The h Bar - 2023-03-25 (page 1 of 2)

« first day (4524 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (699 days later) »

Silly Goose

00:00

And (from Cotler) instead of actually changing this tensor product factorization, we instead unitarily vary the hamiltonian with arbitrary unitary operators parameterized by d^2-1 parameters, so 15 in this case.

I then define a function that computes the linear entropy of a time evolved initial candidate pointer state parameterized by the d^2-1 parameters. this outputst the "score" of the unitarily varied hamiltonian and hence tensor product factorization.

i find the set of d^2-1 parameters which minimizes the score. there are many such sets of parameters.

ACuriousMind

ah, I see

Silly Goose

and to clarify each set of 15 (in the case of 4 dimensions) parameters corresponds to the unitary transformation which sends our initial hamiltonian to a new unitarily varied hamiltonian and hence potentially new tensor product structure

of course the difficulty is thatt some of these unitary transformations stay within the same tensor product structure

ACuriousMind

you're trying to find a factorization/Hamiltonian for which your non-entangled state becomes the "least" entangled over time

since that's the most convenient way to think about the system

Silly Goose

yes

most convenient in terms of writing code at least

well actually it is also just as much about finding if the minimum factorization is unique

because i can find many minimum factorizations

ACuriousMind

that's the dual business we discussed a while back, I remember

Silly Goose

00:05

yes

!

ACuriousMind

!

Silly Goose

i am thinking that i would only be able to maybe statistically justify that "most of these minima are part of the same TPS" but that seems kind of not rigorous enough

also i guess to be more precise, I should have said tensor product structure everywhere i said tensor product factorization

ACuriousMind

I mean of course "most" of them are the same TPS because there are infinitely many unitaries but usually only finitely many duals :D

Silly Goose

XD heh

well i guess at least i can find minima XD there is one step in the right direction

previouslyt i had been trying to use gradient descent but it turns out one line of scipy does the trick lol

Slereah

I think the way to get GR from some gauge theory is basically 1) have some Lorentz gauge theory 2) have the bundle be natural 3) have an AVB in the standard rep of the group

I think it's all you need

Maybe the AVB is also natural idk if that naturally flows otherwise

Though I'm not sure if just naturalness is enough to guarantee some relation to the tangent bundle

Silly Goose

00:11

Also, I think I have finally found peace with the current level of my understanding of the Cotler business lol.

maybe in 10 years i will understand it fully but that is for 10 years

2 hours later…

parvin

02:16

Hey! I got a question,
If we add two white noise together would the result amplitude or sound pressure level of the sum be different than when we add sine waves of the same amp and SPL?

Also, in adding the sine waves, if the speakers are in front of eachother, should we substract or add?

4 hours later…

Manas Dogra

06:46

Why is the conservation of any four vector other than the 4 momentum forbid all except forward collisions?

This is from a footnote in Weinberg's QFT book---
""The only conserved tensors are the scalar
`charges' associated with various continuous symmetries, and the energy-momentum four-vector .
The conservation of any other four-vector, or any tensor of higher rank, would forbid afl but
forward collisions .""

Silly Goose

07:46

Consider a density matrix represented as an nxn matric $M$. Let's say we are working in a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H} \cong \mathbb{C}^2 \otimes \mathbb{C}^2 \otimes \mathbb{C}^2$, where each factor corresponds to a qubit.

Is it true that in general the decomposition of $M \mapsto M_1 \otimes M_2 \otimes M_3$ is unique?

1 hour later…

Mr. Feynman

08:56

Is there any resource (that is not L&L as I've read that part) that makes clear the distinction between the magnetic fields $\boldsymbol{H}$ and $\boldsymbol{\mathfrak{H}}$?

From "standard" E&M I only know $B$, $H$ and $M$ as macroscopic quantities

bolbteppa

09:55

@ManasDogra he's probably referring to this

It's explained better (e.g. the conservation of higher rank tensors part) in the first chapter of Freund's supersymmetry book

I cannot believe how simple it is to see where the LRL vector comes from after that post above, it was staring everyone in the face the whole time

@Slereah There's more ways than this, there's also a Poincare version for example, confusing stuff

Slereah

10:30

@bolbteppa yeah with affine connections

But one step at a time

ACuriousMind

10:59

@SillyGoose What exactly does the $\mapsto$ in your "decomposition" denote?

because in general not every $M$ is equal to such a simple tensor; the point of entanglement is precisely that not all states/operators in a tensor product are of this form

and when such a decomposition exists it is not unique without further constraints on the $M_i$ - consider that $(ca)\otimes b = a\otimes (cb)$ for any constant $c$

user2236

11:29

How goes your recovery from CoV pal @Slereah

Slereah

11:45

Still not doing amazing but better than in february

user2236

Good to hear.

