« first day (3083 days earlier)      last day (2143 days later) » 

03:21
principle
 
4 hours later…
06:54
@dmckee thanks for the comments. I still see a lot of the same precarization that happens more broadly, but I appreciate that big science has multiple factors that are unique to it.
07:51
I'm looking for Quantum Physics for Idiots and Lazy People, anyone? Maybe something similar?
There is no lazy road to quantum mechanics.
Grmmmm....
I want quantum physics with only plus and minus, please.
And only numbers.
What for?
I'll try QM for Dummies let's see what happens.
I tried 2 books already for QM introduction but they are too complicated for my little brain.
@ACuriousMind Do you have a suggestion book I can read to atleast get a feel for QM?
Then I would suggest to wait, learn other physics first (especially at least the basics of classical Hamiltonian mechanics, though that might still be too complicated as well)
07:56
I'm tired of waiting, I'll just into QM and I'll learn the nessesary math along the way, whatever it takes. (Endgame reference)
@NovaliumCompany No. I firmly believe that trying to learn quantum mechanics without a good understanding of its mathematical formalism causes more confusion than it is worth
Since quantum mechanics is so different from the mechanics our intuitions are accustomed to, it is very hard to teach QM in natural language only.
2
Alright then, a good book with ONLY the nessessary math (and explanations of stuff of course)?
Any of the standard introductory textbooks will do, though I'm not overly excited about any of them
What are you overly excited about?
I would be excited about a text that relied much more on classical Hamiltonian mechanics than the standard introductory texts do, but I understand that it is rather uncommon for a first QM course to be taught after Hamiltonian mechanics, so I won't get that.
08:02
Ok, is there a list of the nessessary maths and physics that will soften my road to QM?
@NovaliumCompany We have a lengthy recommendation question for intros to QM
The mathematical bare minimum is finite-dimensional linear algebra and calculus to the point where integrals don't send you running in terror, I'd say
Can quantum entanglement be explained with math :P?
yes, the description of entanglement in maths is straightforward and is part of the algebra
We humans found entanglement weird because we are not used to see spatially separated entities that are connected as a whole
@NovaliumCompany certainly, although it depends on what exactly you mean by "explain", of course
However, if you want to really understand entanglement, you need to understand bell theorem, which is something that cannot be summarised in a one liner
08:08
All I want to understand is why God made the universe so complicated :||
> If the universe is simple, its boring
Interestingly simple would have been fine...
I expected science to be like - solve a few equations and make something blow up, but I guess it's actually solve a few equations and then solve some more...
@NovaliumCompany Physics describes the natural laws, it does not explain how they came to be. That is quite literally the domain of metaphysics.
How do you know such "natural laws" exist and are not just a plot of your consciousness, perception and interpretation?
That's metaphysics, that's not a physics question
More seriously though, it could be true that only minds exists, in which case anyone else except you are projections of your mind
08:13
Ok whatever, the thing is, there are so many things to learn and I want to learn them, but I don't know where to start :P. I have basic knowledge of calculus, linear algebra, algebra in general, geometry and other stuff... I simply don't know what to learn, but I want to learn it. Any recommendations besides QM since I guess I ain't ready for it?
but that is not something that science has authority on
@NovaliumCompany It's perfectly possible I'm the only mind in existence, being deceived by a Cartesian demon into believing all these other things exist. But what difference would that make?
I'd say we are only beginning to get out of Plato's cave.
And physics is just the shadows xDD
I often find myself wanting to learn something but I don't know what :P
I wish there was a website which suggests you what to learn. Hey! Let's make one.
@ACuriousMind If you have a minute, a question; If not mistaken, you studied in Heidelberg. Do you have in mind other universities that might not have high requirements on English language(meaning IELTS and other). Not that one should not know English, just about the documents required. Thanks.
@ConstantineBlack I don't know anything about other universities' language requirements, sorry
08:25
OK, thanks:)
What's the name/profession of the people who invent different mechanism such as the Planetary Clutch...
08:44
I think you should be trying to learn the physics simultaneously, if you'd like to learn. You could be a functional analyst and yet understand nothing about QM.
@kylecampbell I wasn't trying to suggest that all the rigorous math is necessary for QM. Physicist math is enough for a start ;)
2
 
