« first day (1915 days earlier)      last day (3030 days later) » 

11:00 AM
So the particle (not just its wavfucntion) will behave like it pass right through the barrier when it is not possible classically, no metter how frequently we measure its position along the way?
 
because we are supposing to be able to characterize an observable by its measurements on all possible states (in theory all, at least many of them)
an that the observables we measure only yield real values in any state we measure them
 
the question is then, why do we know all possible observables do yield real values in the experimental context, and not quantities described by complex numbers or other weird things?

Is it because the reals are sufficient to model them all?
 
I define a physical observable to be something I can quantify with a number in a way that is natural
 
I see
 
i.e. using numbers that we "find" in nature
and we don't "find the complex numbers in nature"
if you pardon the very sloppy language
of course complex numbers are useful
and we actually give a broader notion of observables that allows also for objects that can be quantified by complex numbers
but those "complex observables" cannot be directly measured
 
11:11 AM
ok
 
so the observables form a complex algebra, and its part with real spectrum constitutes the physical observables that we measure
for example the evolution operator is a "complex" observable
and in fact we cannot directly measure evolution, but only indirectly measure its action, measuring its effect on real observables
 
I see

Combine your discussion with the many PSE, in that case I guess our picture is complete for that FAQ:
Experiment->Found observables that can be directly measured are non commutative and real (most natural to choose reals)->algebra of observables there are linear functionals (states) that associated a numerical value to each observable->A theory of non commutative probability requires the states to be vectors in some hilbert space-> non commutativity lead to commutation relation (CCR), the real-ality of directly measured observables means the operators must be hermitian-> hermitian op
 
@yuggib Btw, in general physics usage (e.g. electrical engineering, quantum mechanics, signal processing etc.), what's the physical difference between a quantity expressed by a complex number
$$ae^{i\theta}$$

where a is the amplitude and $e^{i\theta}$ is the phase

and a real number with phase information such as

$$af(\theta)$$

where $f(\theta)$ is the phase
?

I mean both quantities are scalars with magnitude and phasal information, but one has the imaginary unit, how do they actually differ?
 
if you want them to behave in the same way, the function $f$ must be vector valued with two components
one related to the real and one to the imaginary part of $e^{i\theta}$
one complex object counts (i.e. is equivalent to) as two real objects
but apart from that, there is not much difference
 
11:29 AM
I see
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/364044/difference-between-mathbb-c-and-mathbb-r2

Hmm, mathematically, it seems the imaginary component and the real component of $\mathbb{C}$ are linked by some kind of multiplication, which no analogue exists for $\mathbb{R}^2$
 
@Secret yes, but you can describe complexes by $\mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}$ with suitable rules for sum, product and multiplication by a scalar
 
Well, that's just cheating in some sense, because I am talking about the standard $\mathbb{R}^2$

Anyway for the first time I can see how $\mathbb{C}$ and the standard $\mathbb{R}^2$ differ in 'structure'. I can now start to ponder how this differ in structure leads to nice things in complex numbers such as the cauchy integral theorem to be possible
 
user116211
Listen, mates!! Quora has introduced knowledge Prize to get the BEST answers from experts by awarding prize money!!!! This is the link: blog.quora.com/…
 
user116211
11:45 AM
I never did like Quora, at all. Do we receive money just for answering questions? Some of the most intricate queries are answered by experts here, isn't it? Do they need to be allured with a petty sum of dollars????? Ridiculous!!! Quora should learn something from Stack Exchange.
 
11:56 AM
Also if you think I'm gonna give $250 to cancer, think again, cancer!
I'm not exactly Bill Gates here
 
user116211
@Slereah: That's my point.... Prior to that I disliked Quora for its stupidity in thinking that it provides knowledge; now I vehemently abhore it; nonsense...
 
The argand plane visualised properly
13
Q: Difference between $\mathbb C$ and $\mathbb R^2$

analysis89What are the basic differences between $\mathbb C$ and $\mathbb R^2$? The points in these two sets are written as ordered pairs, I mean the structure looks similar to me. So what is the reason to denote these two sets differently?

