« first day (4282 days earlier)      last day (944 days later) » 

00:26
yeah i already read over it and I don't think it helped w the question I had but I get it now based on what was said in the above discussion. thanks tho @ShikiRyougi
 
6 hours later…
06:37
@Charlie Yes it's Nambu-Goto in Hamiltonian form with constraints added
11
A: Reduction of Nambu-Goto action to true degrees of freedom

QmechanicHere is an outline of the reduction from the Nambu-Goto (NG) action to the light-cone (LC) formulation from a Hamiltonian perspective: The starting point is the Hamiltonian formulation of the NG string, cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post. The Hamiltonian is of the form "Lagrange multipliers times const...

I may be a fool
06:51
I can spot a post by @Qmechanic just by the latex
Compare eq (4) there to my ones, now why does (4) involve Lagrange multipliers while mine involve the infinitesimal parameters :(...
07:31
"Let the data speak for itself" does not sound like a very instructive or pedagogical guideline to scientific writing. Any takes on that claim?
@B.Brekke Well, obviously data can't speak for itself otherwise we wouldn't write all these articles about it ;) I think what the author of that advice probably meant is that you should focus on presenting your actual findings rather than actively trying to sell their importance to the audience.
I think that's a nice ideal but it probably depends heavily on your field and audience whether that's good advice in practice or not
07:53
The data can speak for itself in sociology
also zoology, if you're studying parrots
@Slereah Is there an authoritative list of comics you think we should be reading?
@Slereah the data just told me it wants a cookie?!
08:35
"In General Relativity a space-time X can be characterized by four interdependent structures. They arc the structure of an underlying manifold, the Riemannian, pseudo-Riemannian and space-time structures on X. "
Hm
I'm not an expert in number theory, but...
Oh wait, I guess he differentiates structures on the manifold and on the metric
09:03
there's a cool looking article
 
2 hours later…
10:42
@Slereah "Perfectly balanced, as all things should be"
10:54
So far, from $L = P \dot{X} + \frac{1}{2}\lambda (P^2 + X'^2) + \rho P X'$ and $\tau' = \tau - \epsilon(\sigma), \sigma' = \sigma$ and $\delta X^{\mu} = - \epsilon \dot{X}^{\mu} $ and $0 = \frac{\delta L}{\delta P_{\mu}} = \dot{X}^{\mu} + \lambda P^{\mu} + \rho X'$ we have
$$\delta X^{\mu} = \epsilon (\lambda P^{\mu} + \rho X') = \epsilon \lambda P^{\mu} + \epsilon \rho X' \neq \epsilon P^{\mu} + \eta X'^{\mu}.$$
Similarly from $L = - \dot{P} X + \frac{1}{2}\lambda (P^2 + X'^2) + \rho P X'$ and $\delta P^{\mu} = - \epsilon \dot{P}^{\mu} $ and $0 = \frac{\delta L}{\delta X_{\mu}} - \pa
If you add non-trivial $\sigma'$ changes it looks worse
Even though a source says $\epsilon =\epsilon(\sigma),\eta = \eta(\sigma)$, if you set $\epsilon = \epsilon(\tau)$ and call $\epsilon(\tau) \rho = \eta$ then it seems to work, but very doubtful that's right and there's still a $\epsilon \lambda$ not just $\epsilon$
 
2 hours later…
12:47
Apparently the original coordinates man was Oresme and not Descartes
I have been lied to!
Check out those coordinates
"The intensity of the quality was represented by a length or latitudo proportional to the intensity erected perpendicular to the base at a given point on the base line, which represents the longitudo. Oresme proposed that the geometrical form of such a figure could be regarded as corresponding to a characteristic of the quality itself."
Inventing the graph
Although IIRC Archimedes already had the idea of representing non-spatial quantities by geometry
Plutarch wrote that Archimedes "placed his whole affection and ambition in those purer speculations where there can be no reference to the vulgar needs of life"
13:24
I don't see any coordinates there
 
2 hours later…
15:46
@bolbteppa they were still primitive
 
2 hours later…
17:56
@Slereah Will people say the same thing seeing QFT in 400 years?
absolutely, yes :P
(if there are people left :P)
18:08
That's so sad :(
Future kids studying General Relativity in first grade
Ok, maybe I'm taking it too far. One doesn't properly study Newton until University
So it would more like GR in introductory physics courses
Would be*
@Feynman_00 I hope so
If we can't do better then it is not gonna be fun
Hello humans
Let's talk about something interesting
I want a good debate
or a discussion
@Feynman_00 Just because our knowledge grows that doesn't mean our capacity to learn it grows
@JingleBells Meat is toxic
18:23
I had a thought today - a home delivery bot that drives around on a single wheel (balanced with sensors) and delivers chips and snacks (or whatever) from somewhere around your house on a vertical expandable rotatable pole
That we might one day understand QFT or GR in a much different way than today doesn't imply suddenly first graders are capable or willing to learn it (nor does it imply that this would be a worthwhile goal to have at all)
@bolbteppa Why?
@ACuriousMind or that physicist will still exist. Look at how many different branches were born during the last century
@Slereah but we won't be there to see it :(
like this but with an expandable rotatable pole (instead of a human) that grabs snacks from somewhere
uses vision AI and camera to detect and grab snacks
@Feynman_00 well, the category of "physicist" will (and arguably already does to a large extent) exist in the same way the category of "natural scientist" exists: There are a lot people falling in that category, but probably none that actually know about everything included in that category
18:28
@ACuriousMind the most curious thing about your curious mind is that it's in a metalhead body
@JingleBells why on earth would I want that? why does it only have a single wheel? what if my living space has stairs/cluttered floors?
@ACuriousMind I never said it's useful or that it's a good idea from a value proposition point, I just had a thought, if it has living space or stairs/cluttered floors then it opens it's drone wings and flies XXDD
maybe it's useful for people who can't walk around the house easily
and want a snack
but in most cases those people have another person in the house
so yeah it's pretty useless
@ACuriousMind Do you have anything you're curious/passionate about that you wanna discuss or get an opinion on?
I'm starving for a good discussion/debate with someone smart :P
(the goal being learning new things and exposing myself to new view points)
18:54
welp nvm I guess
 
4 hours later…
22:25
hi - i have a question about the derivation for the harmonic oscillator potential (analytic method - not ladder operators) in griffiths. so in this section (2.3), he starts with a substitution that's $\xi = \sqrt{\frac{m\omega}{\hbar}}x$, then he proposes we look for solutions in the form of $Ae^{\frac{-\xi^2}{2}} + Be^{\frac{\xi^2}{2}}$.
I see how these solutions are of a reasonable form, so that's fine. then, he says the B term is non-normalizable, so we get rid of that solution. i accept this as well. then, he says we look for solutions in the form $\psi (\xi) = h(\xi)e^{\frac{-\xi^2}{2}}$. i don't understand why, in this step, we go from assuming $A$ is a constant to saying it's a function of $\xi$ and why we would want to solve for a constant using the power series method.

« first day (4282 days earlier)      last day (944 days later) »