-inertial frames from the get-go, all you have is an abstract action functional with absolutely no reason at all for it to look any way

@bolbteppa I think we are going to have to just agree to disagree on this one lol.

Thanks!

@Blue My attendance in school is 49%

In fact, how do you even know the metric is a variable in the action

Any comments?

Anonymous

6:48 PM

@SwapnilDas Meh. Aim for 0%.

@Blue I will be thrown in cbse jail.

They are already telling me that I'll be in great trouble :P

Anonymous

CBSE still has rules on attendance?

Anonymous

Hmm

Yes!

(75%)

@bolbteppa I am a bit curious as to what you'd think of the section I linked above. I dunno how persuasive it is.

6:50 PM

I have given 26 days med. certificate till now reasoning migraine headaches :P

@enumaris that's fine, this is something I've asked myself, I can't see how you'd get GR from first principles without doing something unjustified

Anonymous

My friend had 40% attendance. The teachers used to threaten him the same but at the end of the year they adjusted his records to make it 60% :P

Anonymous

The school normally wouldn't want their students to fail because of attendance

@Blue You in CBSE?

Anonymous

But yeah, they do scare you

Anonymous

6:51 PM

@SwapnilDas ICSE/ISC

@bolbteppa I think our disagreement perhaps stems from what we consider as "something unjustified". But it seems like neither of us are being persuaded by the other side, so I think it's about time to just let it go lol.

@Blue Damn, I was just getting comforted :P

@Blue That's the logic that keeps me alive ;)

Anonymous

@SwapnilDas You could take your study materials to class, hide in the last row and continue your studies :P

Anonymous

That's how I used to maintain my attendance percentage

@Blue They are super strict in school.

They move from first to last and if they find any such material they take it for a week!

Anonymous

6:57 PM

:/

Anonymous

@SwapnilDas Wtf

Anonymous

@SwapnilDas Okay, delete that ^

Anonymous

Against chat policy :P

Rly?

Anonymous

Yeah

6:58 PM

Yes, really. Don't insult people.

So I was telling they are very nice people. They should be awarded with Nobel Peace Prize.

Anonymous

Lol, I do totally sympathize with you though

Also, I think "wants to use class to study other stuff" was really at the bottom of the list of things our teachers had trouble with :D

@enumaris that's fine, I would still love to see it being done :p

(I hope it's not against policy)

Anonymous

7:00 PM

@SwapnilDas It is

@bolbteppa :D

It is teachers who shape our future and nurture our childhood :P

( I was kicked out for a minute )

@SwapnilDas That's because I kicked you because you posted another insult right after I said "don't insult people".

criticism is fine, just being crude or mean isn't.

@ACuriousMind Btw, why can't we insult people who are not in h bar?

@SwapnilDas ...because it's not nice?

7:03 PM

@Semiclassical the velocity vector is a vector and so transforms under rotations, why are they saying it has to be the gradient of a scalar function?

Err. Fine :/

I think that's interesting but also I think it makes no sense in one sense :p

Well, they reference (2.35)

so I guess that's the place to look

which, alas, seems to be beyond the page preview

hrmph

@ACuriousMind Did you slightly laugh at the sentence I just wrote after returning? (Just asking)

Anonymous

#dense-sarcasm

7:05 PM

I can see it

huh, I can't

They are basically doing what you do in normal QM

@SwapnilDas No, I rolled my eyes and sighed :P

@Blue That statement?

Anonymous

Anyway, enjoy the freedom for now. You have 2 weeks of holidays! @SwapnilDas

Anonymous

7:06 PM

@SwapnilDas Yep

@Blue My school plans to take classes for 1.5 more weeks and there fore give us 4 days holidays .

Anonymous

@SwapnilDas Ouch

@Semiclassical Have you seen this? youtube.com/watch?v=KlJsVqc0ywM :P

@Blue Though I won't go :P

I guess what they're doing is saying that one option (and possibly the simplest) for ensuring that the vector field transforms under rotations in the right way, is that it be the gradient of another scalar field

7:09 PM

@Blue Don't worry I'll pursue a minor in Nuclear Physics and return to my school someday :P

They basically use the fact that the momentum derived from the Hamilton-Jacobi formulation gives the gradient of the action, which you can use in QM to derive the momentum operator also, but they then make this gigantic, and I mean gigantic, leap of saying that the velocity vector MUST be equal to the gradient of a scalar function (divided by mass) because of transformations under rotations, even though the exact same thinking would justify that velocity is a vector quantity itself

Apparently, he (Andre Geim) was awarded the Nobel prize for managing to levitate a live frog for $30$ minutes

@Lozansky I hadn't seen that video, but I'm aware of the work

actually, he got the Nobel prize for his work in graphene

for his work with the frog, he got the Ig Nobel prize

I remember trying fudges like this when trying to understand QM haha

The worst was spin is about orientations of axes

@Semiclassical Oh wow, I was not aware of the Ig Nobel prize

That's pretty hilarious

7:11 PM

he's the only person to win both :)