Ryder Rude

12:18

Hi

Philosophically, what does it mean for natural numbers to exist?

wishing you great recovery @Slereah

I'm thinking that the concept of infinity is just an illusion in our head

One can never encounter an actual infinite set. Even in our head, there is nothing infinite. It's just a feeling that there exists an infinite set.

bolbteppa

What about $1/0$

Ryder Rude

Y is that infinite

I'm fine with limits tho

$x\rightarrow \infty$ is just a bunch of symbols with well-defined rules of manipulation

There's no actual infinity there

I'm fine with arbitrarily large sets

That we can encounter in real life

But infinite sets dont exist even in our head imo

Proofs of truths about infinite sets are just a string manipulation game

Amit

12:34

It's not clear that saying that natural numbers exist imply infinity

bolbteppa

So how do you address uncountably infinite sets, e.g. Cantor's diagonalization argument, i.e. that there are different 'types' of infinity

Amit

It only comes about when you start defining cardinality

Ryder Rude

All that is proved after assuming infinite sets in the first place. It's all just formal string manipulation.

One can never test these proofs on actual infinite sets

The models are always finite

Whether they exist in our head or on a computer to verify

Amit

@RyderRude the same happens in calculus. We want to model infinite processes but we have only finite pieces of papers or whatever lol

Ryder Rude

Nonetheless, these proofs r useful cuz they r valid for the finite models

Amit

12:36

And it must have something also to do with our understanding of the passage of time. Processes can only happen in time

Ryder Rude

@Amit yeah, cuz u cant keep verifying forever

bolbteppa

Infinity: does it exist?? A debate with James Franklin and N J Wildberger

Ryder Rude

But now the elephant in the room, what if spacetime is ontologically infinite

To me, this question is irrelevamt

bolbteppa

Is Infinity Real?

We have entered the realm of these people

Amit

Ahhh N J Wildberger has strong views on this, he is in the intuitionistic school as far as I can tell although he may not define himself as such

Ryder Rude

12:38

What do people in intuitionistic school say

Do they agree with this

Amit

@RyderRude It may be relevant to physics kind of, maybe the "laws" are never universal, due to some kind of an infinity they always keep evolving, and perhaps in unexpected ways too if the infinity is crazy enough

@RyderRude They don't accept say, proof by contradiction

The law of the excluded middle you know, when it has to do with infinite sets, means you can make some statement about an infinite number of items, they don't like that

Ryder Rude

Then they are good

Idk what it could mean for infinity to exist

Or for spacetime to be ontologically infinite

Amit

user image

small example of what they're concerned about

Well if it's a boring infinity it doesn't mean much. I mean the infinitude of a totally homogenous thing can't give you new things. But the infinity of $\pi$ for example is more interesting, that you can find any permutation of numbers of any length you choose somewhere, that's weird

Ryder Rude

It's all in our head :P. If you cant actually do that calculation forever, there is no infinity

The proof of pi being transcendental is just formal string manipulation

Imo

Not to say it's not useful tho

The use of these proofs is that they r valid in the finite realm

Amit

I agree we need to be able to talk about processes without implying infinity all the time. I mean the definition of a limit is a kind of a good step in that direction I think. Just because $\epsilon$ can get arbitrarily small as $\delta$ gets small, doesn't mean you have to go on to infinitely smallness, these two can be separated

Ryder Rude

12:46

Yeah. In the end, it's just string manipulation

Even limits

Amit

It's not so easy to do away with it as mere string manipulations I think. When you take the derivative apparently you're using some statements about infinity...

Ryder Rude

These manipulations dont tell u the truths about infinite processes, cuz those dont exist

They tell u truths about processes u can actually compute

Amit

If you're a physicist that's less of a problem, because you just say you're taking the best approximation

Ryder Rude

@Amit why do you say that

Amit

Because the derivative can be shown to be the best approximation to this process

but since you admit it's only an approximation to something real, you don't get entangled about the validity of it you see, you just care about how it relates to measured things

well maybe at least until you get to divergent stuff in QFT lol

Ryder Rude

12:49

Derivative computation is just formal string manipulation tho

There is this camp of mathematicians called formalists

Amit

@RyderRude Ah sorry, I thought you are replying to something else. You can reduce it to formal string manipulation okay but there is also "epistemological" content behind the definition of a limit that is hard to ignore

What do formalists say?