Picture To be modelled more rigoruously...
 
12:12 PM
Oh gee
I just realized
I wrote "black home" instead of "black hole"
Hopefully nobody will think me racist for it
 
1 hour ago, by Secret
So the particle (not just its wavfucntion) will behave like it pass right through the barrier when it is not possible classically, no metter how frequently we measure its position along the way?
@Slereah
 
The sum of paths is over all (continuous, nowhere differentiable) path
Whether there is an obstacle or not does not enter into it
But of course paths without obstacles are more likely to occur than others
The actual path (if you bothered to measure it at infinitesimal time intervals) would look like a fractal
Somewhat similar to the Weierstrass function, to give an example
 
even if part of it is actually within the barrier?
 
The "spread" of the path corresponds to the uncertainty principle
Barriers in QM are just potentials
There's nothing preventing the particle from being in a potential
Even classically forbidden
(unless the probability is 0 of course but that's not really the discussion here)
 
So say if I fire an electron at a very thin piece of concrete, then to the electron it will only felt it as a potential and nothing 'solid'?
 
12:22 PM
well as you may remember, matter is mostly vacuum
 
I see
 
mind=blown
 
12:37 PM
@yuggib By the algebraic limit theorem, if $k_n\to k$ and $x_n\to x$, then $x_n-k_n\to x-k$. Assume $x_n+y_n:=k_n\to k$ where $x_n$ converges to $x$ and $y_n$ does not converge. Then $x_n-k_n\to x-k$. But $x_n-k_n=y_n$ and $y_n\to x-k$. Contradiction.
um
 
@0celo7 The fact I am still single means I am definitely not good at all these kinds of things
 
If it does not converge does $x_n + y_n = k_n$ actually exist
 
@yuggib fix the signs
@Slereah No, that's the point.
 
Oh
 
"contradiction"
 
12:39 PM
Carry on then
 
I think that's WAY fucking simpler than anything the nerd squad could come up with.
@ACuriousMind You are invited to check it too. Or even @Danu if you can be civil about it ;)
 
1:02 PM
yeah it works
but essentially this is a proof using another theorem
that when you asked it originally I didn't know you had already proved
actually, the statement to prove is essentially a partial restatement of the "algebraic limit theorem"
however, I agree that it's simpler than what we suggested
 
Neat-o
 
To be investigated
Whether an electron at some relative velocity wrt a muon such that the energy measured are equal can interfere
Will do this exercise investigation later...
(Reason for the guess: The only thing we knoew that differentiates a muon and an electron is its rest mass (and that a muon will decay))
 
@yuggib I listed the theorems I had available -.-
 
1:19 PM
@0celo7 only afterwards
 
@yuggib so you knew of that proof but just didn't mention it
 
No I didn't, and it didn't came to my mind
 
I came up with it in my sleep and posted it here first thing so I wouldn't forget it ;)
 
if else I would have told you
so it turns out you are good at analysis :-D
at least while you're sleeping
 
Hah, wonder if I can take the exam at 3AM
I can't believe the proof was so trivial :/
 
1:30 PM
The time travel tag probably has the most question marked as duplicate or on hold
(or closed)
 
Anyone who does time travel is probably a crank anyway
 
Over 50%
 
Read Duffield's text for an authoritative account for why time travel is wrong.
 
Yeah the problem is that most of them just vaguely heard of the notion in some pop sci article and from there, there aren't that many different questions they can ask
So they end up asking mostly the same ones
They do not ask important questions like "Are there any consistent solutions for the Thirring model in a compact spacetime"
(p. good question)
 
probably not dude
 
1:39 PM
I'd ask it but I'm pretty sure I would get no answer
Probably not yeah
It's hard to get them even for free fields
Even then that only works out if you have a good space period to time period ratio
 
so I used MS Paint for the first time ever yesterday
yesterday I googled and used MS Paint
@ACuriousMind It's almost time for me to leave the nest
 
Googled for the first time
Maybe instead of using google, you could...
 