2 hours later…
10:32
In mathematics, the Schur orthogonality relations, which is proven by Issai Schur through Schur's lemma, express a central fact about representations of finite groups. They admit a generalization to the case of compact groups in general, and in particular compact Lie groups, such as the rotation group SO(3). == Finite groups == === Intrinsic statement === The space of complex-valued class functions of a finite group G has a natural inner product: ⟨ α , β ⟩ := ...
Is there a way to see these things as obvious
 
3 hours later…
13:37
Guys, is there like a roadmap to physics and mathmatics. I mean, is there an order in which I should learn stuff so It doesn't happen that I don't understand things?
Like, things build up on one another (in physics and math) and is there a list which shows which stuff to learn first?
How scientists could predict/know the form of the metric for some curved region in the universe?
@NovaliumCompany As an approximation, you could look at the physics curricula of universities and their recommendation for when to take which course.
does anyone believe that we will reach a point where no development in math and science will be possible as reaching that level of education where further development is possible will take longer than the life span of an individual?
But you should never expect to fully understand any given topic the first time you learn it - it will always happen that you come back to some topic years later and suddenly realize things you never got before
4
@ACuriousMind How scientists could predict/know the form of the metric for some curved region in the universe?
13:48
@Student404Mus Why do you think that "scientists predict the form of the metric"?
@ACuriousMind I don't know. I saw in various number of articles different types of metrics
and each metric they see it consistent to what they aim
I don't understand what "they see it consistent to what they aim" is supposed to mean, but commonly we get metrics as solutions to the Einstein equations for some given stress-energy.
for example, in the article PARTICLE CREATION IN EXPANDING UNIVERSES by L. Parker uses the metric $d s ^ { 2 } = - d t ^ { 2 } + R ( t ) ^ { 2 } \left( d x ^ { 2 } + d y ^ { 2 } + d z ^ { 2 } \right)$
@Student404Mus That's an FLRW metric. If you assume the metric is homogeneous and isotropic, then it always has that form.
Have you formally learned GR before trying to read these articles? It sounds to me that they are assuming prerequisite knowledge you don't have.
describes a conformally flat space-time possessing zero spatial curvature
for $R(t)^2 = t^2$
Indeed. I took the course of GR but I miss connecting the events
together
@ACuriousMind But why they call it Chitre-Hartle metric
Maybe they are using approximations
14:00
@Student404Mus I don't know, I haven't read the paper!
Nor am I an expert for GR models.
@ACuriousMind Can we say that all the metric models used by authors in articles are of the same origin which is FLRW matric?
No, certainly not
Any given article can have its own reasons for using a particular metric. And they usually tell you that reason if you read carefully enough.
For instance, calling the metric "Chitre-Hartle" would suggest that you can find the origin of that particular metric in a paper by Chitre and Hartle, which should be cited by the authors using it if they're doing it properly
I see.
As you mentioned, it depends on the stress-energy tensor they consider which reflects the scale or region
because the whole universe is isotropic and homogeneous by assumption but this doesn't prevent a particular region in the universe to be an-isotropic
because in another article "Creation of scalar and Dirac particles in the presence of a time varying electric field
in an anisotropic Bianchi type I universe", the author considers almost the same metric $d s ^ { 2 } = - d t ^ { 2 } + t ^ { 2 } \left( d x ^ { 2 } + d y ^ { 2 } \right) + d z ^ { 2 }$
14:37
"In a strictly FLRW model, there are no clusters of galaxies, stars or people, since these are objects much denser than a typical part of the universe. "
"Most cosmologists agree that the observable universe is well approximated by an almost FLRW model, i.e., a model which follows the FLRW metric apart from primordial density fluctuations."
14:57
@ACuriousMind The answer to my first question is to solve the equation of Einstein then we have the metric, equivalently to say, we know the geometry of the region
15:18
Stupid question
How is the antisymmetrical 4-tensor describing the EM-fields constructed?
$F^{\mu \nu}$ that is
that's not a 4-tensor :P
This is not a 4-tensor? @ACuriousMind
Oh, you mean because it is a tensor in 4d? That's a dangerous way to say it because people also use k-tensor to mean "tensor of rank k".
From the SR action for a particle $ - m \int ds$ one wants to add a term representing the interaction of the EM field with a particle, taken to be $- e \int A_{\mu} dx^{\mu}$, the EOM coming from this action are $m \ddot{x}^{\mu} = e F^{\mu} \, _{\nu} \dot{x}^{\nu}$