Ryder Rude

That all of mathematics is a string manipulation game

Amit

That's just party pooping lol

Ryder Rude

Im loving their philosophy

Amit

Anyone who ever tried to say that epistemology is irrelevant is a party pooper as far as I'm concerned lol. It ends up with trying to reduce the thinking process to nothing but a machine process, it's not clear we can do that

Not clear 'cause it has something to do with consciousness

bolbteppa

12:52

@Slereah sorry to hear man, terrible stuff

Ryder Rude

The idea is that these manipulation games sometimes tell us truths about things that exist

bolbteppa

> "Cantor's views prevailed and modern mathematics accepts actual infinity as part of a consistent and coherent theory"

Amit

@RyderRude okay I probably don't know enough about this to understand if they're attacking epistemology, or is it just the strict adherence to axiomatization etc.

bolbteppa

There are multiple infinities, square root of 2 is a real thing, etc...

Ryder Rude

@bolbteppa It's useful. I agree with that. But only becuz the proofs in formal systems with infinities actually tell us truths about finite models

There's no such thing as an infinite MODEL imo.

But the axiomatic systems with infinities r still useful

Ultimately, the truths that we prove are only tested with finite models

bolbteppa

12:56

$1 = 1.0000000...$ there are an infinite number of zero's here, $\sqrt{2} = 1.414...$ an infinite number of $a/10^r$ numbers here, if infinity doesn't exist then $\sqrt{2}$ doesn't exist

Ryder Rude

The '....... ' stuff is in our head

user4539917

and so on

bolbteppa

Pythagoras threw people off a boat over this, the lesson has been learned by humanity not to get thrown off the boat

Ryder Rude

Lemme explain

user4539917

please do

Ryder Rude

12:57

Theres nothing infinite about.......

user4539917

"..." means "and so on"

Amit

@RyderRude It's not clear: when you test experiment (reality) vs. theoretical calculation, you're apparently comparing an infinite calculation vs. a finite calculation (I mean in QM if what we say is right, nature is calculating infinite sums and funny things like that, it has infinite precision in complex amplitudes, and so on...)

bolbteppa

There is, I could keep adding 0's to that forever

Ryder Rude

It's just a human way to talk about truths about a finite computation

@bolbteppa but u cudnt do that forever

No one cud

user4539917

says who?

Ryder Rude

12:59

Even an immortal being wud only live for arbitrarily large times

There's no actual infinity

bolbteppa

Mathematically there is

Amit

@RyderRude if you could put a computer program that goes something like while(true) printf("0"); on a photon lol, it would be done forever lol

Ryder Rude

Even mathematically,, there isn't. It's just strinf Manipulation

Even mathematically,, there isn't. It's just string Manipulation

@bolbteppa when we proved root 2 goes on forver, it was a string manipulation

And that manipulation only tells u the truth about a finite computable process involving root 2

Thats the only relevance of infinities in mathematical axiomatix systems

Amit

@RyderRude Now I am quite sure you would be interested to see some of N J Wildberger lectures :) He teaches even calculus from that kind of an approach.

Ryder Rude

Then im definitely interested @Amit

bolbteppa

13:02

and if I try to count all the rational numbers in the interval $[1,2]$, I can use string manipulation to show there are so many numbers in this interval that they can't even be counted with a string manipulation because there is more than one kind of infinity

Ryder Rude

Raionals r countable tho

U mean reals

But anyway, there is no such thing as an actual set of real numbers

Amit

Heretical!!!!

lol

Ryder Rude

It's just a useful model to approximate measurements about reality

user4539917

What does "and so on" mean?

1.000... = 1

Amit

lol, it means "the proof of the above is left as an infinite exercise for the reader"

Ryder Rude

13:05

@user7269591 it means that u can continue thay process for as long as u want and the statement wud b true

The statement that 1.0000....=1

Abitrarily large sets exist

user4539917

Will that ever change?

Ryder Rude

Will what change

user4539917

1.000... =1

Ryder Rude

No, it is true for arbitrarily large number of zeros

user4539917

how big is arbitrary?