@BernardMeurer Things took a turn for the worse yesterday. Although I'm not even sure what happened.
@Slereah Jeeves seems smooth as fuck
 
He's got a big old chin on him
 
Like he'd slit your throat while shaking a martini
 
1:42 PM
I wonder if they did a backstory for jeeves
Let's check
Not that I can find
 
@Slereah I like to think he's an assassin a la AssCreed
he just cuts fools up with his hidden blade
 
If you want to go the assassin route maybe pick Alfred instead
 
god, what a life Ezio had
 
Alfred's an old OSS agent
 
he could just shank any fool who fucked with him and got off every time
kinda like @ACuriousMind...
@yuggib GRR
fighting with PP right now
@Slereah is there octonion GR
 
1:55 PM
Probably not
Octonions are from like $R^8$
 
Yeah
Embed spacetime in R^8
Then do octonionic submanifold geometry
 
"octonions have applications in fields such as string theory, special relativity, and quantum logic."
Hm
No reference though
ack
 
2:13 PM
@0celo7 why isn't beamer allowed?
 
2:40 PM
I love beamer
it's so elegant
 
2:55 PM
@yuggib don't know exactly
For one, we have a university template that's not available in TeX format
But I'm sure one of the math profs/postdocs has managed to convert it
 
@0celo7 I made my own template, then it's just a matter of putting the right logo and colors when I change institution
only the title page is "fancy" though
the rest is rather plain
even if I only do beamer talks only if strictly necessary
 
Well I'm doing a PP talk today
 
what I am saying is that blackboard talks are much much better
 
I'm not smart enough to make my own thing
Template, I mean
 
@0celo7 a peepee you say
 
3:07 PM
take a template you like with tex source, and edit it ;-)
 
@yuggib you can do a blackboard talk on crystals and countour data plots all you like :)
Good luck drawing the electron microscope images
 
@0celo7 No I won't, ever. Physics talks are awful...
 
at least, they're awful most of the times
 
Good job
 
3:08 PM
I wanna become a science!
3
 
You're a mathematician, @ACuriousMind
You can't fool us.
 
Do you even have an erlenmeyer flask
The erlenmeyer flask, invented by Dr. Julius Flask
 
No, it was invented by Erlenmeyer you idiot
 
Then why is it called a flask, HUH?
 
I don't think ACM has ever done a science
@Slereah Probably some Latin shit
Flascus
 
3:11 PM
@ACuriousMind performs his experiments in the platonic realm of mathematical abstractions
 
@0celo7 I did have lab courses, once upon a time
 
@ACuriousMind Lying doesn't suit you
@Slereah "experiments"
Have you ever seen a gauge theory in the night sky
 
I have
 
Pic
 
3:13 PM
What's the symmetry there
 
$U(1)$
 
What? No. It can't even undergo a full rotation.
 
Obviously the symmetry is broken by the VEV
 
Broken down to $Z_2$, I guess
 
3:17 PM
@lopata I can't prove that that's wrong.
I looks correct to me...
 
@ACuriousMind is that a bad thing?
 
No. That sounds like the holy grail. Either I'm not parsing that sentence correctly or they're saying they've shown renormalizability of gravity.
Which...would solve quantum gravity. I must be missing something.
 
Well it wouldn't solve quantum gravity
it would just show that some versions of quantum gravity are viable
On that ground, anyway
 
@Slereah Why not? If the quantization of standard Einstein gravity is renormalizable, what exactly are we searching for in "quantum gravity"?
 
What do they even mean by "gravitation" here, anyway
Is it covariant or canonical or I don't know
Let's see
 
3:33 PM
@Slereah Reading the paper and tracking down the references seems to say they indeed mean usual Einstein gravity.
 
@ACuriousMind Hint: if a twenty year old paper by a nobel laureate is "solving" (in a physical sense) a major open physical problem, then everyone by now should be aware of it
 
@yuggib Which is why I say "I must be missing something"
 
@ACuriousMind "Usual Einstein gravity" isn't really trivially quanticized
 
@Slereah This is not about trivial quantization, it's about applying the full BRST procedure to the gauge-like formulation
 
Quantization usually happens on a foliation
Trying to read but it's pretty hard on a monday
I can barely even work
Also I think I built way too much caffeine tolerance over the past year
Apparently it takes 2 weeks to 2 months to get rid of
Not gonna be a fun winter
either that or I need to go full Erdös and start taking amphetmines
 
3:40 PM
What
 
@Slereah You're thinking of doing canonical quantization. The antifield formalism for BRST doesn't use a Hamiltonian formulation, it stays purely Lagrangian and hence covariant.
 