Ah, well my prof calls it a 4-tensor:P
15:26
I've seen them called 4-vectors or 4-tensors often, but never like 11-tensors etc :p
11 tensors??!
@bolbteppa I don't know what your symbols mean
Newton II with Lorentz force?
In electromagnetism, the electromagnetic tensor or electromagnetic field tensor (sometimes called the field strength tensor, Faraday tensor or Maxwell bivector) is a mathematical object that describes the electromagnetic field in spacetime. The field tensor was first used after the four-dimensional tensor formulation of special relativity was introduced by Hermann Minkowski. The tensor allows related physical laws to be written very concisely. == Definition == The electromagnetic tensor, conventionally labelled F, is defined as the exterior derivative of the electromagnetic four-potential, A,...
Maybe that will help
15:49
Understanding what's behind field tensor may be a bit difficult if you're in an EM course. I think mine just kind of dumped it on us and told us to calculate stuff with it
vzn
vzn
@NovaliumCompany QM for dummies ref is actually pretty thorough covering all the basics and some else. the titles are like inside jokes because theyre written by qualified experts who are also expert in communication/ simplification etc... there are probably some great refs that explore classical analogies to QM as pedagogical aids but havent found much yet... eg try this written by students for students what is QM amazon.com/What-Quantum-Mechanics-Physics-Adventure/dp/…
Or maybe that was just my course...I feel like an EM course would be an ideal starting place for a more theoretical side of things
@vzn I'll most definitely give it a shot it it's available in a free PDF format online.
Beyond shameful how these gamergate people are behaving
vzn
vzn
15:58
@NovaliumCompany lol :( think of the not insubstantial but reasonable prices of books as a small payment of service to the authors.
When we say electrons in atoms get excited, their energy state gets higher and then they release the specific frequencies of EM, is this what actually happens? Also, all electrons are the same, why do they release different frequencies of EM.
vzn
vzn
@NovaliumCompany there are some refs on matrix algebra from a classical pov and would suggest these to get a feel for the math. its kind of lost in the QM edu but eigenstructure was discovered pre QM and can be seen very similarly in some classical systems. much of this not taught/ not highlighted in typical modern presentations.
@vzn I'm from Bulgaria. We are trained to pirate everything 😂
@vzn that's done in first year linear algebra instead
vzn
vzn
@NovaliumCompany :( some things are better left unsaid. am sure bulgaria has other redeeming qualities :P
16:01
@NovaliumCompany The frequency corresponds to the energy difference between the levels the electron starts and ends in.
I'll move to Neuralink's headquarters at 18... Whatever it takes.
All electrons may be the same, but they can be many different states.
@vzn just try to think of one and you'll be dissapointed.
@ACuriousMind I still don't understand exactly. I thought the electrons was a wave or a particle... What's going on here?
@NovaliumCompany What has the electron being a wave or a particle to do with anything (it is neither, it is a quantum object for which any classical analogy necessarily fails to capture all its aspects :P)? It starts in a state with energy A, it ends in a state with energy B, the emitted photon has energy A-B.
What determine s the energy difference (and therefore the frequencies it emits)?
16:09
@NovaliumCompany The system the electron is a part of. For instance, if the electron is in a hydrogen atom it has different available states than in a carbon atom. This is the reason you can distinguish elements via spectroscopy (=examining the frequencies of light they emit/absorb)
Thank you! I'll make the situation a bit more complicated by asking does gravity of the nucleus have anything to do with the available electron "levels" which it can occupy and how come it is quantized (can only be on the determine d levels and not in between)
@NovaliumCompany Gravity doesn't really have anything to do with this because it's so weak compared to the electromagnetic potential of the nucleus.
Electromagnetic potential? :P
The nucleus is charged. It attracts the electron via its electric charge, not via its mass.
Of yep of course. Electrostatical attraction.
Coloumb's law?
What has the electromagnetic field of the nucleus has to do with the levels electrons can occupy? And is the word levels proper to use or states is better?
16:30
@NovaliumCompany Levels and states are both fine in this case. And here we come to a hard stop where we can talk about this without using the proper math: The available energy levels are the possible solutions of the time-independent Schrödinger equation, or equivalently the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian. This is a postulate of quantum mechanics, not something that can be explained or derived.
