« first day (3935 days earlier)      last day (1293 days later) » 

04:26
0
Q: When does closed question become open?

AEIOUI have posted a question Fidelity between initial state and final state. But due to inadequate details it got closed. Now I have added details as much possible. When will my question open again?

 
2 hours later…
06:24
Hey guys I have a SR question about one-way speed of light measurement. What is fundamentally the problem with syncing two clocks, spacing them 1km apart and then shooting a beam of light at one end to the other to measure the speed from clock 1 to clock 2? Is there a relativistic effect going on or what?
@PM2Ring certainly, just being hopeful that it becomes useful at some point of time now.
@PM2Ring That patters aren't any consistent rule based, all companies come up with their own, NVIDIA RTX 1080, next NVIDIA GTX960, that's what makes things pretty confusing here.
To minimize the possible error, let's say they are both synced to 12:00, and then moved 300,000km away from each other. Would that process alone desync the clocks? by how much and why? If not, then simply recording the initial time of clock 1 and the final time from clock 2 would give u 1 way speed of light. thanks for ur time
specially toshiba chips, the design year is the chip numbers.
LMAO!
I'll soon loose more brain cells, if I see cheatsheets like this - how-to.fandom.com/wiki/…
this confuses even more....
Maybe making note/flash cards and memorize one by one...
@JohnT. The problem is that you can only synchronise clocks when they are at the same point in space, and when you move one of the clocks to the end point of your measurement it will go out of synch again.
07:09
@JohnT. the clocks desynchronise because as soon as you move a clock its speed causes time dilation relative to the clock that remains stationary. We can calculate the time dilation but the equation for that requires the speed of light, which of course is what we are trying to measure.
 
2 hours later…
09:54
Electrical engineering is a single worst thing ever created by humanity. It is ripoff of physics and now I am gonna study it.
Remember my quotes when I get nobell prize.
We all have to eat
selling your birthright for beans
I don't like beans
at least not the green ones - kidney beans are alright
10:20
2 Saggy dried brown beans
 
1 hour later…
11:35
@PM2Ring @PM2Ring in the case of an infinite disc with a finite thickness, the gravitational field will be uniform as you said. In that case I just want to confirm that the solution to Einstein Field equations for this infinite disc as a source would be just flat Minkowski space time, right….and the equivalence principle will hold globally
I would beware of such an assumption
GR solutions for such objects are likely to be weird
cf. the cosmic string metric for just an infinitely long string
let's see
 
2 hours later…
13:57
Evil John Rennie?! What is going on?
14:18
you must shoot him
He is evil
Why do some people say that X is almost certainly Y in physics
Has that kind of claim ever worked out
Do you have an example?
I remember Hawking saying that a theory of quantum gravity must almost certainly deal with wormholes
which seemed a bit cocky to me
also there's the usual "a theory of quantum gravity must certainly be background independent"
We will most definately find out that quantum mechanics is hidden variables
A proper theory of quantum gravity must be discrete spacetime
etc etc
I guess it depends on the intent. Some people use that language just to convey their ideas, not to actually say that this is how it must definitely be. Although I see the confusion
Lies
I've seen the physicists argue
Some of them have pretty strong convictions!
Sometimes it's a wonder nobody pulled out a gun yet
I didn't say always :)
14:26
although to be on the safe side don't argue against string theory if Motl is around
there is this drawing of Chern with a gun for some reason
I'm not sure why
what did you search to get that, "physicist with a gun"?
I think someone posted it on some board
@Slereah You will note that the people saying that usually work on Y - you must have strong convictions to invest all your energy into a speculative Y, and so it's natural that people working on Y will usually seem overconfident to people not working on Y
14:38
I will work on any dumb idea even if I don't think it has any use
although I guess maybe it's a tougher pitch for a grant
sure, but you're weird :P
Also I mean, they're good candidates usually?
It's not like they're working on the wackiest ideas
but even cool ideas turn out to be wrong
you're right, but often someone who is absolutely convinced this is the right track will usually put in more effort (and seem more convincing to causal observers!) than someone just working on it as a potential idea
i.e. this is a social selection effect - the people promoting the idea will be overconfident (because that makes them flashier promoters!), and so you hear overconfident statements about speculative fields all the time
14:56
I'm not even sure what's a really wacky idea
But I'm pretty tolerant of weird theories I guess
I don't think geometrodynamics or Bohmian mechanics were particularly weird, just probably best dropped before they were dropped
15:15
I don't even mind phlogistons, really
It's not a particularly weird idea to assume a negative mass
Complex mass?
Octonian mass?
I mean as long as your observables are real numbers, sure, why not
Dephlogisticated octonions
Your scale doesn't output 8 numbers? Odd.
I mean it could, just display 0's for the 7 last ones
Saying a scale measure masses is a bit of a shorthand, though
15:20
> Phlogiston theory allowed chemists to bring explanation of apparently different phenomena into a coherent structure: combustion, metabolism, and formation of rust. The recognition of the relation between combustion and metabolism was a forerunner of the recognition that the metabolism of living creatures and combustion can be understood in terms of fundamentally related chemical processes.
> The nearest comparable contemporary concept is entropy, whereby the amount of phlogiston in a system would be inversely proportional to its entropy.
 
