12:51 AM
breakthru experimental + theoretical evidence for a classical local hidden variable theory of quantum mechanics en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_hidden-variable_theory

1:45 AM
@vzn Bell's theorem: "No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics." It must be nonlocal.

2:02 AM
Hello guys! I was wondering if you knew some books/articles that have a good introduction to convexity in the context of variational calculus (functional analysis). I was reading Young's "calculus of variations and optimal control theory" but I'm not that far into the book and I don't know if skipping chapters is a good idea.

I don't know of a good reference, but I'm pretty sure that just means that second derivatives have consistent signs over the region of interest. (That is certainly a sufficient condition for Legendre transforms.)

@dm__ yes have studied bells thm at length ~2 decades now. it might seem airtight and has stood the test of time over ½ century, but yet there is some fineprint/ loopholes that even phd physicists/ experts/ specialists are not all aware of. those who fervently believe like Bohm that no new physics will ever supercede QM are likely to be disappointed/ dashed, now or later...
oops lol typo bohm bohr
btw what is not widely appreciated either is that nonlocality can be an emergent property of a fairly simple classical system, it seems almost nobody has expanded this at length/ pushed it to its deepest extent. hint: harmonic oscillators + wave medium + coupling etc

2:26 AM
@dmckee then if I say that the functional is convex at some point "x" would require the second variation to have the same sign inside some open set containing "x"?

@vzn can you elaborate on said loopholes? proof seems pretty inarguable.

But I have seen that the convexity is associated to minimizers/maximizers of the functional, whereas the sign second variation is not a sufficient condition for that. That kind of makes me think that those concepts are not equivalent in the case of functionals...

@dm__ generally think sampling "bias" is not completely ruled out by existing experiments. some of this goes back to CHSH 1969. there is unquestioned reliance on this papers formulation by most subsequent experiments. am not saying its wrong, think only that theres very subtle loophole(s) in it that havent yet been widely discovered. there are many other refs to look into for someone extremely motivated/ ambitious (such individuals are rare). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHSH_inequality

@vzn the proof makes no unreasonable assumption, and is easy to follow. I fail to see any loopholes

@dm__ (lol doubt you clicked on any of those links.) exactly the same was said of von Neumanns proof. heard of it?

2:42 AM
@vzn yes, I clicked, and have seen the basis in local realism, and local realism is a box.

@dm__ there are conceptual boxes and rigorous mathematical boxes and massive effort is expended to align the two, and yet they dont always perfectly align (as thought/ intended).

if you give me a concrete logical flaw in Bell's proof, I'll be happy to discuss the ramifications

@dm__ it stands as a math proof ("based on certain assumptions"), have no objections. but its a thm aimed at physical reality. the translation into experiment requires extraordinary finesse, and the complex analysis starts with CHSH 1969. etc

0

While it's not something usual, I've noticed that sometimes people edit my question or answer with a more complex notation or incorrect information/formulas. While I don't think this is done with malicious intent, it has sometimes confused people when I'm either asking or explaining something, as...

@vzn what do you make of the most recent (2015) experiments? "In 2015 the first three significant-loophole-free Bell-tests were published within three months by independent groups in Delft, Vienna and Boulder.
All three tests simultaneously addressed the detection loophole, the locality loophole, and the memory loophole. This makes them “loophole-free” in the sense that all remaining conceivable loopholes like superdeterminism require truly exotic hypotheses that might never get closed experimentally."

2:55 AM
@dm__ yes blogged on those. they are more airtight than previous experiments. but still seem based on CHSH. urge you to think deeply about CHSH in a way that physicists are not paying attention. ah, voila even wikipedia spells it out! amazing
> The CHSH paper lists many preconditions (or "reasonable and/or presumable assumptions") to derive the simplified theorem and formula. For example, for the method to be valid, it has to be assumed that the detected pairs are a fair sample of those emitted. In actual experiments, detectors are never 100% efficient, so that only a sample of the emitted pairs are detected.
> A subtle, related requirement is that the hidden variables do not influence or determine detection probability in a way that would lead to different samples at each arm of the experiment.
suspect entire general LHV theory of QM lurks in these loophole(s)! there has been very little attn focused in this area... :o

@vzn honest question, would there ever be an experiment that would fundamentally rule out nonlocality to you? and if so, what would that be? what would fundamentally show, in your opinion, that the universe is inherently local?