Simply said, I shouldn't bother for now 😅?
How experimentalists simulate particles in curved backgrounds in the laboratory?
I mean the real study
@NovaliumCompany Probably, yes :P
@Student404Mus What makes you think they do? I'm not aware of any experimental tests of QFT in curved backgrounds that are not indirect through astronomical observation.
Alright.
Can we even create sufficient curvature to do a lab-based measurement of anything like that?
well sufficient curvature over a large enough region to measure something interesting
16:45
We can't really "create curvature" except by putting a lot of mass (or equivalent energy) in one place
Since gravity is so weak, you're right that it's not really feasible to create situations where interesting stuff happens
Given than many theorists seem to find black holes particularly interesting, it's probably for the best
Wouldn't strong electric or magnetic fields do it? That might cause some issues with measurement though
@danielunderwood That's my question
There are also the supposed mini black holes at the LHC, but I imagine those are too small and unpredictable even if they are created
If photons are massless, how will it affect the gravitational field
@danielunderwood Sure, but you need really strong ones. Like the ones around magnetars or something, not some puny little field you create in your lab.
16:50
Sooo...create a magnetar in the lab you say? :D
much safer than a black hole!
What other massless things exist besides photons?
The concept of something travelling through nothing is still a bit weird.
I believe gluons are massless for the standard model, but don't know how well that's confirmed experimentally
@danielunderwood It's confirmed exceedingly well in the sense that all the QCD scattering amplitudes would be off if these things had mass.
But of course the question is whether "mass" still means what you think it means for something that you'll never find in an unbound state at ordinary energy scales
hm that's a good question that I've never really thought of. I've always kind of thought of mass in the sense of classical particles, which I don't really think works in QM
17:03
Does standard QFT prove the absence of Zero-point energy, or just I misunderstood the context?
I don't really know what momentum means in QM now that I'm thinking of mass. Does it have more meaning than an operator to go back to the classical way of looking at things?
Generator of space translations
"We will also remark on two
intriguing features of this construction: specifically, the cancellation of leading ultra-violet (UV)
divergences and the absence of a zero-point energy" after "taking account negative-frequency modes propagating
forwards in time from standard quantum field theory and allowing for negativeenergy states. " https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/631/1/012059/pdf
17:29
does anyone believe that we will reach a point where no development in math and science will be possible as reaching that level of education where further development is possible will take longer than the life span of an individual?
@Mathphile since there are an infinite number of natural numbers we could spend forever enumerating all the permutations of $n$ objects for each $n$ alone so there will always be an unlisted permutation we'll never document in the ultimate list of permutations and so we'll always have something to do ;)
is there a graph of scientific discoveries vs time?
im pretty sure that it would be exponentially decreasing
I'm pretty sure that it would be exponentially increasing
well if it is from the 1900s to present then im pretty sure it will be decreasing
SE chat search is so bad...it omits a ton of words
17:51
From this weeks New Scientist. It appears physicists are ten a penny ...
Chemistry is obviously the career to go for.
@JohnRennie I wish.
@JohnRennie I imagine it's more an effect of there being much more use in industry for chemistry expertise than physics expertise.
For most cases where you could consider hiring a physicist, there's usually some profession that's more specialized in doing that.
> “This is driven by manufacturing, which hires more chemists and employs more people than R&D in the UK,” says SRG director Kelly Morton.
Being most difficult could also mean it's so rarely requested that the rare times it is it's impossible to recruit for :p
Here, they only hire engineers, because they only want to pay for engineers.
17:58
The article ends:
> Amid all this turmoil is opportunity: the fact that demand for scientists and engineers is already outstripping supply is likely to be what’s fueling the near-double-digit percentage growth in the average UK science salary, to over £40,000 for the first time in our survey’s 13-year history.
Growth? I get less with each new job.
@JohnRennie but how are those proportional to the jobs available? I imagine recruiters would think less of having trouble if there aren't many jobs to begin with
and how many recruiters work across disciplines?
 