2 hours later…
16:58
@PM2Ring hi sir, how are you? seeing you after a very very very long time!!!
you might have forgotten me!!
and how is your back now I remembered last time when we had a chat u were saying about your backpain.
17:14
What does it actrually take to be able to make a hologram like this one?
I feel like this is physically not possible. It seems like most "holograms" nowadays either
project light on smoke, meaning you actually have a physical support to project on. Or use some prism or something like that
Are there any other ways which have been developed yet to make holograms like in the iron man movie? In the ironman movie there is no actual platform or support they are projecting on...
17:46
probably this is quit a non sense question, but is there a notion on symmetry in relativistic QFT? I mean in every resource/book I found it is always discussed at level of classical field theory, but not after quantization, (if there is anything to say after quantization).
Sure
same notion as in quantum mechanics, although slightly complicated by the field operator thing
for example one professore asked us to think about the role of the vacuum in QFT, I found that at the level of the states some propreties of symmetries in QM are present even in QFT only if the vacuum is left invariant by the symmetry. Does this have a consequnce on what we would call a symmetry in QFT?
Yes
You can see what happens when this is broken when dealing with QFTs in curved spacetime, for example
since there is a break in the Poincaré symmetry
The symmetries are usually baked in the QFT theories you deal with
with when this is broken do you mean when vaccum is not invariant anymore? like in SSB?
@Ratman if your theory has a symmetry but the vacuum is not invariant under it, that's what spontaneous symmetry breaking is
17:56
It's part of the Wightman axioms for instance that your QFT has a unitary representation of the Poincaré group
So I expect to have the same symmetries of the classcial theory even after the quantization, but I have to keep in mind that because of the role of vacuum, after the quantization there can be SSB. Is this the only difference?
@Ratman well...not exactly - you can "lose" a classical symmetry during quantization, that's what a (quantum) anomaly is
thusly
for a scalar theory anyway
@ACuriousMind that's a problem of the future me I guess hahahha (jokes aside good to know for the future). But aside this case of quantum anomalies, it would be true?
I mean there are plenty of things you can use symmetries for in quantum theories
Although many of them will be some quantum equivalent of a classical thing certainly
18:03
@Slereah from which book is this taken?
@Ratman would what be true?
Reed and Simon
@ACuriousMind my statement of before, that SSB is the only new feature that arise in QFT. Besides that the notion of symmetry in QFT is like the one in QM.
@Slereah thanks a lot, I'll give it a look
I'm not sure I would agree with that statement but I don't just have a "List of things you can do with symmetries in QFT that you can't in non-relativistic QM" in mind
@Ratman SSB is actually not a feature of QFT, you can have it in QM/classical mechanics, too - of course, there it has different effects than producing Goldstone bosons, but still
18:08
@Slereah seems legit
also yeah, be careful with this sort of thing because there is a surprising amount of things which are thought to be classical/QM/QFT/GR/QG whatever but are very general notions
that just happen to not be commonly used in other fields
yes my bad, it made not much sense. thanks for the clarification
Don't worry too much about what is exclusive and more as to how it applies here :p
It's pretty easy to break Poincaré invariance in a QFT really
Add an external source for instance
@Slereah Thanks for the paper. He is sort of saying that even uniform gravitational field is not equivalent to an accelerated frame. I find it strange just like @PM2Ring pointed out. It looks obvious to me that in case of a uniform gravitational field the metric should be exactly the Minkowski metric because there is no difference
That's how people usually do the hydrogen atom in QFT
@Shashaank Well as the paper points out, "uniform acceleration" can mean several things in GR
18:18