The Linus Pauling of Ig+Real :p

@bolbteppa eh. I wouldn't say it's a statement of necessity. it's just saying that that's one way, and a particularly simple one, of doing so

Anonymous

@SwapnilDas :) Goodnight. I'll go off soon

by contrast, if you took it $v$ to be a constant vector field---well, that'd transform under rotations in the same way, sure. but it also would be both arbitrary (why that particular field) and not terribly plausible for physics (the velocity field should depend on the experimental conditions)

It does seem a bit of an odd way of doing it, though. When I see stuff like $\vec{v}=\nabla \psi$, that makes me think more of how people introduce electric potential to validate $\nabla\times \vec{E}=0$

There's a far more serious problem with the idea of velocity even existing and the myriad of problems with Newtonian mechanics not just predicting it or the necessary simple modification of Newton's laws that should describe it if the idea of velocity even exists, issues standard QM completely bats away, but this is supposed to be a serious theory

In other words, randomly saying velocities are gradients of wave fields out of thin air based on logic that does not force the issue is no different to saying angels told us to use wave functions

Right, thanks

I understand yeah it looks interesting

7:20 PM

and, well, if an angel gave me a mathematical tool that matched up with experimental results

I'd be at least pretty impressed by that angel :P

haha

I guess what I find strange, following my earlier remark, is that evidently $\nabla \times \vec{v}=0$

Which seems like something you'd write home about more than just "should transform like a gradient under rotations"

So uh, this is gonna sound weird, but do you guys think a physics grad school would care if you had a math m.a.?

but even if you don't like BM, that statement can be written in terms of familiar QM quantities as $\nabla \times (\rho \vec{j})=0$

There are such serious issues if you use classical concepts in any sense, e.g. velocities, that Bohr etc simply said they don't exist

7:24 PM

where $\rho,\vec{j}$ are the probability density and probability current respectively

Anonymous

@SirCumference Define "care" ?

@SirCumference yeah they would care, it could be a strength if you sold it right

oh, wait tho

@Blue well i'm a physics and math major. there's a program here that lets you get a math MA once you graduate, assuming you satisfy the requirements and are doing well. I could go for that if it'd help with grad school, though it would mean dropping my comp sci minor (which was supposed to be a plan B)

the final form of the guidance equation they end up with is $v\sim \text{Im}(\nabla \psi/\psi)$

so no $\nabla \times v=0$ anymore

(I mean, you can still write that as $\vec{v}\sim \nabla[\text{Im}(\ln \psi)]$. but I'd be dubious of whether you can conclude $\nabla \times \vec{v}=0$ everywhere in that case)

Anonymous

7:28 PM

@SirCumference Best option would be to make a list of the "admission criteria" of the grad schools of your interest I guess (they usually list it in on their website course page). A lot of physics grad programs do take in mathematics majors afaik.

Anonymous

Whether it "helps" to have a math MA additionally, I do not know.

Anonymous

But it logically should, if you're tending towards the "theoretical/mathematical" physics grad courses

Anonymous

There's Academia SE for these kinds of questions. Maybe ask there?

The way I'd compare/constrast the orthodox viewpoint and the pilot wave viewpoint: Both agree that the HUP means that classical phase space cannot be maintained

@Semiclassical The various phase space representations would like to disagree :P

7:34 PM

lol

@Blue ah, good idea

You can remain on classical phase space, what you have to give up is the notion that the physical state is a true probability distribution on it - quantum states expressed e.g. as the Wigner function can have negative values.

Hmm. Fair enough.

The difference in my view is how the orthodox and pilot wave viewpoints judge configuration space

for good or ill, the pilot wave view really does want to preserve the validity of configuration space, even if that comes with other costs

(validity is too vague a word there)

I was just about to ask what you mean by that :D

Anonymous

@ACuriousMind BTW I noticed this strange variation: German master's degrees tend to longer (2 years long) than the master's degrees in other European countries (which are mostly 1 year long - for example in the UK). Any particular reason for that?

7:40 PM

I guess the insistence is that it's objectively meaningful in the pilot wave viewpoint to talk about the trajectory of a system in configuration space

Anonymous

Are they like - much more thorough than the other countries?

danielunderwood

@Blue Here you actually have both. Though the 1-year ones are typically together with a bachelor's, so I think that extra year may more or less be there but hidden

Well I say that...I don't hear much about people who just do a master's here, so I'm not 100% on it normally being 2 years

@Blue The reason is probably historical - before the Bologna process, Germany didn't have Bachelor/Master degrees, but only a single degree - the diploma, which was usually a five year course. (Probably oversimplifying here:) Most universities simply chopped up their diploma courses into a 3-year Bachelor part and a 2-year Master part.