@dm__ my feeling is that something more can be milked out of bell experiments that has not been revealed so far. suppose that one could experimentally control the degree of violation, wouldnt that be extraordinary? and theoretically problematic? my feeling/ suspicion is that must be the case. it seems to relate to detector efficiency maybe. but anyway, do believe that nonlocality can be found in classical systems as an emergent property as stated...

if we go into detector efficiency, there is no end to that hole. and my beliefs have no weight. my suspicion is screaming absolutely not, as the classical is emergent from the quantum, not the other way around

its more than a belief, think it has been proven by La Cour Ott 2015 phys.org/news/2015-05-quantum-emulated-classical.html
@dm__ your suspicion is also perfectly aligned with conventional wisdom (bordering on crystallized dogma), so congratulations on that :P

3:11 AM
@vzn have remained civil, but you are being quite immature and condescending. I'd urge you to put aside the human perspective and not insist that physical reality align with what you expect it to be. all the best

@dm__ ?!? no condescension intended...? am striving to be accurate with my words... you say your "beliefs have no weight," but your beliefs are essentially perfectly aligned with the establishment view...

Last night dream, introduced a strange reference frame based disease called Forced motion blindness. It is a strange eye disease where the lens is such that to the patient, anything stationary wrt the floor is moving forward in a certain direction, causing them have to keep walking to catch up with them. At the same time, the normal person think they are stationary wrt to floor. The result of this discrepancy is the patient kept bumping to the normal person. In order to not bump, the person has to walk at the apparent velocity as seen by the patient. The only known way to cure it is to remo
And to make things even more confusing:
Such disease is never possible in real life, for it involves two incompatible realities to coexist and coinfluence in a pluralistic fashion. In particular, as seen by those not having the disease, the patient kept ran into the back of the normal person, but to the patient, he never ran into him and is walking normally
It seems my mind has gone f88888 up enough to envision two realities that with fundamentally incompatible observations, influencing each other in a consistent fashion
It seems my mind is getting more and more comfortable with dialetheia now

4:04 AM
"dialetheia" huh? reminds me of "nonduality" or "nondualism" plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/#DialEastAsiaPhil en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism

4:18 AM
The Planck force guy is at it again... physics.stackexchange.com/a/467751/123208
@vzn There's blatant nonlocality in Newtonian mechanics: gravity acts instantaneously. Eg, the force vector attracting the Earth to the Sun points to where the Sun is now, not where it was 500 seconds ago.

4:33 AM
@Blue ASCII is a 7 bit encoding, so it can encode a maximum of 128 characters, but 32 of those codes are control codes, like line feed, carriage return, tab, etc. OTOH, there are various 8 bit encodings known as "extended ASCII", that have more characters. There are quite a few 8 bit encodings that are supersets of ASCII, so I'm wary of any encoding touted to be "the" extended ASCII.

5 hours later…
9:17 AM
morning

9:40 AM
If someone feels like tagging this as homework I'll dupehammer it.

Slam'd

user351417
@JohnRennie Done :(

user351417
The mathematica variational methods package doesn't appear to have provisions for dissipative forces in the EulerEquations. Interesting.

@Chair thanks :-)

Lagrangian mechanics doesn't allow dissipative forces

user351417
9:44 AM
@Slereah Huh? I was thinking of something along the lines of this

10:58 AM
When I study too much my brain starts to hurt and keeps on hurting the next day as well

11:44 AM
Hi everyone
Is there anyone who has expertise in the application of Reynolds transport theorem for balances?

12:17 PM
@Slereah what?
7

If we have a system and we know all the degrees of freedom, we can find the Lagrangian of the dynamical system. What happens if we apply some non-conservative forces in the system? I mean how to deal with the Lagrangian, if we get any external non-conservative forces perturbs the system? Exampl...

yes it does

12:34 PM
it's a generalized version, though, I think?
Can you get that equation from a Lagrangian?

user351417
@EmilioPisanty Oooh thanks that's really helpful =) (though I barely grasp half of that)

1:15 PM
@AvnishKabaj what is the symptom of your brain hurting?

The brain doesn't hurt
I can't concentrate
Upper neck hurts as well

@Blue I think now I probably know what you mean. Encoding is the way to store information in digital form; I think I have heard the professor talking about that in my undergraduate computer course, but I thought that is not very important in actually using a computer, so I didn't study that much. What I meant by use above is what you need to know to be able to use a computer, like you need to know LaTeX commands to type them.
@AvnishKabaj I have never had any of these symptoms after studying too much. When I have intensive studies, like preparing for an exam, after the exam, I feel a great wish to relax and don't want to study at all and just want to go somehwere to play crazily.

