The h Bar - 2019-02-05

« first day (3015 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2212 days later) »

user351417

00:57

I have not seen many people with 9 local-meta posts and only 4 non-deleted main-site posts on their parent site :P

Sir Cumference

01:14

the sibling is a twin so they are and are not me — Luna 6 hours ago

wut

JMac

yeah that seemed like the weirdest possible way to address that

Sir Cumference

01:31

What ever happened to Cows?

1 hour later…

user351417

02:49

"When, for example, the US Congress cancelled the Superconducting Supercollider midway through construction—partly, it’s believed, on the basis of opposition from eminent physicists in other subfields, who argued that they could do equally important science for much cheaper—none of the SSC budget, as in 0% of it, ever did end up redirected to those other subfields." that's a pretty strong argument.

user351417

Would it perhaps be very different if the arguments against the SCC encouraged funds to go into other HEP experiments?

Secret

03:12

@JohnRennie I see. In that case it is not really new

Semiclassical

03:22

oy vey: washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/…

Whatever one may say about the NYT article, it's at least people arguing about a real thing that really exists

1 hour later…

Secret

04:42

IF there is aliens, I want to go insane by exposing to their incomprehensible knowledge. It is better than to be mired with the stupidity of humanity that knew no bounds and is boring

Whatever, just climate stupidity as demonstrated in the World Economic Forum that has just past is enough to doom us all anyway

John Rennie

05:36

@Secret I didn't see anything new in the article

Avnish Kabaj

06:35

@ACuriousMind Makes sense

Secret

06:48

eli-laser.eu

Cannot wait when they start seeing particles get produced from the vacuum

But that really depends on how steep the Schwinger limit is

Avnish Kabaj

user image

@JakeRose

You're dealing with a rigid body not point mass

You'll have to consider rotation as well

1 hour later…

Emilio Pisanty

08:12

@ACuriousMind done. and good catch on 'acting'.

@ACuriousMind I'm not completely sure that it's syntax at fault here, as opposed to semantics, but I guess it does admit that reading.

@ACuriousMind I'm basing some of that post on the assumption that the suspension was at least vaguely related to the behaviour on that thread, instead of some now-deleted interaction elsewhere. Hence my asking for mod input in case I'm wildly on the wrong path and it's sending the wrong message to OP.

but if it's not, then yeah, let's drop the whole thing, at least for one week's worth of breathing space.

@Secret It is kind of annoying when good content requires funding to be produced, innit?

Like, when someone writes for a living and asks you to pay them for what they wrote so that they can live off of what they wrote.

Often not the case with peer-reviewed journals, but New Scientist is original journalism and it's well within its rights to charge for that content.

anyways, though

@Secret speaking of Big Science projects that cost less than a billion euros and which do stand a chance of producing results?

(</tongue-in-cheek>)

Secret

08:43

@EmilioPisanty yeah , sad fact of our physical reality that you need a lot of input of funding and resources to get a quality output. Also I actually did not knew that about NewScientist. Guess that's why they have a sciencedirect connection

@EmilioPisanty I think lasers are the future of particle physics research, they can be set up relatively easily and does not need a lot of space

If it turns out the laws of physics are malleable not only at the level of fundemental constants, but the lagrangians as well, I will definitely add a term that allows perpetual motion generators. That way, all ths energy problem solved, and no more barriers to knowledge

Novalium Company

@ACuriousMind How else do you suggest I access the mysql database? You're just being: "Oh, everyone's hating this language, I'm gonna hate it too for no reason to be cool....". If you give me a better alternative of PHP, i'd love to look at it instead of just complaining...

Emilio Pisanty

New Scientist, first published on 22 November 1956, is a weekly, English-language magazine that covers all aspects of science and technology. New Scientist, based in London, publishes editions in the UK, the United States, and Australia. Since 1996 it has been available online. Sold in retail outlets (paper edition) and on subscription (paper and/or online), the magazine covers news, features, reviews and commentary on science, technology and their implications. New Scientist also publishes speculative articles, ranging from the technical to the philosophical. == History == The magazine ...

user351417

Is that thing about boycotting Elsevier still receiving attention? There don't seem to be any recent articles about when I made a cursory search for "elsevier cost of knowledge", but apparently we've had a well-received community ad for it. What I read seemed to imply that Elsevier made some changes about 2014 or so.