between uniform gravitational field and uniform acceleration. We just can choose one
One of which is Minkowski space
@Slereah it breaks since the system isn't isolated anymore?
ie Rindler coordinates
@Ratman If you have an external source that source isn't translation-invariant
Since it is at a specific point
yes that what I meant
well maybe not properly, but you are right
I find it strange the Einstein eqn. We are finding the metric which is unknown but on the RHS we have energy momentum tensor and it’s trace. But how do we know it’s trace when we don’t know the metric at the first place.
18:20
thanks a lot to both of you, I guess I'll have to think about it more
@Shashaank That is the difficulty of it certainly
Same eqn gives Minkowski space, Schwarzschild space time and de sitter and anti de stutter.
It's not particularly weird, it's just a very complicated differential equation
The equation of motion that guides the matter field also usually depends on the metric itself, so the stress energy tensor also depends on the metric
it makes things complicated but mathematically it's not particularly strange
just very annoying
@Slereah Rather put the energy momentum tensor on the LHS and solve 10 homogeneous eqn with some constraints on energy momentum like conservation law or energy conditions. At least that will make sense. How is one to solve (Unknown LHS)= (Unknown RHS) without beginning with some unique hint on the metric
A VERY GOOD QUESTION
there are many answers and none of them are very satisfying!
Although this isn't really unique to general relativity, unfortunately
the same is true of most physical systems
It's complicated because everything can affect everything else
18:26
Heck don’t know how difficult it would be to check whether the solution is unique under given initial conditions or not, have just read it’s pretty difficult somewhere in Hawking I guess
You have to make some simplifying assumptions usually
Bad news in GR it's not even guaranteed
although it is mostly true
@Slereah yeah it’s going in cycles an endless cycle kind of a thing
The answer to your question really depends on the problem you're considering
there are many techniques
Btw if I put general relativity tag on my question is it seen by all the Masters in GR on the site
The "proper" answer of course is to assume that you know the metric, fields and their derivatives on some spacelike hypersurface
But in real cases you can't do that
You can't really measure the metric of spacetime by hand at all points
I don't think we have a secret order of masters
If you know the metric on a spacelike hypersurface that's just the usual differential equation thing of initial conditions
which is how you are supposed to solve it
but in practice it's not something you can do if you're working on some astrophysics problem
but of course, the same is true in electrodynamics
Simpler because it's linear, but how do you know what EM waves are going through all over!
you make some assumptions about how there are no gigantic EM waves coming from the infinite past that is going to mess up your experiment
18:34
Yeah that looks very very very hard. But reasonable guesses are there in every field.
But I am really afraid of the maths
@Shashaank John Rennie has a nice clear explanation of coordinate acceleration vs gravitational acceleration here: physics.stackexchange.com/a/559992/123208
From that answer -“ This means it is a fundamental principle in GR that coordinate and gravitational accelerations are indistinguishable since they can be interchanged simply by an appropriate choice of coordinates.” with emphasis on indistinguishable. I believe Equivalence principle is a great insight
Btw can anyone help me a bit- if the metric changes like $g_{ab} \mapto g_{ab} + \delta g_{ab}$ then how does the determinant change.
@ACuriousMind I summon the typesetting nerd
The usual simplifying assumptions in GR is having symmetries, having a set stress energy tensor, asymptotic flatness, etc etc
@JackRod Hi, Yuvraj. No, I haven't forgotten you. I still have various aches and pains, but I try to distract myself from them by being busy. ;)
18:46
Well the notes seem to have just written $\delta \sqrt{g}$…..it’s there in the Einstein Hilbert action section
Derivation of it
2
Q: Variation of determinant of the metric tensor