2:20 PM
@vzn that article doesn't even mention hidden variables

2:54 PM
@Slereah if by "generalized version" you mean "the Lagrangian is not of the form $L(q,\dot q) = T(\dot q) - V(q)$" then yes
@Slereah but you absolutely can get non-conservative forces in the Euler-Lagrange equations of motion that derive from a suitable Lagrangian $L(q,\dot q)$.

@bolbteppa the (quanta) article summary is nearly popsci writing by a nonexpert. specialists will understand the link to LHV theory re quoted section. havent read the scientific articles yet but think its likely they have further ref.

@EmilioPisanty I suppose
Can you do it in a non-stupid way though?
Like without Lagrange multipliers and such

@vzn haha

@bolbteppa if you need more evidence just look at the diagram of the melting popsicle ;) :P

My favorite example of a stupid Lagrangian is in Henneaux
$$L = q$$
The E-L Equation is then $$1 = 0$$

3:03 PM
@PM2Ring yes so called "instantaneous action/ force at a distance" pondered as highly questionable bordering on suspicious by deep thinkers at the time. newtonian mechanics was/ is not entirely wrong. btw re gravity there are a lot of new ideas circulating wrt emergent theories that also seem to tie into GR + QM unification.

In classical mechanics, non-conservative forces are outlawed on a fundamental level right, but they can still be used to model situations approximately to allow one to ignore degrees of freedom

@Slereah No idea. I've never done Lagrangian mechanics for a living. When I've seen it used to describe nonconservative dynamics I have indeed generally thought that it looked pretty silly, but I can see how it could be useful. I don't know enough about the possible alternatives to tell whether there are "good" ways to do it. And I'm not sure there's a reasonable definition of "non-stupid way" out there.

iirc $L = q$ is called inadmissable

3:23 PM
<title id="MathJax-SVG-1-Title">{\displaystyle P={\frac {q^{2}\gamma ^{4}}{6\pi \varepsilon _{0}c}}\left({\dot {\beta }}^{2}+{\frac {\left({\vec {\beta }}\cdot {\dot {\vec {\beta }}}\right)^{2}}{1-\beta ^{2}}}\right),}</title>

user351417
4:05 PM
I just learned how to type math in the facebook messenger. I am all-powerful now. There are now no barriers to effective communication of mathematics which can stand in my path!

4:42 PM
@vzn Spot on. There is so much outside of A and not A

5:10 PM
lol went to metaphysical fair sat, spent $20 for palm reading, enthusiastic response on my leadership + teaching + public speaking abilities, brought small tear to my eye... or maybe was just fighting infection o_O :P 5:33 PM 0 How can I move a chat back to comments? In complying to the automated admonition to move comments to chat, I discovered that MathJax is was no longer rendered. This is unacceptable in this particular discussion. I therefore need to undo my action and move the chat back to comments. 6:15 PM @EmilioPisanty @Slereah the canonical example is$L=e^{\alpha t/m}(T-V)$, which produced the EOM of a damped harmonic oscillator. @ZeroTheHero neat (assuming of course T-V of the usual harmonic oscillator...) 6:35 PM do anyone know about a reference where proper explanation of reduced mass is given along with examples like binary star, two block spring system? Marion and Thornton, Classical Dynamics of particles and systems, Chapter 8 on central force motion. In fact in the edition I have section 8.2 is titled "Reduced mass" thanks! but in that book author has used lagrangian mechanics, which I have no idea Please give reference where newton's mechanics is used. 6:52 PM hmmm... actually the reduced mass comes out of using the transformation to the center of mass and relative coordinates, which have nothing to do with Lagrangian... but I'll try to find a Newtonian reference. I just want to know how to use that concept. did you check out the wiki page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced_mass it's ok... yup, I checked that, so where does it hurt there? no application on problem and books sorta create platform for understanding. 7:01 PM One example is a spring of initial length$r_0$with two masses$m_1$and$m_2$on the ends such that$r = r_2 - r_1$is it's length at a given time$t$- the force laws for the two ends are$m_1 \ddot{r}_1 = k (r - r_0)$and$m_2 \ddot{r}_2 = - k (r - r_0)$but since$r = r_2 - r_1$it's more natural to subtract one from the other to get$\ddot{r} = - k (\frac{1}{m_1} + \frac{1}{m_2})(r - r_0)$which makes it natural to define$\frac{1}{\mu} = \frac{1}{m_1} + \frac{1}{m_2}$as a mass since$\mu$has the dimensions of mass and since then$\mu \ddot{r} = - k (r - r_0)$is just like$F = ma$for a single variable$r\$ i.e. an spring with just one mass