Emilio Pisanty

it's not unlike Scientific American, I think

@Secret don't get too carried away by it, though

it's got some intrinsic limitations

laser wakefield acceleration is great for accelerating electrons

but it won't do much to help you if you want to accelerate protons

just because of how the wakefield mechanism works

and if you want to look at CQD physics, you do need baryons in your accelerator

John Rennie

@NovaliumCompany is it for a web server, or for an app? If the former then PHP is kind of a standard and I'd probably stick with it. If the latter I'd use Python.

Emilio Pisanty

08:54

@Chair What do you mean by "receiving attention"?

user351417

@EmilioPisanty I don't have anything particular in mind... perhaps trying to encourage Elsevier to change other policies, or maybe trying to get more people to boycott?

Emilio Pisanty

we had this last year which didn't make the cut, and this the year before which did

@Chair I don't understand the question

> What I read seemed to imply that Elsevier made some changes about 2014 or so.

if what you mean is "why are we still advertising it, if it already did its job?", then no.

Elsevier made some superficial changes in an attempt to defuse the impasse, but none of it had any depth at all.

user351417

@EmilioPisanty Just googled that; turns out I was talking about their move in 2012 to withdraw from the Research Works Act in the US

Emilio Pisanty

It stalled because it didn't manage to get enough momentum, period.

user351417

@EmilioPisanty Do you mean that the Research Works thing wasn't a very big thing? From my understanding, that related to most federally funded research, which I thought was quite a big thing.

user351417

08:58

@EmilioPisanty Ah that kinda answers my question. Thanks!

Emilio Pisanty

@Chair have you read the statement of purpose?

to what extent does it read like it's about the RWA support to you?

user351417

@EmilioPisanty I mean... I know that they generally want to stop that bundle policy and get access costs cut.

user351417

Does that count as their statement of purpose?

Emilio Pisanty

@Chair I mean the document labelled Statement Of Purpose in the website

Secret

@EmilioPisanty Right. What I am worried though is the particle desert is so large that it will be a very long eons later before we will see new physics

and you can imagine what that implies in terms of accelerator funding...

Still I will support all policies that pump more funds to it because my life has no meaning if the right to freely discover the mysteries of nature is denied

Emilio Pisanty

09:17

> the right to freely discover the mysteries of nature

that's an extremely weird way to phrase things

nobody is denying anyone else the "right" to do research

but there's a difference between "please allow me to do this" to "please fund my 40k€/yr salary so that I can do this" to "please fund this 1M€ laboratory where I can hire grad students to do this" to "please spend macro-economic amounts of money on this project that I want to make happen"

Novalium Company

@JohnRennie It's for a website to access/modify... the mysql database. It's working like a charm for now, I've used it before, had no problems, so I'll stick with it for now.

If the website starts to become more used and popular I'll consider other options as well, but for now it does the job.

John Rennie

I don't know what the trendy devs are recommending for web sites these days, but PHP is probably still the most widely used language even though the language has some design deficiencies.

Unless you're on Windows of course, in which case you'd need an awfully good reason to use anything other than C#.

Emilio Pisanty

@JohnRennie last time I checked it was still trendy to hate on PHP

(for good or ill)

John Rennie

@EmilioPisanty everybody hates PHP, but they still use it :-)

Slereah

10:04

@JohnRennie blog.hqcodeshop.fi/archives/…

Secret

where is that obligatory PHP flow chart that shows how [] != () != {} != empty set != and so on

user image

Captain Bohemian

10:51

@GodotMisogi I just recall my graduate school may have selective computational physics course, but I didn't take it.

3 hours later…

Emilio Pisanty

13:32

ah, here it is

for the record it is since I am on the autistic spectrum — Luna Jan 25 at 2:36

oneboxed for future documentation

user351417

13:44

Is there really any reason to relive that entire drama?

Unknown MathMan

14:07

Can anyone tell me why in scattering state we take the wave function will be $Ae^{ikx}+Be^{-ikx}$ in the left side

Is the energy conserved in the way that - Total energy of $Ae^{ikx}$ (the wave coming towards $x$ direction and hits the barrier) = energy of reflected wave + energy of transmitted wave?

Can anyone tell me how to verify that mathematically ?