What is that formalism
 
And now these people are saying the antifield formalism for Einstein gravity leads to a renormalizable quantum theory
 
I remember Weinberg talking about that.
(That formalism)
 
@Slereah I could not explain it to you because I skipped that part, but it is e.g. in chap 17/18 of Henneaux/Teitelboim
 
3:44 PM
Is this Henneaux
 
So now I'm wondering what exactly do we mean when we say we don't have a quantum theory of gravity. The standard answer is "the quantization of GR is (perturbatively, at least the standard arguments talk about loop orders) non-renormalizable", but if it is non-perturbatively renormalizable, as these papers seem to indicate, then what, exactly, is the problem?
 
Well because theories are rarely done non-perturbatively
Because it is hard
 
Yeah, but e.g. low-energy QCD is also almost completely non-perturbative. That doesn't mean it's a bad theory.
It's still a "theory of low-energy QCD", even if it is hard to extract answers from it
 
Well yes
The current theories are also not a problem at low energy
It is quite expected that semi-classical gravity, tree level QG and even one or two loops will be fine
(although we still need experimental data for that)
It would just be nice if we could have a theory valid at all orders
 
Hint: quantum mechanics is wrong.
This solves pretty much all of modern physics.
 
3:52 PM
Discretization of spacetime would be a nice way to solve all that renormalization bullshit
Too bad it doesn't seem to work with current experimental data!
 
@Slereah So, what is the reason to say QG is not valid at all order? Because it is non-renormalizable, right? But the Gomis/Weinberg paper says it shows that all semi-simple Yang-Mills theories and gravitation are renormalizable in the sense that there exist counterterms that cancel every infinity. The only hole I can see there is the assumption that a non-anomalous regulator exists.
 
Well nobody said it wasn't
BUT
You had to prove it first!
 
the only hole that I see is that everything of that is not even remotely mathematically rigorous
 
Doing it perturbatively didn't pan out
Doing it non-perturbatively took a bit more work
 
:-P
 
3:56 PM
@yuggib wow
 
Although to be fair I seem to recall some guy proving it like 5 years ago
Wasn't it Weinberg who proved it?
Or DeWitt
Maybe a different thing I dunno
Something like that
Asymptotically safe quantum gravity or something
 
12
Q: How do we know that nonperturbative canonical quantum gravity is wrong?

user1247In these forums and elsewhere it is routinely agreed that "we do not have a theory of quantum gravity." My question is, how do we know that canonical quantum gravity is "wrong"? I understand that the theory is perturbatively nonrenormalizable, but doesn't that just mean that we can't apply pertur...

@yuggib QFT isn't rigorous to begin with, that's not really a fair objection here ;P
 
Asymptotic safety (sometimes also referred to as nonperturbative renormalizability) is a concept in quantum field theory which aims at finding a consistent and predictive quantum theory of the gravitational field. Its key ingredient is a nontrivial fixed point of the theory's renormalization group flow which controls the behavior of the coupling constants in the ultraviolet (UV) regime and renders physical quantities safe from divergences. Although originally proposed by Steven Weinberg to find a theory of quantum gravity, the idea of a nontrivial fixed point providing a possible UV completion...
There's rigorous QFT
It's just no fun to work with
 
@ACuriousMind QFT can be rigorous, simply we don't have many interesting results at the moment
 
@yuggib why does everything have to be rigorous
 
3:59 PM
Also it's not easy to have interesting rigorous QFT
 
What has rigor ever done for physics
 
Free fields aren't too hard to do
Adding gauges is another thing
 
@0celo7 because if else even John Duffield can be right :-P
or at least not wrong
 
Duffield is correct
 

« first day (1915 days earlier)      last day (3030 days later) »