Ryder Rude

13:07

It wont change. That is the value of proofs involving infinities even if infinities dont exist

@user4539917 arbitrary is just a word. It doesnt have bigness

Amit

@RyderRude I think user4539917 is pointing out something like this: if for example you accept a certain proof by induction, it can mean two things: from what you apparently say, it only means that for any $n$ the statement $p(n)$ implies $p(n+1)$ but we can't ever say that the statement $p$ is true for all whatever items it concerns with

it's a very different way of thinking about this

Ryder Rude

Yeah, becuz there is no such thing as the "all items"

The truths are only proved for finite processes

In case of induction

Or in case of any proof which claims to prove things about infinite sets

Amit

So wait what is the implication of that... that every time you want to use the theorem that $p$ for a certain $n$ you must first explicitly write $p(n-1)$ implies $p(n)$? But then how do you know $p(n-1)$ is true? etc?

user4539917

@RyderRude infinity is just a word that has no limit

bolbteppa

If I take the number $1 \cdot 10^0 + 0 \cdot 10^{-1} + 0 \cdot 10^{-2} + ...$, the only way to be sure this is the number $1$ is if I compute this up to $10^{-\infty}$ and verify that all coefficients are $0$ (if you say it's finite I can always add a $0 \cdot 10^{-(a+1)}$), until I do that I technically can't write down that this series is equal to the number $1$. However if I just began with the number $1$ I'd be working with the result of an infinite series from the get-go

Ryder Rude

13:10

@Amit u proved it for finite sets tho. n is finite, so it works

Amit

@RyderRude that's true, although maybe even saying that "this is true for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$" is already kind of implying you're allowing $n$ to range over infinite values...

Ryder Rude

@Amit The N is not a set. It's the "proper class" or the "universe" in this context

Slereah

The square root of 2 being irrational only stems from your desire to attribute fractions to lines

Ryder Rude

This is thing called hereditary finite universe

Slereah

Maybe some lines are just incomensurable!!!

Ryder Rude

13:14

It has arbitrarily large sets but not N

Amit

@RyderRude You're using string manipulation to dodge infinity!!! :)

Ryder Rude

@Slereah Yeah, ultimately we only did some string manipulation when we proved root 2 is irrational. The only value of the proof is that it says that a computer working for a finite time will never find p/q=root 2

user4539917

"infinitely many" is a perfectly good adverb to describe the number of members in {1, 2, 3, ... }

Ryder Rude

There is value in working with hereditary finite universe

bolbteppa

It says/implies the set of rational numbers $q$ satisfying $q^2 < 2$ has no largest element, i.e. it is an infinite set, just like the set of rational numbers is an infinite set

Ryder Rude

13:17

Cuz othwerwise, u get arbitrarily large cardinals and ultimately u get Russel's paradox

Unless, u deny the existence some larger infinity at some point in ur axiomatic systwm

Amit

@RyderRude I don't think that's the only way to resolve Russell's paradox. You can also do it with type theory

Ryder Rude

Type theory was the dad of ZFC. The approach of ZFC is what i just said

Amit

But it doesn't deny that there may be larger infinities does it? It only prevents you from mixing them in the same set?

Ryder Rude

ZFC gets rid of Russel by merely denying the inaccessible infinity

So u gotta cut off infinities at some point

Or u will end up with the set of all sets

I say cut them off right at omega

Amit

I thought the basic rule to avoid it is just to say that a set can only contain sets that are of a lower "infinity" type than itself, but there may exist also bigger infinity type sets containing it. But I may be botching it up lol

Ryder Rude

13:21

Cuz any real world computation cant go on forever anyway

@Amit yeah, this is somewhat the idea

But any particular theory has to deny some large infinity

A theory cannot say "maybe there's more"

bolbteppa

The endless arguments about the existence of infinity prove the existence of infinity

Amit

Oh in the sense that it is talking from a certain set downwards

@bolbteppa Einstein put it more bitingly lol

Ryder Rude

@bolbteppa *arbitrarily many arguments

user4539917

Does "forever " exist?

Ryder Rude

No @user4539917

Sorry, i meant yes

Idk

user4539917

13:24

Happily ever after?

Amit

Happily ever after, and if not, just Taylor expand it

user4539917

:D

Ryder Rude

There is one thing that concerns me : "The set of points in a finite space". How do i make it fit into my reasoning?