1 hour later…

Gryphon

15:38

Is this a place where I can check if a question would be on-topic?

Slereah

you can ask here

Gryphon

So would a question on the detectability of high-velocity impacts in the Kuiper Belt be on-topic?

Slereah

sounds alright?

Although you may also want to try the astronomy stack exchange instead

Depending on the question

Gryphon

@Slereah Thanks, I don't use this stack often so I wanted to make sure.

Anonymous

15:55

Noobie GR question: Is there any formulation of GR which actually uses the Whitney embedding to restrict itself to Euclidean spaces? Or does that kind of approach have drawbacks? I do understand that speaking of ambient spaces of spacetime (as a whole) doesn't make much sense, but I don't quite understand the mathematical difficulties/convenience.

user2723984

@Blue not an expert by any means, but since the extrinsic and intrinsic formulations of differential geometry are equivalent (as the Whitney embedding theorem shows) why should there be any difference?

Anonymous

7

Q: Whitney's Embedding Theorem

The Whitney embedding theorem says that any smooth manifold of dimension $n$ may be embedded in $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$. I am just beginning to study differential geometry for application to physics (general relativity), so I wonder why this result isn't quoted (though not, of course, proved) right at...

differential-geometry manifolds

Anonymous

> Yes, every manifold can be embedded in $\Bbb R^n$ but in a non canonical way and you won't (in general) be able to do any computations after the embedding.

Anonymous

I don't quite understand what they're saying there...

Anonymous

I mean, shouldn't computations be easier if we simply restrict ourselves to real Euclidean spaces?

Anonymous

16:01

Also, what exactly is meant by "non-canonical"?

Anonymous

Let's say it's "non-canonical" (whatever that means) . Fine. But hasn't GR been ever approached that way? It's hard to believe.

Anonymous

@user2723984 I'm not asking whether there's any difference. Sure, Whitney says they're equivalent, but then why exactly physicists prefer the intrinsic formulation when the extrinsic formulation would have been easier to handle (it's just Euclidean spaces there!)?

Slereah

I mean you can do it

But I don't think there's any benefit to it

It's commonly done for de sitter space, though

Anonymous

@Slereah But why exactly? :/

Slereah

@Blue You'd end up doing the same computations, but moreso?

Extrinsic quantities aren't measurable in such a context

Anonymous

16:11

@Slereah What would be an example of an "extrinsic quantity"?

Anonymous

(in this context)

Anonymous

@Slereah Interesting. Wikipedia seems to say it's done for both de Sitter and anti de Sitter spaces:

Slereah

yes

well

you don't need to

But it's a standard thing

since it's a nice analogy for (A)dS as a quadric surface

Anonymous

I see. :)

Anonymous

Gotta read a bit more. I might be sounding like a complete noob now. :P

John Rennie

16:17

Ah. it's that chat session now ...

Anonymous

> While anti-de Sitter space does not correspond to gravity in general relativity with the observed cosmological constant, an anti-de Sitter space is believed to correspond to other forces in quantum mechanics (like electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force and the strong nuclear force). This is called the AdS/CFT correspondence.

Anonymous

Hmmm

bolbteppa

Make $AdS_5 \times S_5$ great again

Anonymous

So, umm, I remember reading somewhere that our universe is de Sitter.

Anonymous

So it can be embedded in just 5 dimensions I guess...(doesn't require $\Bbb R^8$)?

Anonymous

16:22

Uh, actually not sure. Thanks though, for the help. :)

John Rennie

@Blue asymptotically de Sitter iif dark energy behaves in a simple way

Anonymous

@JohnRennie Ooh. Interesting!

Anonymous

I just found this:

Anonymous

0

Q: Why is our physical Universe a de Sitter space?

Wikipedia says, When $n=4$ (3 space dimensions plus time), it is (the de Sitter space) a cosmological model for the physical universe; see de Sitter universe. It appears to me that the statement means that our Universe described by the FRW metric is really a de Sitter Universe. I'm not sure...

cosmology spacetime universe cosmological-constant de-sitter-spacetime

John Rennie

A de Sitter universe has no matter - just a cosmological constant.

In time the expansion of our universe will dilute the matter to a negligible level, and then it will be close to a de Sitter geometry.

Anonymous

16:29

I see! Ben Crowell's last para makes sense now.