1 hour later…
19:24
@NovaliumCompany try Q is for Quantum, by Terry Rudolph
@JohnRennie that's a tricky graph to read -- all of those numbers need to be multiplied by how often said recruiters actually have jobs that require chemists
it could be that most new jobs are in biology, and that there is a smaller section of hard-to-recruit chemistry jobs
20:27
@JohnRennie To judge form the ups-n-downs experienced by chemistry majors at my old department, part of the problem in filling chemistry jobs may be matching sub-specialties.
A lot of the employers who hired our graduates were looking for those students to arrive at least partially trained to task (some even donated kit so that the students would be training on apparatus similar to the ones used in their labs!).
The employers who hired our physics grad, on the other hand, seemed to want the background but expected to spend many months mentoring them for the particulars of what happened in their shop.
But that only applies at the entry level. Beyond that all STEM employers seem to be looking for close matches between requirements and prior experience.
20:49
any update on the moderator election?
@ZeroTheHero it'll happen in six to eight weeks, last I heard
@dmckee ("trials" = "clinical trials", obviously)
(also, your spelling demons got into the @ tag of your latest comment =P)
@ZeroTheHero I can neither confirm nor deny that some sort of announcement should arrive within the next 48 hours.
@ZeroTheHero : The election process should start tomorrow April 15.
@EmilioPisanty Yeah I got that. The issue is that the Mayo Clinc runs a lot of clinical trials (occasionally including long-term longitudinal studies), so they could have put Mike in front of a machine being used in a trial and I wouldn't know the difference.
We just got a few updates from him over the first couple of years.
@dmckee yeah, fair enough
20:53
@ZeroTheHero Not that I've heard. The usually make it pretty obvious when they are getting underway.
Tuning up your resume?
21:10
@PM2Ring Thank you for your earlier reply.
21:28
1
Q: How to respond to an answer to a clearly duplicate question?

Dvij MankadI have often noticed that even when a question is an obvious duplicate and it has been pointed out in the comments, some of us are posting answers to such questions without clarifying as to why they think that the "new" question should be separately answered. Of course, as long as the question is...

21:48
@dmckee Not at all: I don't have the time myself to put into moderating, but quite interested in seeing the process through.
@JohnRennie You see this all the time: if we go by where I work a physical chemist somehow doesn't know enough organic chemistry to teach anything of that topic. I've come to think this is really a way to make sure our chemistry unit is consistently overstaffed.
22:16
To determine the polarization state of an EM-wave, is it enough to look only at the $\mathbf{E} (\mathbf{B})$-field?
whoop whoop
::rep-cap dance::
 
1 hour later…
23:26
0
Q: Scientific Method

Gareth MeredithI consider this wonderful and free, no-less, place, with largely very kind people. It's fortuitous that people from all ranges of life can come together and learn things, no matter what your degree. I have adapted to this place a little, and became aware from patient moderators that presenting o...


« first day (3083 days earlier)      last day (2143 days later) »