« first day (5209 days earlier)      last day (15 days later) » 

09:05
morning
09:25
@ACuriousMind Just put it in the AI :p
@Slereah Congratulations, you have everything you need to be a tech executive :P
@ACuriousMind I mean I still have a soul
just ask the AI how to get rid of it
Useless
09:35
hehe
hi pal
09:53
scottaaronson.blog/?p=2586 Aaronson is talking about the spectral gap undecidability
10:17
some people believe that the Hilbert space associated to a finite region of space must be finite dimensional cuz of Bekenstein bound stuff
how well agreed upon is this idea
the universe would feel more like a computer if it turned out to be this way
10:49
@Slereah get into quantum finance
counting pennies
 
1 hour later…
12:08
@SignorFeynman I mean currently I work at a bank in quantum computing
13:02
what do u think about quantum solipsism?
i.e. the correct theory of measurements turns out to be something like : everything except ur own brain can go in a superposition
like, other minds can go in a superposition. but u can't. so u model everything except urself as a quantum system
it is a form of epistemological solipsism
13:50
@Slereah cooool a job not in academia that leaves you time to live 😭
I will rob that bank and ask for a job as a ransom
i just recived a downvote on my answer i linked here yesterday. it had 4 upvotes and 0 downvotes before
i have called this out before. stop target downvoting anything i link here
14:27
@RyderRude You've been told before not to complain about downvotes here, I warn you one last time about this. If you link something, you invite people to look at it. Whether they decide to upvote or downvote it is their decision, and that users are free to vote as they see fit is the basic operating principle of all SE sites. You cannot possibly tell whether someone downvoted that post because it's you or just because they thought it warranted a downvote because of its content.
14:57
@RyderRude buddy, you shouldn't complain about downvotes just like you don't for upvotes :P
I mean I have been downvoted in some occasions, I know it feels bad, but it's as important as upvoting.
"If you don't like, then ignore" is not good for a community
@PM2Ring : One can spot the mandolinist Chris Thile from a mile away :)
In some alternate universe there is a Qmechanic in the Music SE
 
1 hour later…
16:21
hehe
RR, if someone really wanted to "target downvote" everything you've posted, they could just go to your profile and downvote each post; perhaps with some time in between to not trigger the system (?)
I guess it is possible--but hopefully no one really does that
 
1 hour later…
17:24
i cant speak about it anymore because I have been forced to
18:17
ACMeanie :P
Ok, I got the best nickname
Why do I keep thinking 10^4 = 1000
Well here's several more hours of running code because of that mistake
19:03
I don't understand these people
and neither do I understand why some good users here even try to engage with them
oh, it is gone already :s
19:14
I didn't read the question but honestly, a lot of these people are downvoting good questions. Some people want to discover things for themselves which is way more admirable and leads to a certain type of question, and it just gets downvoted by people who can't think and have just mindlessly read a book
eehhm ok
@Qmechanic Indeed. :) I'd forgotten that clip, but I upvoted it some time ago. Chris is a bit of a show pony, but he doesn't take himself too seriously. A couple from Chris & Sierra:
How can they play with such speed & precision in the snow?
More Chris & Sarah. It's so sad that Covid killed Live From Here / Prarie Home Companion.
19:33
@SirCumference because 1000 has 4 digits, I guess. I have a similar problem with $10^{-4}$ :P
@TobiasFünke what was it? You can't leave me hanging!!!
@SignorFeynman get more rep so you can see it
but its crap so dont worry
A little bit of J. S. Bach from Chris & friends
19:48
@SignorFeynman Kind of reminds me how I keep thinking e.g. 13th century = 1300s
@RyderRude Solipsism is just silly at best, and a possible symptom of psychosis.
But the idea of preventing brains / minds going into superposition reminds me of Greg Egan's Qusp (and of course is a major theme in that Chalmers paper you linked that I'm halfway through reading).
Mar 12, 2023 at 7:40, by PM 2Ring
> By isolating decision making from the outside world on a quantum level, bearers of Qusps only ever make one choice, rather than leaving copies of themselves in the future quantum multiverse (of that decision in particular) to make others.
@Slereah Not easy to read on a phone...
tilt it lengthwise I guess?
I got through it, although maybe not in the intended order.
^ Click to open in a new tab. Then rotate your phone. On a desktop machine, try changing the aspect ratio of the window.
20:36
@naturallyInconsistent I'm not going to earn 8k in a night for that :P
21:05
@SignorFeynman the usual "I have some thoughts, what do you think about my "theory"?"- kind of thing
...and of course it is just nonsense and gibberish
I will never understand how anyone can seriously think to make contributions to physics without knowing the basics in the respective subfield (or even physics) at all. OTOH; I respect their confidence in some way lol
Can I say that for a system whose Hamiltonian doesn't depend on $q$, the system will have conserved momentum; because of $\dot p=-\frac{\partial H}{\partial q}$ ?
@SignorFeynman That one wasn't so bad, actually, compared to some of the stuff we get.
> I believe that physical laws might represent a specific subset of Nash Equilibria in appropriately defined games.
21:21
Well, what does this sentence even mean?
It's a reasonable topic for metaphysical speculation, IMHO. But totally off-topic on Physics.SE. The OP gives some examples of applying game theory to various physical laws, but it was all pretty vague, and they wanted us to turn their vague ramblings into something rigorous.
I mean, I kind of get the rough idea, but from what I remember of the post it was more like speculations and analogies
the question was asked on reddit (and has been deleted there, too).
Agreed. But it's not totally novel to speculate whether physical laws of our universe arise through some optimisation process. It reminds me of:
Cosmological natural selection, also called the fecund universes, is a hypothesis proposed by Lee Smolin intended as a scientific alternative to the anthropic principle. It addresses why our universe has the particular properties that allow for complexity and life. The hypothesis suggests that a process analogous to biological natural selection applies at the grandest of scales. Smolin first proposed the idea in 1992 and summarized it in a book aimed at a lay audience called The Life of the Cosmos, published in 1997. == Hypothesis == Black holes have a role in natural selection. In fecund theory...
Well, I sometimes find it amusing to think about these things, but --as you already mentioned-- it is noting we on PSE are concerned with.
and the reaction of the OP in the comments was kinda unfriendly.
It's a cute idea. And testable via simulation, in principle, if you have an insane amount of computing power.
21:26
And I've seen this several times now. People pass by, drop their (AI) sh*** and when told that this is off-topic here they get mad/unfriendly etc.
@TobiasFünke Yes. The OP was very aggressive. And they aren't exactly new to Stack Exchange, even though they're new to Physics.SE. They've been active on Math.SE for over a year. OTOH, most of their math questions got closed for being off-topic...
In contrast, here's a tiny excerpt from a "Grand Theory" we got yesterday, posted 3 times.
The universe is a flexible bubble. Matter is flexible bubbles within it. Their surface supports flexible circles, which come in pairs, and spin.