Anonymous

Got to read about the Friedmann equations I suppose. I know nothing about dark energy stuff.

bolbteppa

There's something about using a scalar field for dark matter/energy in Carroll iirc

Anonymous

Is this a part of standard GR courses or is it taught in cosmology courses?

Anonymous

BTW I think I have a PDF of Carroll somewhere, is it a good text?

Anonymous

I haven't picked up any GR book as such, yet...

bolbteppa

16:40

Seems to be in the book but not in arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9712019

John Rennie

@Blue Carroll is generally regarded as being a good introduction to GR.

You will certainly learn about dS space in a GR course. Possibly not AdS as that's a bit weird - it has a cyclic time dimension.

Anonymous

Thanks. I'll check. :) I remember reading some SR from Callahan (which Slereah recommended), which was nice, but it didn't seem to have anything about dark matter/dark energy or black holes iirc.

bolbteppa

Is Quantum Mechanics or General Relativity More Fundamental?

John Rennie

16:58

GR is emergent. Everyone knows that :-)

Anonymous

Dunno which is more fundamental, but I'm finding learning GR is more fun than learning QM. :P

bolbteppa

At least Carroll is on the side of QM, shame about this mad dog Everett stuff haha

Anonymous

I have never heard of Matthew Leifer before...

Anonymous

chapman.edu/our-faculty/matt-leifer

bolbteppa

He says he is trying to have Lorentz invariance become emergent, as far as I can see, if you even try to tinker with it, nothing makes any sense...

bolbteppa

17:27

'Goblet of wine versus a Plastic Cup?' Goblet wins

Anonymous

17:49

Hmmm, this is interesting. Double dual spaces of vector spaces $(V^*)^* $ reduce to the corresponding vector spaces when $\text{dim}(V)$ is finite. In the infinite dimensional case, however, $\text{dim} V < \text{dim} V^* < \text{dim} (V^{*})^*$. But yet, for Hilbert and Banach spaces are isomorphic to both their (corresponding) dual spaces and their double dual spaces, because in the infinite dimensional case we use the Schauder basis rather than the Hamel basis.

ACuriousMind

@Blue You need to distinguish between the topological and the algebraic dual there. The statement for Hilbert spaces refers to the topological dual.

:48881851 A Schauder basis only works as a "basis" if you have a notion of convergence. A generic vector space has no such notion.

enumaris

@DavidZ heh, your recruiter finally got back to me and asked to speak with me...that was much longer than your turnaround time, you guys must have gotten big! XD

Anonymous

@ACuriousMind I'm not aware of the topological dual. Lemme check!

enumaris

@ACuriousMind indeed my (ex) employer banned all of imgur

Anonymous

@ACuriousMind Right, right. Just checked on Wiki! :)

Anonymous

17:53

5

A: What does "topological dual of a Banach space" mean?

The topological dual is defined as the space of all bounded linear functionals on your space. It is called this to differentiate it from the algebraic dual, which includes all linear functionals, including the non-bounded ones.

ACuriousMind

"bounded" is the worse definition to see what it has to do with topology, "continuous" is the better choice (though the two are equivalent)

Sir Cumference

howdy folks

Anonymous

Ah, interesting. Both seem to be defined here. Reading...

ACuriousMind

@SirCumference ahoi

Sir Cumference

@Blue Huh, neat. Gonna look up the proof for that

ACuriousMind

17:56

Caveat, the proof requires the axiom of choice :P Without choice, you can have non-trivial vector spaces whose dual is trivial.

Sir Cumference

@ACuriousMind How's life?

ACuriousMind

Busy, but going well

Sir Cumference

@ACuriousMind "Trivial"?

ACuriousMind

@SirCumference zero-dimensional

enumaris

Math pplz love the word "trivial" and "non-trivial"

Sir Cumference

17:57

Ah

ACuriousMind

@enumaris It is a non-trivial thing to understand what objects are trivial in a given category :P

it usually coincides with the actual formal categorical notion of "zero object".

Sir Cumference

I'm probably gonna have to review some old linear algebra for my manifolds class. Seems like the things I forgot about are coming up very frequently

Anonymous

89

Q: Slick proof?: A vector space has the same dimension as its dual if and only if it is finite dimensional

A very important theorem in linear algebra that is rarely taught is: A vector space has the same dimension as its dual if and only if it is finite dimensional. I have seen a total of one proof of this claim, in Jacobson's "Lectures in Abstract Algebra II: Linear Algebra". The proof is fair...

linear-algebra slick-proof

Anonymous

I found that statement in this document.