This set exists right in front of u and is seemingly infinite

Ive been telling myself that its just an apprpximate model for measurements

Amit

Well you just said you don't accept $\mathbb{R}$ exists right? So it can't make sense?

Ryder Rude

I said it doesnr exist becuz u cant actually find any examples of it

Amit

13:28

We always use $\mathbb{R}$ to model space in physics... just because mathematicians didn't give us something better lol

Ryder Rude

U cant encounter them in reality

But this set is right in front of u

Its not just a feeling of infinity in ur head

Slereah

I have been looking into doing physics without R

But it is not a very pleasant thing

Amit

@Slereah that made me laugh

user4539917

unReal

Amit

I remember some stories of probabilities not adding up to $1$ when you try doing QM with a discrete definition of space, kind of makes sense but funny

Slereah

13:30

Whitehead's point-free geometry

In mathematics, point-free geometry is a geometry whose primitive ontological notion is region rather than point. Two axiomatic systems are set out below, one grounded in mereology, the other in mereotopology and known as connection theory. Point-free geometry was first formulated in Whitehead (1919, 1920), not as a theory of geometry or of spacetime, but of "events" and of an "extension relation" between events. Whitehead's purposes were as much philosophical as scientific and mathematical. == Formalizations == Whitehead did not set out his theories in a manner that would satisfy present-day...

Amit

Is it the same Whitehead who wrote with Russell the Principia?

Slereah

it is

Amit

Interesting that he thought about this so early

Ryder Rude

pointless geometry would be a better name

Slereah

@RyderRude It is also used

user4539917

13:33

A point has no size.

Slereah

@Amit the notion of geometry without points is as old as geometry

ancient greeks were arguing about it

user4539917

A line has no thickness.

Amit

Oh I didn't know that... well I guess we are all bound to be kind of Euclid (or maybe it's more Desecrates?) biased due to how history went

Slereah

Geometry was pretty widely discussed in antiquity but after a while pretty much everyone started agreeing with Euclid

and it was sort of never questioned that much until the 19th century

Except for the axiom of the parallels I guess

controversial topic

user4539917

Indeed, self-evident Truth is controversial topic.

Slereah

13:37

it was very much not self evident :p

Part of the issue being that parallelism is hard to establish

Amit

The controversy was mainly whether it can be proven from the other axioms

Slereah

Since in real life, we have no infinite lines

also that

user4539917

In real life we have no points or lines.

Ryder Rude

Set theory is in a similar place. CH cannot b proven from other axioms. People argue if there actually exists a "collection of objects" for which CH is false.

Slereah

that too :p

Which was Proclus' point

Ryder Rude

13:39

In case of geometry, we were able to find actual models where the parallel postulate was false

But idk if set theory has actual examples of sets with cardinality between N and R

Amit

I guess that some of Penrose work shows that "points" can be used for different things in geometry right? He likes to map infinities to points for example... I guess in general the fact that modern geometry is supposedly coordinate free allows us to use points more as a tool rather than a fundamental thing

Slereah

user image

many such debates

Amit

"what generates generates" - I got that bit

He must be talking about the Laplacian

First EM lecture: "There is a number at every point in space", wait wait professor, there are no numbers, and there are no points in space.... lol

Slereah

@Amit that's when you start using distributions

Amit

Yes charge density etc.

Ryder Rude

13:47

I dont get it. Distributions r functions from points to numbers

Do we change that to "functions from regions to numbers"?

I mean for pointless geometry

Amit

@RyderRude When you define this stuff you do actually take a small volume and let it tend to $0$...

Ryder Rude

Oh

Slereah

Pointless geometry isn't actually used for physics as far as I can tell

Amit

But how that would look like with point-free geometry Idk

Slereah

It is overall not powerful enough to have much use

Amit

13:49

lol I like that we all call it pointless now

Slereah

I think there's some proof of that lemme see

Ryder Rude

Lol

Slereah

if you want the classier name, it's "mereology"

Ryder Rude

Crazy that we can prove how much power a theory has

Amit

I'll use that at the next tea party

Ryder Rude

13:50

Serious levels of meta

Math-ception

Slereah

Theorem. Set-theoretic mereology, considered as the theory of $\langle V, \subseteq \rangle$, is precisely the theory of an atomic unbounded relatively complemented distributive lattice, and furthermore, this theory is finitely axiomatizable, complete and decidable.

Quite sad that a theory being complete and decidable is essentially its death warrant

Amit

The Godel certainty principle lol

Slereah

"One cannot define $\in$ from $\subseteq$ in any model of set theory, even allowing parameters in the definition."

Ryder Rude

I wonder if the Grothedieck universe contains everything, why doesnt it run into Russel's paradox

It it just cuz it names itself a universe rather than a set?

Or maybe it doesnt contain everything

It cant contain its power set. Idk

Slereah

"we cannot determine in $\subseteq$-based set-theoretic mereology whether the continuum hypothesis holds or fails, whether the axiom of choice holds or fails or whether there are large cardinals or not."

All good points in favor of mereology

Get rid of all that

Amit

14:00

@RyderRude relevant? chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/40777270#40777270

Ryder Rude

Lol

He does look like Gandalf

Amit

That convo was somewhat free spirited lol

Slereah

Mereology is a pretty big field otoh and some of it cheats by having atomic elements

so it's not guaranteed that all mereologies are like that

Ryder Rude

That name is too close to meteorology

Slereah

it is from meros, "part"

Ryder Rude

14:05

Oh

Amit

Partology is nice

Ryder Rude

What if only individual elements exist? I mean u cant talk about set of sets anymorr

This gets rid of large cardinals

Slereah

Well you're not gonna be able to do much math then

Ryder Rude

Maybe the need to talk about set of subsets is just a human need

Amit

lol, no more Topology

Ryder Rude

14:09

Lol

Amit

Is it bothering you from a conceptual perspective or a physical one

Ryder Rude

Idk.. i guess everything is in conceptual perspective

Amit

Because concepts is a set of subsets!

Ryder Rude

It doesnt bother mee

I just said it randomly :P

Amit

Not bother on the personal level I mean you know

Ryder Rude

14:14

What do we mean by objective reality/ontological reality? Is it defined using sets, elements, stuff

Or are sets and elements just a conscious interpretation of reality

Amit

google says "There are two types of ontology – objective or objectivism"

Ryder Rude

I mean, suppose we were able to find the last physics theory which explained all measurements. The theory wud b formalised using set theoey. It wud ultimately b a theory about sets

So do we then say that those sets ARE reality? They exist ontologically?

Amit

Not as far as I'm concerned. I say they are just tools that help us make nice numbers that agree nicely with reality

Slereah

I'll get back to you once I solve reality

Ryder Rude

@Slereah U have till wednesday

@Amit thats wut im thinking. Maybe reality is just one BLOB

Amit

14:17

lol. But that's kind of why Quantum computers are cool right. Like in CS they already realized, some programs can only be understood by running them... so Quantum machines should be able to run reality in a sense, at least better than we did till now

Ryder Rude

Reality doesnt know about sets, elements

@Amit do u mean a simulation like the matrix

Amit

Yes very much so

You just have to run the thing ultimately to understand it. There's very little we can understand analytically... even classically, we need to simulate GR to understand complex situations

Black holes mergers, etc.

Ryder Rude

Hmmm.. then we run into the problem of the ontology of the meta-universe. Let's say we r in a simulation. Then the sets of quantum theory have ontological existence of some computer

But then what about the ontology of the meta universe

The universe that that simulation is running in

Amit

No it doesn't mean it's a simulation

I think that's just a projection of our own way of doing things

Ryder Rude

U get a bunch of russian doll universes whose sets have ontological existence

Amit

14:21

We understand stuff by simulating them so we imagine someone else did it to us, it's anthropomorphizing nature in the extreme

Ryder Rude

And these russian dolls themselves form a set

Amit

There's only one doll

lol

2 hours later…

Silly Goose

16:48

@ACuriousMind oh gosh i see i don't know what i was thinking. thank you

Naveen V

17:38

is the image of physics S.E higgs field ??

Amit

It is very similar but it may be just a highly symmetrical hat

Perhaps Sombrero potentials also arise on other occasions (equations, occasions)

Naveen V

@Amit Highly symmetrical hat 🤣 , where can I buy one?

Amit

You can buy a nearly symmetrical one and polish it very carefully

ACuriousMind

It's the Mexican hat potential, see physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/949/50583

Amit

You can also buy only the real part of the hat and rotate it symmetrically

omg that question

lol

Naveen V

17:56

@Amit I just saw it , same no words to be expressed 😂

« first day (4524 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (699 days later) »

Transcript for

Mar '2325

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