Light, a photon, is made of two cylindrical vortices, twisted into helices, so a double helix. Its shape makes it move through space at the speed of sound in the medium. From head on it looks like a yinyang. It carries a soul. In theory, I think, it can carry up to half the information in the universe.

As it flies through the heavens, it twists the membrane, causing electromagnetic waves. When it hits matter, dark or electromagnetic or otherwise,
It can be difficult to explain to such people that they aren't doing physics.
Speaking of AI shit, the MSE Answer Assistant question is now down to -320.
21:48
:D
For a charged particle in an EM field the following transformation is true:
$P^\mu \rightarrow P^\mu -eA^\mu$. Is there an explanation for this transformation? I mean can one argue it
@PM2Ring oh wow
Or is simple gauge transformation
what do you mean with "transformation"? isn't this minimal coupling?
right
21:52
but this is not a transformation?!
but coupling between what?
If you are assuming a region where EM is present and an electrically charged particle propagates
the coupling would be between the field and the particle
In analytical mechanics and quantum field theory, minimal coupling refers to a coupling between fields which involves only the charge distribution and not higher multipole moments of the charge distribution. This minimal coupling is in contrast to, for example, Pauli coupling, which includes the magnetic moment of an electron directly in the Lagrangian. == Electrodynamics == In electrodynamics, minimal coupling is adequate to account for all electromagnetic interactions. Higher moments of particles are consequences of minimal coupling and non-zero spin. === Non-relativistic charged part...
Minimale Kopplung, minimale Substitution oder auch Prinzip der minimalen elektromagnetischen Wechselwirkung beschreibt ein Prinzip der Quantenmechanik zur Einführung der elektromagnetischen Wechselwirkung in die Gleichungen freier Teilchen. Das Prinzip legt die durchzuführende Ersetzung im Hamiltonoperator eines freien Teilchens fest, um seine Wechselwirkung mit einem elektromagnetischen Feld zu erreichen. Die Berechtigung dieses Prinzips rührt daraus, dass eine Ankopplung freier Teilchen an Wechselwirkungsfelder nach diesem Prinzip zu Eichinvarianz der betreffenden Gleichungen führt. == Das… ==
the german article is quite nice, I think, after skimming through it 1-2mins. give it a try
22:15
@TobiasFünke So, in the Lagrangian one includes in the potential, the interaction terms with the vector and scalar field, and from there, by calculating the canonical momenta, one gets what I asked above
22:49
@TobiasFünke I can see that. The less you know, the more you think you know :P
I see @PM2Ring thanks
I read somewhere that by imposing commutation relations among field and momentum operators in QFT, we make them quantum mechanical.

What does it mean to make an operator quantum mechanical?
And why would the consideration of commutators do that?
I find myself stuck in the middle because of this mechanism, by the way. I'm interested only in very few specific arguments in my life, so my general knowledge is quite meager. This leads to me just replying "I don't know" or "I should check a couple of references" to any discussion
Basically I can't talk about anything :P
@imbAF it's the same idea of canonical quantization, when you take a classical Hamiltonian and impose the canonical commutation relations
Actually I read that, in that same topic, that of canonical quantization of fields
but I don't understand you answer
The way it is presented to me, is that canonical quantization is a 5 step machinery
1. Find lagrangian density in terms of fields. 2. Calculate the momentum density and work out the Hamiltonian density in terms of fields. 3. Treat fields and momentum density as operators. Impose coomutation relations on them to make them quantum mechanical. 4. Exapnd the fields in terms of ladder operators. 5. QFT
But in step 3, I want to find the answers to my 2 questions
Again, do you understand this for $\hat{x}$ and $\hat{p}$ in quantum mechanics?
the commutation between position and momentum operators?
23:01
The way you pass from the classical variables to those operators
Imposing the commutation relations
Ok, I understand that through the introduction of commutation relations you can make the jump from Classical mechanics to QM
But why is the case?
Is it somehow related to the poisson brackets between position and momenta in CM and how to translates to commutation brackets in QM?
@SignorFeynman yeah, it's the most honest and proper reaction, IMHO -- I do so too, although I would consider my general knowledge as at least average (but still not good; some years it was waaay more hehe)
23:23
I mean, if anyone asks me to describe anything remotely scientific that is not physics, I'm cooked :P
23:54
what is the "polarization index" of a phonon?

« first day (5209 days earlier)      last day (15 days later) »