Sir Cumference

Oh on that note, does anyone understand the usefulness of this guy beyond motivating the adjoint? Supposedly it's important for diff geo

Anonymous

18:05

Tranpose itself is called the adjoint, no?

Unknown MathMan

How to find De-Broglie wavelength of a wavefunction?

Sir Cumference

@Blue Transpose acts on the dual spaces

Found this pic, doesn't seem too helpful tho

user image

John Rennie

@UnknownMathMan use $\lambda = h/p$

ACuriousMind

@SirCumference In geometry, if you have a map between tangent spaces $TM\to TN$, then the transpose gives you a map on the cotangent spaces $T^\ast N \to T^\ast M$.

John Rennie

@UnknownMathMan but note that the de Broglie wavelength is only well defined when the momentum is well defined. For example the electron in a hydrogen atom does not have a de Broglie wabelength since it doesn't have a well defined momentum.

Sir Cumference

18:08

@ACuriousMind Welp ok, I realized up till now I had misremembered it. Ya know how if two spaces are isomorphic then for linear operators on one of them, there's an "analogous" linear operator on the other? I assumed the transpose was like an "analog" for the dual spaces, but now I realize it goes in the opposite direction

Unknown MathMan

@JohnRennie $p=\left\langle\psi|p|\psi\right\rangle$?

John Rennie

$p$ is the momentum

\left\langle and \right\rangle seem a bit tautological. Wouldn't just \langle and \rangle do the same?

Sir Cumference

nvm that's just for Word apparently

John Rennie

I think that only works if you load the Latex physics extensions, and there is some debate about whether they are in a reliable state right now.

Unknown MathMan

@JohnRennie Ok, suppose I have a potential defined as, $V(x)=0,x\le a$ and $V_0,x>a$. My first question is - with what we can associate a De-Broglie wavelength? Is it the wavefunction?

Sir Cumference

18:13

@Blue Nice, thanks

Anonymous

$\bra x$

ACuriousMind

Oh dear, please don't \newcommand in chat

4

Anonymous

Lol

Terry Bollinger

@JohnRennie I thought that an electron in an atom does have a well-defined momentum, it just happens to be zero if the atom is motionless relative to The observer?

Sir Cumference

Jan 16 '17 at 16:58, by ACuriousMind

Dear lord, what is going on in this chatroom?

Ah good times

ACuriousMind

18:15

@TerryBollinger No, the expectation value of momentum is zero, but the energy eigenstate is not a momentum eigenstate, so the standard deviation is not zero, which is what we usually mean when we say a quantum state has a "well-defined value" for an observable.

John Rennie

@TerryBollinger it has a well defined expectation value for the momentum, but it is nothing like a momentum eigenstate.

@UnknownMathMan yes, the momentum is a property of the wavefunction.

Terry Bollinger

Ah! Touch it, and it will of course have any other number of a high momentum States. but you do not know what that state will be until you touch it

John Rennie

@UnknownMathMan once you have a solution to the Schrodinger equation for your potential then you can calculate the momentum associated with it.

Unknown MathMan

@JohnRennie Actually there is an exercise to find De-Broglie wavelength in Region - I and Region - II of the potential. But it is not told of what.. I used to think when we have given a specific particle, then we only can find De-Broglie wavelength..

@JohnRennie Ok

John Rennie

@UnknownMathMan your potential is a step function. The wavefunction will be a plane wave on both parts of the potential, but the wavelength will be different in the two regions.

Terry Bollinger

18:19

... only the atomic system to which the electron is bound truly has a zero momentum state...

John Rennie

@UnknownMathMan is it a particle travelling along the potential? If so use $p^2 = 2mE$ to calculate the momentum of the particle in the different parts of the potential then $\lambda = h/p$.

My integrity is being questioned here :-)

Unknown MathMan

@JohnRennie it is told to find the wavefunction first, then the De-Broglie wavelengths of Region-I and Region-II.

John Rennie

@UnknownMathMan Are you given the initial energy?