SaladinosI have the metric tensor $g_{\mu\nu}$. I want to make the variation of $\sqrt{-g}$ where $g=detg_{\mu\nu}$. How can I make this work? My attempt is the following: $$\sqrt{-g}=\sqrt{-e^{Tr(log(g_{\mu\nu}))}}=\sqrt{-e^{-Tr(log(g^{\mu\nu}))}}$$ $$\rightarrow\delta\sqrt{-g}=\delta(\sqrt{-e^{-Tr(l...

@RyanUnger you haven't met any real typesetting nerds if you think I'm one :P anyways, what's up?
 
2 hours later…
20:58
@JohnRennie Ohh that makes sense.. thanks John. What if you are in a rocket that travels really fast and you race a beam of light? If you are moving in parallel and can reach a point when the light seems like it isn't moving anymore, then measure your own speed wouldn't that be the speed of light? You could put signs in space that measure distance traveled then you just use your own clock.
fqq
fqq
@JohnT. you cannot race light, it always moves at the speed of light with respect to you
@fqq ?
If you move at 99% of the speed of light the light still moves at the speed of light wrt you?
21:07
that doesn't make sense
::shrug:: apparently, no one told the world it had to make sense
surely there's an intuitive explanation or is the only way to understand this learning the mathematical relationships?
Stop the world I want to get off
@JohnT. Bad news
I mean there is the ANALOGY
but it's not very satisfying
May 3 at 16:28, by ACuriousMind
imo, "intuition" is just a word for "I have seen this so often I don't need to think about it anymore" like 90% of the time
The analogy is that relativity is like looking at a stick
the stick looks like it is 1m long
21:09
May 21 '20 at 10:22, by ACuriousMind
I often feel that many people underestimate how much of "intuition" is just "being used to stuff". Basic classical mechanics is intuitive because balls flying through the air or dropping stuff to the ground are everyday events. But almost no everyday events show features characteristic of quantum mechanics, so it is unreasonable to expect to find it intuitive in the same way as classical mechanics
But then you turn it
And the length of the stick seems to shorten
Why is that
(replace "quantum mechanics" by "relativity" in my quote above and it's still true)
and then you see it on its side and it has a length of 0
If i'm moving as fast as light, then do I have the same relativistic effects as light i.e you can't move as fast as John because John will always move John's speed w.r.t you?
Is it a matter of speed/energy?
that is relativity except the rotations are hyperbolic I'm so sorry
21:10
@JohnT. you can't move with the speed of light (see the questions I linked) because you aren't massless
What property of light makes it so..
Can't a beam of protons?
they cannot
only massless things move at this speed, and they can't not move with the speed "of light"
Ohh i see
so the restriction is being massless,
It would require an infinite amount of energy to propel a massive object to C like it's a limit
Still don't understand how speeding up does nothing in terms of light being the same speed
w.r.t you
that's one way to think about it (but it's not particularly helpful imo)
21:14
Yeah I guess I am still thinking in terms of classical mechanics
It's the classic trap
Wonder what newton would think
People didn't believe in classical mechanics for centuries and then once it's rooted it becomes the obvious truth
and now we can't get it to leave
Lol
I think classical mech is the foundation for all other physics after it though
can't really build up QM without it :p
I mean yes, but you have to leave your intuitions behind
21:17
Imagine learning QM and SR in high school as a first course in physics
oh you could absolutely teach QM in non-classical terms
you could, but I'm not sure you should
but since every student is expected to already know classical mechanics and since it was the starting point from which it was discovered, there's little point to it
Not understanding newtons laws or gravity or forces but trying to understand wave functions :D
that's an interesting idea
a ball is just a very centered wavepacket
21:19
LOL
(in fact I would personally prefer to ground it even stronger in classical mechanics by doing much more Hamiltonian mechanics than is common since people are often very confused about which features of "QM" are because it takes a Hamiltonian viewpoint and which because it is quantum)
This is very useful knowledge kids. You should take into consideration the lorenz contraction when playing baseball
One thing they could do is the classical propagation of uncertainty with the Hamiltonian
Just do the time evolution of the initial distribution!
hamiltonian mech is just very generalized mechanics? (utilizing reference frames and such)
roughly yes
21:22
I'm guessing civil engineers and the like have to study this then
ehhhhh
no, I don't think any engineer uses Hamiltonian mechanics
they typically have to care about friction :P
they care about uuuuh
I don't know the english word
Un torseur est un outil mathématique utilisé principalement en mécanique du solide indéformable, pour décrire les mouvements des solides et les actions mécaniques qu'ils subissent de la part d'un environnement extérieur. == Approche par la mécanique == Un certain nombre de vecteurs utilisés en mécanique sont des moments : moment d'une force, moment cinétique, moment dynamique. Les champs de moments possèdent des propriétés communes, et peuvent être modélisés par un même objet mathématique appelé « torseur ». Si l'on s'intéresse au modèle du solide indéformable, le fait que la distance entre deux...