danielunderwood

@ACuriousMind do German universities do interdisciplinary courses? Like we have to take courses in English, History, and such regardless of major

Anonymous

@ACuriousMind Ah, I see

7:46 PM

@danielunderwood Not really. Many courses include some requirement for courses outside your chosen field of study, but they're usually adjacent (e.g. most physicists fill that requirement with math or some other natural science)

I mean, you're free to take some music theory courses or whatever, but it's not common

hmmm

Anonymous

@danielunderwood The extra 1 year is sometimes included with the bachelors - 3+1. I've heard of that, yes

I think my lunch contained a bit too much fat

now I'm feeling lethargic

Anonymous

From what I know, terminal MS degrees are way more expensive than an integrated PhD, no (in the US)? @danielunderwood

in the US

PhD usually free

like...supported by your work

not actually free :P

danielunderwood

7:52 PM

@Blue well everything that I've heard is that you generally get money either from grants or teaching with waived tuition for PhD. I think the situation with master's varies

generally you get paid as a TA or GSR and then your tuition is paid for by that position as well

GSR? General Slave for Research?

2

Anonymous

@enumaris Yeah, I had that impression about US PhDs - almost free ;)

@ACuriousMind lol Graduate Slave Researcher

erm *student

Anonymous

Anyway, I'm not too bent on applying to the US. Who knows, Trump (or his successor) might make a new rule and just kick me out of the country someday :P

7:54 PM

I forgot to apply to a TA position one quarter and missed the deadline by a month...I had to declare a term non-admittance that quarter lol

@Blue are you from any of the 6 banned countries?

Anonymous

@enumaris No. But it doesn't take too long to get banned

I haven't heard ANY news on those 6 countries recently...

are they unbanned...are they not...

seems like people have moved on to other controversies

Anonymous

Mostafa's friends (from Iran) were sent back home (midway during their PhDs)

Anonymous

At least that's what he told us

who's Mostafa?

that's pretty messed up

Anonymous

7:56 PM

I can't ping him. He has a weird character in the beginning

Anonymous

22 hours ago, by lılostafa

I haven't seen a single eraser being used up. They're all ultimately lost

Anonymous

@enumaris chat.stackexchange.com/users/75184/lilostafa

dang...

I heard that it affected a lot of PhD students from those countries

pretty sad

UCSD was super riled up about it when I was there...telling students not to go home (to their home countries) just in case...etc...

1 hour later…

9:00 PM

hmmm

How best to save the outputs of topic modeling...

9:11 PM

Whatisthat

I'm so tired

algorithm to figure out what topics are in a body of text

@enumaris Let it loose on the h bar transcript

2

lol

Maybe it can tell us what the hell we're talking about

It uses words we used as the descriptors of topics

it's not gonna get meta and explain the topics lol

so probably it's gonna be like "topic 0: 'string','theory','gravitation','SUGRA', topic 1: 'Cat','Dog','Meme','Reddit'" or something like that

so far it hasn't given me topics quite as nice as that tho

but I'm still trying to figure out how best to save the results first before I tweak the algorithm.

9:20 PM

Ah, persisting results. Annoying.

XD

If you're not limited by space, just serialize whatever object is holding the state into an xml until you figure out a smarter way to do it

well, I have already a bunch of code that saves results to a SQL server

I'm kinda debating how best to incorporate these new results into the previous framework

or I can just write a custom saver for these new results...which is probably what I'll do...

I can't tell you how often I've already been bitten by unnecessary limitations introduced by other people not thinking carefully about what part of a "result state" needs to be persisted.

yeah...whoever works here after me is gonna have a fun old time

9:26 PM

Please don't do that to that future person :(

will try lol

I make no promises

9:55 PM

what the hell...pandas is only printing ellipses and not showing me what's inside the dataframe lol...

Well...don't leave your data visualisation to bamboo addicts

D:

also the Heirarchical Dirichlet Process method in here always detects 150 topics...

can't be right...

Sounds like another wrong assumption programmers make: "Any given body of text won't have more than 150 topics"

yeah...but it always gives 150 topics, even when I have not a lot of text lol

I think the implementation is a bit flawed

looks like it's expected behavior for the current model

meh, I can just use LDA or something for now I guess lol

1 hour later…

11:28 PM

@Semiclassical I wonder, why can't we do what they do for classical mechanics?

11:44 PM

?

I mean you can from a Hamilton-Jacobi perspective, but why can't we just say the velocity of a particle is the divergence of some function in general

See this is an issue, they are basically saying that the momentum/velocity is the divergence of some function that's not the action which is basically saying that F = ma is wrong and can be corrected, then pretending the initial conditions are somehow intrinsically unknowable (which makes no sense if paths exist)

Around 2.35 they show the classical HJ approach

« first day (2898 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2037 days later) »

Transcript for

Oct '1811

The h Bar

General chat for Physics SE (physics.stackexchange.com). For M...

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile