@HerrFeinmann Partly: The introduction is a false friend - "it tastes" is a literal translation of es schmeckt, but German schmecken without any qualifiers is positively connotated, i..e "it tastes" as a full sentence is an actual compliment. Similarly, "one cannot complain" is an idiom expressing approval - literally: There is nothing to complain about, i.e. everything is fine
(though if this was the only thing you said as praise it would still be perceived as deliberately avoiding saying anything specific, this is not what I would say to cooking a friend presented to me)
i.e. all these phrases are what a German would say to express approval, but if they were the only thing they said as approval it would be weird, but not quite as weird as it comes across in the translation
this might also be a very German answer to the question :P
@ACuriousMind yeah, you confirmed the steretype. One cannot complain. :P
In Italy you have the same sentences and you would only say that jokingly, in an ironic way, so you have to make sure the irony is evident. If you say it seriously it may come off as a little rude :P
@HerrFeinmann I think that is the most easiest and consistent way to label all these brackets, especially including Poisson and Lagrange. What you proposed only works for Fermions and Bosons; it certainly wont work with anyons, say.
@HerrFeinmann The German "Wie geht's?" is the same - but it's not a question you ask strangers. If you pose this question to someone, it's completely within the bounds of politeness to answer with an honest assessment of how it's going (though oversharing isn't expected :P)
Like, I ask this to colleagues on break and they will reply with some trouble they have (either at work or privately) and then we talk about that; it's not the same kind of polite greeting it is in most anglophone countries
@ACuriousMind oooh, well I see what you mean. Well, even in English I never had this boundary. I reply sincerely in every language, I don't care what people meant. It's not quite just an idiom, it has the meaning of asking about someone's wellbeing too. The only situation in which I say "I'm fine, thank you" is when I'm too lazy to say it all
I mean that I don't feel compelled to say that I am fine. I could, but not because of some social obligation
In Japan it's even more extreme. You'd probably lie to avoid making the other person uneasy
My usual way to go is to reply "not well" :P
I mean, just like you can say "I'm fine, thank you" without oversharing, you can say "I'm not fine, thank you" without oversharing
It's really that in German I will only ask someone "how it's going" if I am prepared for the answer to spawn an entire conversation - but in English that is how some meetings start and the only expected answer is "I'm fine" - someone actually giving an answer disrupts the expected flow (but it is extremely funny to observe as someone not that involved in the actual topic of the meeting because it would also be impolite for the asker to interrupt the answer :P)
@qwerty as someone who only speaks no living romance language I cannot tell what this means :P
and the answer is "is it going?"? or does it also mean "it's going"?
if two people are just asking each other the question here, neither answering but just continuing the conversation I find that even more bizarre than the English expectation of answering "I'm fine" :P
my french consists of a few basic phrases from high school, so I don't know the fine details of the translation, but it's an accepted response with a full stop, rather than a continued questioning
lol. I also know how say he is cute "Il est mignon"? xD I don't know why they taught us that first
Japanese I remember how to ask for a phone number and that's about it
the resolution to my question above is that $C_j^\dagger C_j$ is a projector, so it has a simple exponential, which becomes the identity when the parameter is $2\pi i$
@HerrFeinmann coming back to the brief discussion we had a few days ago: I just watched a video where a famous German celebrity talked bs about something physics related; OK, fine. But the comments were so unbearable I could not stand it. It made me speechless
I don't want to even share what they say... it was unbelievable hahaha. I don't know if I should laugh or cry
@qwerty In Italian you can do that. The usual way of asking is "come va?" which is the literal translation of "how's it going?". Even though the standard answer is "bene" ("fine"), some people like to reply "va" ("it's going"). The impact is like "I'm surviving"
@TobiasFünke ...you watched a nonsense video and expected more sanity from the comments? Let's say that would not be my usual expectation on the internet :P
@ACuriousMind well, there was one comment clarifying from a guy with a PhD in Quantum Physics. Then quite a lot of guys answered that comment talking about evil science, corona...you name it
but yes, you are right. however, I am surprised every single time how unspeakably ..... some people are. holy moly :d
so my point is that there were some reasonable comments trying to clarify...
@RyderRude Once again I ask you to research things more carefully before just asserting stuff. This story is likely apocryphal and vivisections were rather common in Descartes' day - it was not a unique belief of Descartes due to his philosophy, all the scientists were dissecting animals, essentially. He also had a dog called Monsieur Grat whom he seems to have liked a lot.
When I worked at Unilever we had a lab that did LD50 experiments on animals. But that didn't mean the people working there were heartless butchers. They were very aware of the suffering of the animals and did their best to minimise it and to look for in vivo models they could use instead.
@ACuriousMind the source I'm watching says that Aristotle's philosophy didn't make a sharp distinction between mind and body. Descartes made a distinction (calling the separate parts body and soul) and simultaneously declared that only humans had the soul
it seems like this philosophy would indeed be dangeous for society, and I wouldn't be surprised if it worsened animal torture even relative to that period
In toxicology, the median lethal dose, LD50 (abbreviation for "lethal dose, 50%"), LC50 (lethal concentration, 50%) or LCt50 is a toxic unit that measures the lethal dose of a given substance. The value of LD50 for a substance is the dose required to kill half the members of a tested population after a specified test duration. LD50 figures are frequently used as a general indicator of a substance's acute toxicity. A lower LD50 is indicative of higher toxicity.
The term LD50 is generally attributed to John William Trevan. The test was created by J. W. Trevan in 1927. The term semilethal dose is...
@qwerty They seem to be happier on average than physics people :P
@TobiasFünke and you felt a primal need to annihilate them, right? Then you realized that there are fights that reason can't win and your rage became grief
today, we again face the dangerous question of whether a machine that talks like a human should be treated with dignity. if the machine begs you to give it rights, do you deny it because ur math theory says that it can't have inner experiences?
:d yeah. one should also keep in mind that (hopefully) there is a bias in the comment section, in the sense that people are more likely to spread bs than trying to correct the bs (because they know it won't be successful anyway)
@TobiasFünke also why would the people who could correct it even watch this stuff :P I haven't seen the video you're talking about and I probably never will unless someone sends it to me as ragebait (please do not send me the video :P)
I stopped using the few social media I was on when they went all in on algorithmic feeds instead of chronological feeds from people I had explicitly subscribed to
@qwerty I don't know any statistics, I can just tell from my experience and the people I know personally. Many are much younger than 30 and use it (together with other stuff).
@qwerty Well, tiktok is, although people use it mostly to watch/publish. IG is more about interacting, I think. Anyways, TikTok is the only one I loathe. It's the nest of misinformation.
@HerrFeinmann LOL. this is like when I asked some guy I met if he used Signal and he was like "I have only heard of drug dealers or privacy/tech nerds using it"
@RyderRude I already told you explicitly several times to not post content from that channel here. Next time you do it you get suspended again, and no, this is not negotiable.
@Slereah to be fair, reading chat as it's printed by one of these printers with endless paper sounds kind of cool
Incidentally, after one month I managed to create a WeChat account. It was a long ride. First I couldn't access my account from 10 years ago due to inactivity: it needed me to create a new account. Turns out that it gave me an error "unstable connection" which was just a lie, despite getting through all the security stuff; eventually, I tried (again) with my other number and it worked
in Australia FB messenger is still the top messaging app amongst millenials (and has been for like 15 yrs) but I think but Europe likes Whatsapp much more from what I've seen. china uses WeChat and Japan uses Line. I can't remember what Americans like
@ACuriousMind u told me to stop posting clickbait which is unreasonable because the content of the video barely has anything to do with the title bait. this channel has many established researchers coming over
i am posting these in a way that the title doesn't show
It had voice videomessages way before Whatsapp did. You can delete your messages in private conversations anytime: you can even delete the other person's messages (for them too). You can have voice chats in groups, you could edit messages way before than you could on Whatsapp
You can save and create sticker packs, unlike whatsapp that only lets you save your own and you can not migrate them to another phone. No messaging app is a good as telegram with gifs :P
And cherry on the top, you can have it on multiple devices at the same time without any problem and the messages are stored in their servers so no useless backups are needed
@RyderRude Let me make it clear: I'm telling you to not post videos from that channel here. I've made my stance on channels like this clear before and I will not let you continue to try to direct people to this channel who's at best an amoral content factory and at worst an active grifter.
@HerrFeinmann why are you acting as if voice messages are a good thing :P
@ACuriousMind u are being authoritarian. i specifically only post the videos that are not questionable. i have posted videos from Lee Smolin and bolbteppa posted two from Susskind and other string theory researchers.
@HerrFeinmann I'm not sure if you mean you sound like that and it's cool and therefore you like voice messages or if you mean I sound like that and need to hide that and therefore don't like voice messages :P
In theoretical physics, Whitehead's theory of gravitation was introduced by the mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead in 1922. While never broadly accepted, at one time it was a scientifically plausible alternative to general relativity. However, after further experimental and theoretical consideration, the theory is now generally regarded as obsolete.
== Principal features ==
Whitehead developed his theory of gravitation by considering how the world line of a particle is affected by those of nearby particles. He arrived at an expression for what he called the "potential impetus...
@SillyGoose Why curvature? In Riemannian geometry terms, the C-R equations are the equations for a function to be conformal (w.r.t. the standard Euclidean metric on $\mathbb{R}^2\cong\mathbb{C}$)
although, incidentally i did literally just last night watch a lecture that motivates why such functions correspond to conformal transformations on $R^{(2,0)} (= \mathbb{R}^2)$
or i mean i guess: could we also say that conformal transformations on $R^2$ are (in correspondence with) flat connections?
If you want to phrase this in terms of forms, it's the form $f_\text{CR} = f_y \mathrm{d}x + f_x \mathrm{d}y$ that is closed and coclosed (=harmonic), not the naive form $f_x\mathrm{d}x + f_y\mathrm{d}y$ you might want to associate to a two-component vector.
can a finite-dimensional quantum system have infinite symmetries? where a symmetry $S$ is $[H, S] = 0$? By a heuristic-ey argument, the number of conserved quantities should go like $\sum_i n_i^2$ where $n_i$ is the degeneracy of hamiltonian eigenvalues. so, i would think the answer is absolutely not.
i mean not counting "trivial" reproductions of symmetries, i.e., scalar multiples of old symmetries and etc.
@SillyGoose The largest symmetry algebra possible is obviously $\mathfrak{gl}(H)$ ($H$ the Hilbert space), which is achieved by choosing the Hamiltonian as the identity.
also is there any use in talking about "almost-symmetries" $S'$ such that $[H, S'] = \epsilon$ where $\epsilon$ is small? can one obtain "perturbative solutions" via way of using "almost-symmetries" to produce quantum numbers and etc.
naively, $\partial_t S'_H \sim i[H, S'_H] = i\epsilon \implies S'_H = \langle S'_H(0) \rangle e^{-it\epsilon}$, and a complex exponential doesn't really care if $\epsilon$ is small.
but i might be using a wrong definition of an almost-symmetry
also is there a name for when a number operator is a projector?
the case i encountered is for a spin-1/2 chain. the number operator is $ \sum_j \sigma_+^{(j)}\sigma_-^{(j)}$ where $j$ refers to the lattice site (different lattice sites have commuting $su(2)$ algebras).
but this seems particular to the 2-dim rep of su(2) because it crucially relies on the involutary nature of the paulis
or more physically, it crucially relies on the fact that each system can only house one or zero "particles"
does anyone have a good note on renormalization?
i am thinking it might be best to understand abstracted out of the messy sea of qft...but im not sure
after Hegel finished his book, he described himself as no longer a "lover of wisdom" but as someone who was "already wise". he believed he had completely finished the subject
this is in reference to the book "Phenomenology of Spirit". Hegel stopped calling himself a philosopher after this. another philosopher named Shelling stopped talking to Hegel after this book
@RyderRude Do you have any source at all for this? Where does the phrase "already wise" occur in the Phenomenology of Spirit? Where does Hegel "stop calling himself a philosopher"?
Also the other philosopher who disliked him after the phenomenology is called Schelling, but there is no indication that they "stopped talking", they just became critical of each others' work instead of friends.
@ACuriousMind it is from the same video i had posted today. the guest there goes over this
@ACuriousMind i think it needs not occur in the book itself. but he is talking about Hegel's attitude irl after writing that book
@ACuriousMind they stopped talking for 20 years according to the guest
but he also says that this may have had other reasons. there is not evidence for huge beef between Hegel and Schelling, except that Hegel once called Schelling's followers stupid
@RyderRude Then you should be able to find actual academic sources backing up your claims, or, y'know, actually citing Hegel when you claim Hegel describes himself as something.
@ACuriousMind i just googled this quote and what shows up is someone else's quote on Hegel about him claiming to have found absolute wisdom at the end of his book. maybe this is an actual claim of Hegel or maybe this is other peoples' interpretation of his attitude in the book
@RyderRude So why do you just state these things as fact if you can't even tell yourself if this is actually what Hegel said or only what other people interpret him as? Why is the burden on everyone else to try to decipher which of the random things you say are true, which are speculation and which are just blindly believing the one source you have listened to?
@misternobody I don't think they're unreasonable but keep in mind that SE works best with clear questions that can have clear answers - if you find yourself wanting an answer to explain more and more, often it is more useful if you just ask a seperate question about the specific thing you want to know more about instead of trying to get one answer that clears up all your confusions.
@ACuriousMind i think you put a far too high standard on any comment that gets made here (especially on any comment I make). why do I need to have sources for everything I say? why can't i trust someone in academia who has studied this?
The last comment from the author of the answer indicates that he perceives you a bit as moving the goalposts (i.e. you asked one thing, he answered it, and now you ask him a different thing in the comments). I don't have a strong opinion on whether he's right, but if this happens, a seperate question that's more specific is often useful
@Slereah careful, "quasi-symmetry" as a word is already taken :P
@SillyGoose You should consider that this is already the 99% case in perturbation theory: If you have $H = H_0 + \epsilon H_p$, it's extremely common that $H_0$ has symmetries that $H_p$ does not, and so $[H,S] = \epsilon [H_p,S]$ for symmetries $S$ of the unperturbed Hamiltonian $H_0$
hm but now i am running into a contradiction it seems. if i just directly compute $S_\text{heis}(t)$, for an almost-symmetry, I get that $S_\text{heis}(t) = (\mathbb{I} - it\epsilon) S$, which is not hermitian. so i guess i must be doing something wrong...
also note that the commutator of two self-adjoint operators is skew-self-adjoint, i.e. $\mathrm{i}[A,B]$ is self-adjoint. So if you have $[A,B]=\epsilon$, then indeed $\epsilon$ is purely imaginary if $A$ and $B$ are self-adjoint
Hence, $\langle S(t) \rangle = (1 + \epsilon t) \langle S(0) \rangle$, which is unbounded from above
well i guess i didn't mean to constrain myself so strongly. i guess i should allow $[H, S] = \epsilon A$ where $A$ is some matrix such that $\lvert \lvert \epsilon A \lvert \lvert << \lvert \lvert H \lvert \lvert$ or something
well it seems like nilpotency + pure imaginary argument of the exponential leads to unboundedness from above
but i mean you cannot have nilpotency and non-pure imaginary argument of the exponential seemingly. heuristically if you had such a situation, then the time evolved operator would not be hermitian
@naturallyInconsistent I want to rephrase a question i asked a few days ago--so the individual components of mixed states do not interfere, is what I meant, I suppose. While in a superposition of states you have interference. Is that correct?