I forget what that is in english
Not torsor I don't think
If we could theoretically find a new massless particle that we can define separately than light, you think it'd behave like light in SR?
not necessarily, but similarly anyway
@JohnT. we didn't know for a loooong time whether neutrinos were massless or not
21:26
oh is that the thing that is involved when making steel beams and stuff to see how much objects deform? @sler
It's what engineers use for dynamics stuff IIRC
It's like a pair of the momentum and angular momentum
simply because no one ever saw a slow neutrino (they're really difficult to see)
How can you even seen them? If they're neutral and nearly massless o.O
They are not neutral with respect to the weak interaction
and we do know there are gluons, which are also massless, but they don't occur as free particles at all
21:29
Yes, although I'm not sure talking about gluons in a SR context will help much :p
It's not like they're points
Does light have an anti particle?
eh, we just have to heat the universe enough to get back to deconfinement
Or neutrinos for that matter
yes - their antiparticles are light and anti-neutrinos
(that's not a typo, photons are their own anti-particles since they do not carry any charges at all)
lights anti particle is light? it's like its identity
@ACuriousMind A lot of people are like "is life a simulation" but the real question is, is it a really big physics experiment?
Lol
21:32
no sane physicist would intentionally design physics to work like this :P
I was watching a video about the infamous demon core experiments in 1945/1946 and after seeing physicists mess with a plutonium core with jean shorts and a cowboy hat and no safety procedures, i have to say I'm not sold :)
@ACuriousMind What about Stephen Wolfram
@Slereah I...stand by my statement.
Heyooo
I think experiments are probably less ego-driven now a days though, at least I can hope.
21:34
that's just how people dress in America
lol
Thanks for your help guys, will ponder this stuff later. Gotta go attend a concert in 97 degree weather :) hope i survive
93*
I refuse to learn what Fahrenheit degrees mean :P
@ACuriousMind what the hell do you call this
I can never remember the english name
@Slereah I think that's French?
It's the ordered pair of a vector and its cross product with some point
You have a vector $V$ at a point $p$, and the torseur is $(V, \vec{op} \times V)$
For some central point $o$
21:40
I have never seen that
Yeah I think it's something that might be somewhat specific to French mechanics stuff, but I've seen english versions of it
Ahah
Found a theorem name
Maybe I can find it from there
Why did I suffer so much with them and it's such an obscure concept
Screw theory is the algebraic calculation of pairs of vectors, such as forces and moments or angular and linear velocity, that arise in the kinematics and dynamics of rigid bodies. The mathematical framework was developed by Sir Robert Stawell Ball in 1876 for application in kinematics and statics of mechanisms (rigid body mechanics).Screw theory provides a mathematical formulation for the geometry of lines which is central to rigid body dynamics, where lines form the screw axes of spatial movement and the lines of action of forces. The pair of vectors that form the Plücker coordinates of a line...
That's the one
Jesus
I think I'm gonna edit the French wiki to connect the two because that was painful to find
honestly, "screw theory" is what I would call engineering if I was trying to be disparaging :P
that's a terrible name
although I guess given the inventor naming it after him would've been worse
if your aunt had balls she d be your uncle
but she doesnt
so she isnt
you know what i m saying, right?
21:55
Do people not study screw theory outside of France
I basically never hear of it
I think that may be the case, yes
I feel like I have heard once of it before but I can't quite recall it
I mean it's basically just a direct sum of the momentum and angular momentum so you're not losing any amazing insight
But it's weird that only France seems to teach it?
but I've definitely never seen it in a lecture or anything like that
Maybe I should ask HSM about it
22:48
M. P. Appell is the same person: it stands for Monsieur Paul Appell.Paul Émile Appell (27 September 1855, in Strasbourg – 24 October 1930, in Paris) was a French mathematician and Rector of the University of Paris. Appell polynomials and Appell's equations of motion are named after him, as is rue Paul Appell in the 14th arrondissement of Paris and the minor planet 988 Appella. == Life == Paul Appell entered the École Normale Supérieure in 1873. He was elected to the French Academy of Sciences in 1892. In 1895, he became a Professor at the École Centrale Paris. Between 1903 and 1920 he was Dean...
I hear this guy introduced screw theory to France
"Group-theoretical characterization of the different types of screw theories"
Hm
Apparently it relates to Plücker coordinates
Aren't those related to twistor theory?
I was about to say
mama mia
Screw, twist, torsion, spin
Physics really shook down all the words for "turn" it could
+ helicity/chirality
22:56
rotation
rotor
fqq
fqq
curl
it's a good thing English had a bunch because I don't want more notions to be called spin
Twirlor theory is just sitting there
23:35
Hey Minguzzi
of GR fame

« first day (3935 days earlier)      last day (1293 days later) »