@vzn It will be interesting if a de-scarring followed by a re scarring can be done in some way in a small region. Imagine being able to shift the wavefunction of a lab setup from one state to another thus undo the measurement, it could potentially give interesting results. Perhaps, more radically, the shifting between quantum universes may then become possible

Similarly two body problems like the Kepler problem can be transformed into one body problems with the two original masses 'reduced' to a single mass in an equivalent problem

Otherwise, the other interesting thing is how entropy works in these systems, because I do think that the 2nd law will hold no matter what
That things can spontaneously disentangle is pretty anti 2nd law unless the entropy is increased elsewhere
Also that the system oscillates reminds of time crystals

1 hour later…
8:33 PM
ok people I'm having a hard time with the Fermi sphere when there is an applied E field
in QM, if we consider a quantum harmonic oscillator with say 1000 particles, at T=0K , the system is in the ground state. say we neglect the interaction between the particles (let's say electrons)
they must satisfy the fermi dirac statistics
so at 0K, I kinda know how the system is. on the lowest energy state, 2 electrons only (due to the spin). on each level 2 electrons until level 500
so far so good. now what happens if we apply a small perturbation, i.e. an electric field?
I want to know :"which" (I know they are indistinguishable) electrons are going to move to higher levels
are they the electrons having an energy close to the maximum energy at T = 0K and/or the ones with the lowest energy?

@thermomagneticcondensedboson Wouldn't the transition probabilities under a small perturbation be given by Fermi's golden rule like in any other perturbation?

i guess so but i dont have it in mind
it's the projection of the final state onto the initial state?
something like that... or not?

That is, you can't say "which" electrons are going to jump, you only can say something about the probability per unit time that any given electron will jump
@thermomagneticcondensedboson It's the matrix element of perturbation Hamiltonian with the final and the initial state times a factor that's essentially the density of states
That is, the exact shape of the perturbation does matter for your question, "a small perturbation" is not enough information

just an electric field whose energy is say, of the order of the spacing between energes of the QHO
is that enough to ensure calculations lead somewhere?
I know I cannot pinpoint any electron but I can certainly pinpoint the state that got depleted. I'm only interested in that

@thermomagneticcondensedboson Yeah, but it won't always be the same state. it's probabilities, not certainties ;)

8:50 PM
true
im looking at the most probable depletion states
do you have an intuitive idea?
like, the most excited states for sure. but what about the least excited ones
wait

But, yeah, I think Fermi's GR should work here. Write down the Hamiltonian perturbation term for how your electric field acts on the states and then compute the matrix element

does this probability depends on the energy of the state or its momentum or... none
ok I'll do that tomorrow when I get a pencil

@thermomagneticcondensedboson I don't have any idea what the actual answer is, no. I just know how I think you can get the answer :P

ok thank you
wait though
the electrons are non interacting though they must satisfy the pauli's exclusion principle and what not
how is the state of say the least excited electrons? just like the one of a lone electron, except that spin is either up or down?
coz i need the explicit expression for the states

I don't think exclusion matters here - the transition probability for one electron should not be affected by whether or not the other states are occupied or not

8:55 PM
it's just the ones of the common QHO I guess, since the electrons do not interact between each other. at least before the E field is applied
@ACuriousMind I see but that's only because they are non interacting, right?

Sort of. If they are interacting the energy eigenstates won't neatly correspond to well-defined states of individual electrons anymore so the question doesn't really make sense to me in that case
Interaction means the "usual" state of this system would be an entangled mess where you can't really ask "which state did this electron come from?"

yeah i see

You can still use Fermi to compute transition probabilities for the perturbation (if you can actually solve for the eigenstates of the interacting system, which I don't know if you can), but there's no simple human-readable interpretation of these states anymore

curiously that's not always the case. in solid state, usually one can go far by ignoring the electron electron interaction although in reality it is pretty strong
so i guess the wavefunctions look decoupled in our simplified models that do actually reach meaningful results although in reality this shouldn't really be possible and it's an entangled mess
@ACuriousMind ok

@thermomagneticcondensedboson Having far too much success with perturbing simple uncoupled oscillators is very much the essence of physics ;)
2

9:03 PM
haha

1 hour later…
10:10 PM
@ZeroTheHero cc @Slereah Ugh. I dunno, at just looks extremely contrived. I've yet to see an example that I find convincing.

Hello from the Nvidia GTC :D

10:45 PM
@enumaris is it any good Nivida GTC

11:01 PM
@Secret when you say that, it reminds me of the no cloning thm, which have always been somewhat dubious/ suspicious of. it seems like theyve already experimentally disproved the no cloning thm in some sense.