Unknown MathMan

No

John Rennie

OK, I don't understand the question then. For $x \lt a$ the potential is zero, and the solution will therefore be a plane wave. But that plane wave can have any energy and therefore any wavelength. There must be some other condition to determine the energy.

Unknown MathMan

18:27

We are solving Bound states

So it can't be any energy I think

John Rennie

But you have a step potential. That doesn't form bound states.

Unknown MathMan

Ooh

Yes

John Rennie

Oh wait, did you mean $V = 0$ for $|x| \lt a$ ?

A finite square well?

Unknown MathMan

@JohnRennie No

Anonymous

@JohnRennie The rude punks! Meh, I'd just downvote and leave. :P

Unknown MathMan

18:29

It's the step potential

John Rennie

@Blue the OP clearly has an agenda. I just wish people would be up front about their private theories and not ask an apparently sensible question then try to twist it to suit their purposes.

Unknown MathMan

@JohnRennie There is a hint(at the end of the book) saying that - $p=\sqrt{2mK}$ and $K=\sqrt{2mE/\hbar}$.. in the Region - I

ACuriousMind

@Blue As a moderator, you really should not suggest downvoting a question because its asker behaved to your distaste in comments.

Sir Cumference

:48882271

John Rennie

@UnknownMathMan the momentum and kinetic energy ($K$ I assume) are certainly linked by $p^2 = 2mK$

I'm not sure I understand what the second equation says.

Unknown MathMan

18:35

Oops sorry, the second eqn is not $K$ it's $K_1$, needed for solving schrodinger eqn.. you're right

Anonymous

@ACuriousMind Well, I'm not suggesting downvoting because they behaved to a distaste but because they're trying to spread their personal theories. As far as I know, we shouldn't entertain non-mainstream physics here. That said, on its own, the question seems reasonable (leaving aside the comments).

ACuriousMind

@Blue Yes, but there is no evidence of said agenda in the question itself

Unknown MathMan

@JohnRennie Ok so we don't need to find $p$ from wavefunction ?

John Rennie

@ACuriousMind I have to say that I think the combination of the question and the OPs comments indicate it wasn't a question asked in good faith. I don't think the OP deserves the consideration you are giving them.

ACuriousMind

@JohnRennie I'm not considering the OP. But you shouldn't downvote questions for whatever motivations you deduce were behind them after the fact.

John Rennie

18:38

(though for the record I have not downvoted it)

ACuriousMind

You should vote on what the question actually contains.

If you determined the OP asked it in bad faith, just don't respond to their comments and roll back any edits that try to move the goalposts.

John Rennie

Well yes, my plan is to walk away quietly. I mentioned it here for the amusement of everyone who has been targeted by the more enthusiastically determined of our site members.

Sir Cumference

18:57

user image

...what the hell

ACuriousMind

what?

Sir Cumference

everyone's pic is screwed up

this browser is garbage

ACuriousMind

Everyone in this chat room has always looked like John Rennie, I don't know what you're talking about

3

Sir Cumference

also realized i posted an empty message...

Anonymous

What's up with the polar vortex news!

Anonymous

19:02

I'm seeing pictures of frozen toilet papers...

Emilio Pisanty

user image

just made this for a friend, dropping it here in case anyone else also wants to get the "rejected PRL" smell off of a paper

Anonymous

@EmilioPisanty Lol

Anonymous

There's Applied in between, no? :P

Anonymous

...but well...PRA is the benevolent one.

Emilio Pisanty

@Blue Applied Physics Letters?

who submits to that?

Anonymous

19:07

@EmilioPisanty No, I meant Physical Review Applied. :P

Emilio Pisanty

@Blue oh

no, that's a completely different track

it's like asking whether PRB is between PRA and PRL

Anonymous

I see. It seems to accept quantum computing papers (quantum information processing, both algorithms and hardware) though. And has a higher impact factor than PRA.

Anonymous

Maybe things are different in photonics. No idea. :)

Emilio Pisanty

I mean, if your paper is not applied, it doesn't make much sense to apply to PRAppl

also, why oh why did they repeat an abbreviation?

Anonymous

Not too imaginative, obviously. :P

Anonymous

19:17

And oh, I too might actually need than spray soon.

Anonymous

1

A: How long does it take for the first round review of physical review letters?

It can be long; 4 weeks is not uncommon, but much past 6 usually triggers some editorial action. Fortunately APS has a good manuscript system so it’s easy to see of the editor is trying to move things along: watch for reminders sent to referee(s) in the audit trail.

Anonymous

Hmm. Not too far.

Emilio Pisanty

@Blue depends on your assessment of what the tracking system says

this one's been at PRL since about a week after the arXiv submission

about three months

Anonymous

user image

Anonymous

It's my first time. I don't have much idea. This is the tracking system, right? ^ :/

Anonymous

19:30

@EmilioPisanty Huh. Wow.

Emilio Pisanty

@Blue hmmm. You sent the shortened version on 22 December?

tough luck, it looks like it sat out the holidays on an editor's desk.

Anonymous

@EmilioPisanty Yup.

Anonymous

@EmilioPisanty Yeah. :/

Emilio Pisanty

well

that's what you get when you submit two days before Christmas

¯_(ツ)_/¯

@Blue I don't quite know how to read that

ACuriousMind

Wait...it took them 21 days to determine the paper is too long? :P

Anonymous

19:33

It was a bad timing, yeah. Whole of November (and the first two weeks of December) was exam season for me, so I couldn't work on it.

Emilio Pisanty

it does look like the first two currently-unanswered review requests have about one or two weeks on the clock before the editor decides to give up on them

the 02 Jan to 16 Jan referee definitely declined

with a replacement called on 18 Jan

but I don't know what their response would've included

it's long enough since 18 Jan that if s/he'd declined then a new one would've already been called

Anonymous

@ACuriousMind 13 days actually. It was transferred to PRL on 16th Nov and we received the "too long" from them on 29th Nov.

Anonymous

We shortened it and sent it back on 22nd December.

Emilio Pisanty

or maybe the referee dropped out and the editor decided that the two existing ones are enough for now?

I wouldn't get very hopeful about a speedy response from that, tbh

@Blue that's crazy

I've never seen that

Anonymous

@EmilioPisanty Should it have been shorter?

Emilio Pisanty

19:38

... in my extensive experience of submitting to PRL ...

... three papers ...

... of which the first two were rejected ...

Anonymous

PRX was super fast. They read and rejected the paper in less than a week.

Emilio Pisanty

that is

Anonymous

@EmilioPisanty How long did it take for you (the "too long" response i.e.)?

Anonymous

Or was it rejected for some other reason?

Emilio Pisanty

user image

here you go

Anonymous

19:43

@EmilioPisanty O_O

Anonymous

We were sure UNLUCKY!

Emilio Pisanty

note in particular those two lovely

> Review request to referee; editor concludes response unlikely

which, btw, were accompanied by cryptic emails

Anonymous

Hehe. So apparently there's a 2 month window after which they consider response unlikely?

Anonymous

@EmilioPisanty Umm?

Emilio Pisanty

user image

Anonymous

19:46

> The information at hand...

Emilio Pisanty

user image

Anonymous

Fishy...

Anonymous

Hah.

Emilio Pisanty

@Blue yeah, it made no sense until I saw the tracking system

anyways

settle in, and forget about it

it will be ready when it's ready

do other stuff, and worry about this one when the time comes

Anonymous

Yup. Not thinking about it much. Will work on other things meanwhile. :)

Emilio Pisanty

19:48

I, on the other hand, am being slowly killed by the nerves

notice that top row in the tracking system

Mo_

20:12

Deadline has passed and nothing has happened (I can still submit) and they haven't replied to the email(s) neither!

Starting a few hours ago I'm seeing lots of ads on various websites!
I think my AdBlock (UBlock Origin) has stopped working

ZeroTheHero

20:50

@EmilioPisanty brilliant!

Does the spray smell like shhhhhhugar?

Anonymous

Hmm, is "standard computational basis" any different from the conventional "computational basis" or "standard basis"? I guess not...

Emilio Pisanty

21:10

@ZeroTheHero dunno, haven't opened it yet.

I have a feeling I might need it soonish, though =/

hopefully not

3 hours later…

David Z

23:47

@enumaris Heh, well I think just busy. I asked them about it a couple weeks ago and they said they were pretty flooded - but also I might have gotten lucky with how the timing lined up.

« first day (3015 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2212 days later) »

Transcript for

Feb '195

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 © 2025 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile