00:00 - 16:0016:00 - 00:00

12:05 AM
@EmilioPisanty It was about that review. I was just interested in why you voted that way. But when I looked closer I saw that you had already explained your thinking so the question was moot.
I apologize for bothering you unnecessarily.

12:41 AM
@BalarkaSen I have a result about negatively curved Riemannian manifolds, I want to lift to the universal cover and somehow get information on the torsion elements
Apparently I'm not supposed to have any
It's not at all clear why this is
I first need to know what the torsion elements represent, geometrically

1:32 AM
Hi everybody!
> science, like art, is thought of as an end in itself, not merely as means to an end.
Again, I dismay of this being posed as fact.
I think the motivations of people doing stuff are not universal.
@ACuriousMind You say "...is thought of..." as if the entire body of scientists and artists share the same inner motivations.
This is, obviously, not true.
I can't tell if I'm misreading your meaning; this could all be an instance of ambiguous meaning due to the inaccuracies of English.
@ACuriousMind I disagree with that :-)

1:50 AM
@DanielSank That is in response to a claim that it is done because of the material benefit stated is similarly bald terms.
Of course that is generally one of the major reasons that policy makers and tax-funded agencies give money to the project.
National greatness and staying ahead of the [bad guys of the moment] also being up there.
I suppose that private research money mostly goes to things with nearer term expectations of possible pay off. Certainly the money that kept Dad in research for most of his career did.
But the motivation of the individual and the motivation of the policy maker may be very different.

@DanielSank hey! are you married now? how about a blog on your trip? :)
@DanielSank this reminds me a lot of cp snowes famous essay on "the two cultures" urge everyone to read it
@ACuriousMind actually it is now scientifically proven that substantial evolution/ selection can occur over fairly short timescales in the human race eg as recently found with milk (in)tolerance... on the order of only ~10K years or so

@dmckee An overgeneralized assertion is not justified by the existence of a contradictory overgeneralized assertion :)
@dmckee The key word is may.
I think @ACuriousMind has this idea that (all) scientists do science for science's sake, which is utterly false.
@vzn Funny you should mention that.
How to make a blog?
I'd love to know.

@DanielSank lol youre literally a quantum physicist :P ... just go to wordpress, think its probably the easiest site... let me think that one owned by yahoo is very easy too watchamacallit

@vzn Mehhhhhhhh wordpress crappy code something something.

another option, 0celo7 has one, he could make you a guest writer on it
you dont have to install any code for wordpress. is that what youre talking about? its all in the cloud. it also has decent latex fmtting. even code fmtting capability (although really hate it at moment)... etc
hey can you update that meta post with links to the 1st 2 talks sometime? or make it wiki if youre too busy & then can update it myself?

2:05 AM
@vzn Ok will make wiki.

oh yeah the yahoo blog site acquired was tumblr its probably even easier than wordpress but more limited
so how many wks were you on vac/ travel anyway?

However, I'd like to ask just one thing: some times I've noticed you write somewhat verbose and punctuation-lacking stuff on your posts. I would just ask that we keep that meta post concise and clear :-)
...
I don't see the community wiki checkbox...

@DanielSank yeah everyones a critic esp you :P ... its your post, will not chg wording, dont worry. planning to do a meta post of my own after your talk & lets see how many ppl downvote it for punctuation o_O

Uh... ok I take it back... can't wiki-ify it.
@vzn No No I just mean sometimes like in comments I've noticed run-on sentences etc.
No big deal!

why cant it be wikied?

2:07 AM
I just think it's important for that post to be short and clear.
@vzn Don't see the check box :\

@DanielSank and we all know how important grammar/ punct are... as they all say 1st impressions matter! ...in chat :P

@vzn Haha, for example the comment on that meta post :D

@DanielSank rats am not thinking its not possible dont see it in another meta either, thats lame

@vzn I've done it before though...
Oh, it's only for answers, maybe.
See here
I have an idea.

actually maybe my problem is just dont have enough rep to edit meta posts yet. see that other sites seem to allow meta editing with my rep

2:11 AM
@vzn No dude, I can't wiki it either.

@DanielSank not sure thats a great idea. you can edit it right?

But I've wikied other meta answers. See the link I just posted.
@vzn Yeah, I can edit.

@DanielSank how about just edit it for now & its up to me to get more rep etc

LOL are you paying attention to anything I'm saying?
I cannot make it a wiki either but I have made a meta answer a wiki.

@DanielSank ofc dude. am not saying to change it to wiki (any more). you can edit your own question right?

2:15 AM
@vzn Oh, you don't want wiki any more. Ok.
I'll edit it if you can give me the appropriate chat link :)

oh the answer can be wiki? maybe that is a solution. strange that the question cant be wiki, dont get it
maybe 1 answer with all the talks is an acceptable approach, just dont think separate answers for each talk is a great idea
@DanielSank sigh ok will dig up the exact links

Thanks
done

:)
ps did you see that link posted on the reddit AMA on quantum computing? impressive
and was looking up their history on wikipedia, its rather incredible/ astonishing.. once obama did one, etc

@vzn No!

am presuming you have heard of that lab some (small world etc)

2:32 AM
We were mentioned there?

@DanielSank ?

@vzn Oh I misunderstood what you said.

2 hours later…
4:55 AM
@ChrisWhite Hai

user54412
hi

user54412
how's them olympics?

user54412
I hear the drama is picking up

Oh it's awesome
Lot's of hot tourists
I couldn't care less if it's all catching fire

user218912
i'm obe again!!!

5:10 AM
@3507?

user218912
yeah this was my old name from last year

user218912
exactly 1 year ago.

user54412
@BernardMeurer wait I thought people went to Brazil because the locals were hot (or at least scantily clad)

user218912
some weirdo neighbour of mine went there to find a wife.

user218912
@BernardMeurer no, 3750... a.k.a. 3075, 3570, 3507, 0537.

user218912
5:24 AM
baiii

5:37 AM
are you guys excited for ICHEP?

@GPhys What has happened?

conference hasn't happened yet, no official results
you can find the usual rumor mill online though

@GPhys Somewhere I've read that the 750GeV big brother of the Higgs was only an early hope :-(

@ChrisWhite The natives aren't my type
I like my women the same way I like my workload: skinny
@obe wtf
@GPhys Are you excited?

unfortunately (?) I have access to one of the experiments' internal conference notes so it's probably not appropriate for me to comment on the rumor mill directly (?)
@BernardMeurer Yeah, I always enjoy listening to the talks at the bigger conferences
they're usually slightly less technical than the internal/group discussions so they're easier for me to follow

5:43 AM
@GPhys What are the rumors currently?
Where are you going to grad school again?

in New York
I got into Stony Brook & NYU and chose one of those
:P

Cool, (late) congratulations on that!

(well, I got into some others, but they were all lower on my list)
(and nothing to write home about)

I've heard good things about NYU
Although I'm not a reference

they hosted ATLAS week this summer
but Stony Brook is almost definitely considered the better overall physics school it seems

5:51 AM
Which one did you pick?

it's a secret ;)

Oh pleeeease, I only want your organs

on a side note, NYU offered nearly 3 times as much money as Stony Brook
but Stony Brook's went way up after you went to RA from TA

The plot thickens

Stony Brook's really wasn't great for the TA pay given where they are in long island (expensive area)

5:52 AM

research assistantship / teaching assistantship

Ah, less cool

user218912
what is a radical agnostic supposed to be?

user218912
agnostics don't have any idea what they're doing.

@obe Someone very intense about not knowing what's going on

5:54 AM
I'm gonna lose access to my CERN account/email/internal notes in a couple months :(

@GPhys Why?

user218912
reminds me where did flp disappear to?

user218912
(fenderlespaul)

account access is finite, was from my association with a CERN experiment through my undergraduate reserach
I'll probably get it back next summer when I start doing research in grad school (but maybe not, depends what research I'm doing)

@obe He wont reply to my snapchats

user218912
5:56 AM
for how long?

\o/
although it will stop the torrential downfall of CERN emails I get

user218912

user218912
oh well

7:33 AM
558

Why is Stack Overflow so negative of late? I hate to pile on, but I couldn't resist summarizing the problem. And I apologize ahead of time for any potentially offensive language that I might use. Basically there are 4 camps of users on Stack Overflow: The "caretakers" who want to keep the...

It helped me a lot to understand, how things are going also on the PSE.

lol

7:51 AM
@0celo7 as a lot of very fashionable stuff
B-)

8:27 AM
@GPhys I was offered a scholarship for a physics PhD at SUNY stony brook but I did not accept it...Europe rocks

8:59 AM
I watched from the sidelines during your argument with ACM, and I have to say I think you have an undeservedly negative view of this site. As someone born well before the Internet existed it is astonishing to me that teenage physics nerds can come here and get information about physics from real live working physicists. As a teenage physics nerd in the 70s I would have sold my gtandmother for a resource like this.

It has always been the aim of the PSE to be an authoritative source for information about physics. In the early days we hoped it would be a research resource but the reality is t

9:11 AM
We continually get complaints from people who think we should allow homework questions. Well there have been several attempts to set up Stack Exchange sites for physics or indeed general science homework questions and they have all failed even to reach the beta stage. They failed because it's unrewarding to answer homework questions from people who generally never even say thank you. The sites couldn't attract enough members who actually know what they're talking about.

This site has managed to attract and keep a core of knowledgable people willing to put in the effort to answer questions,

9:28 AM
Actually, I am waiting this.

9:45 AM
@DanielSank Ah, phrase that the other way around: I have the idea that no scientist is purely motivated by the practical applications. Insert "solely" in front of every "because", are you okay with that statement then?

@JohnRennie o.k. I've laughed as I've read that post, and I've thought you also will.

@vzn "Be lactose tolerant or starve/be malnourished" is an extraordinarily strong selection pressure. Strong selection pressures can lead to fast evolution - but a) there's (to me) no evident strong pressure for specific human behaviours, especially since cultures are constantly changing and b) still, for any given aspect of an organism it's a priori doubtful it is the result of selection as opposed to neutral drift.

@JohnRennie I didn't initiate a debate about the site mod customs now, I only showed an interesting article about the main sociological structure.

(And c): How much of human behaviour is genetic and how much "trained" is unknown, as far as I know)

9:50 AM
I didn't think it was particularly funny, though I thought it was a good analysis. You need to bear in mind that when people ask questions on Stack Overflow they are generally being paid to solve the problem they're asking about. That makes it a very different dynamic to the PSE.
And I would note that ending up in state 4 is precisely what we all want to avoid.

@DanielSank I would be very interested to see evidence for your claims! I'd be perfectly happy to agree with you that there is a significant evolutionary aspect to human behaviour (the part that's different from fundamental mammalian behaviour) if there's evidence that supports it. But in the absence of evidence, I prefer to err on the side of caution.

@JohnRennie Which is obviously not popular in the eyes of (2) and (3).
@JohnRennie But they love eachother, it is their game.
@JohnRennie I admit, it is absolutely not so high level game, as the game of (1), but they can't better.

@yuggib ? All their physics PhDs are funded

Rep whore is a wonderful phrase, but I doubt many (any?) people here have absolutely no concern for their rep. Your reputation is a proxy for the respect in which you are held, and only the most determined misanthropes genuinely doesn't care what others think of them. So we all have a bit of the rep whore in us.

I wish my rep was higher so my downvotes counted

10:02 AM
I don't think it's a bad thing if people were driven to answer by their desite for a higher rep provided their answers contribute positively to the site. And assuming their quest for rep works that means site members think the answers do contribute to the site.

I have stopped caring about rep. I'll start picking some up in the next winterbash.

I'm less impressed when people answer blatant homework questions, but I don't know of anyone here who specialises in answering homework, though somewhat embarrassingly I have a gold badge in the home-and-exercises tag :-)

@JohnRennie From this view there are really big differences between the sites. As I experienced, the SO is full with green rectangle addicts. The SF is a closed, paranoid voting circle. In the case of the PSE, I think you are mainly right, at least in the case of (1).

There are huge differences between sites - they have very different cultures.

@JohnRennie Well, the whole point of the gamification through the point system is that there's a direct (mainly positive) feedback loop disjoint from the abstract desire to "help people" whose feedback pipeline is far less reliable, isn't it?

10:05 AM
@ACuriousMind well yes, and I don't consider that a bad thing.
We're both intermittently annoyed by the biasing effect of the HNQ list, but that's a minor aggravation.

@JohnRennie It isn't - it seems to work amazingly well on some level, judging by the constant expansion of the SE network

@peterh bear in mind I wasn't just responding to your link to that answer. I was responding to your earlier argument with ACM.

@JohnRennie Unfortunately, negative feedback is difficult to reconcile with the idea of gamification, I think. If the positive feedback can be nullified or even reverted quickly, it becomes less of a game and more of a critical evaluation - something less appealing to that primal part of us that the instant gratification of a green +10 speaks to.
There's a reason they don't show red -2 when you're downvoted - you have to go actively looking for that

@JohnRennie Ok. One of the comments points that eliminating (1) would be also a viable solution.
@JohnRennie In the case of the MO-MathSE split, they are actually on different sites. The result: the MO has active Big Names, while the MathSE is in top3 of the network.

10:12 AM
The psychology of the MathSE escapes me. It's wildly successful but I don't understand why.
2

@JohnRennie But it is only possible on a contract between the SE and volks of the MO. The SE seems trying to minimize its sites, and probably believes in the indirect control through a group of CMs.
@JohnRennie Because they allow (2) and (3) to play.

There have been several attempts to set up science homework SEs and all have foundered because they couldn't get enough good people to answer.
Though it would be an interesting experiment to see what would happen if we refocussed the PSE to be homework oriented. NB interesting \ne good!

@JohnRennie We're "rarely if ever expressible as a ratio of integers"

-1

As the title suggests, I would like to hear everyone's opinion on who should be allowed to downvote. I have seen youngsters downvote good answers simply because they could not understand it. They should instead request a clearer explanation rather than downvoting. What do you think ? Should the r...

@JohnRennie A bunch of users would leave and a giant influx of homework questions would happen. The only interesting thing I see is whether the people willing to answer them could keep up

10:18 AM
@PhysicsMeta lol at the downvote on that

@JohnRennie I've toke part a lot in the area51 as well. On my impression, the actually started sites mirror more like the preferences of the SE Inc, as the community support behind the initiatives.

@ACuriousMind I'd leave too! Still, I'd be curious if the site would have a long term future in that form. The MathSE does.

@JohnRennie And the SE Inc won't many sites. The MO-MathSE split is a special exception.

There was a Theoretical Physics site that was the physics equivalent of the Math Overflow. It closed because there simply wasn't the traffic to support it. That wan't the SE Inc being snarky, it genuinely didn't get the traffic.
2
I suspect that at research level maths is a nicer place than physics in terms of researchers sniping each others work, and that's why maths researchers are more willing to post on the MO.

@JohnRennie MO has a different history - it wasn't started by SE, it was started by mathematicians. That populated it with rather different users at the beginning.
The SE area51 process means that new SE sites are mostly populated by users from other already existing SE sites
And only after these sites manage to get a few questions in that rank highly on Google, they start to attract outside users

10:27 AM
Well we started with a fair few big name physicists. However they wouldn't discuss their own work and they quickly got bored with answering questions from students so they drifted away.

@ACuriousMind A similar site could be started by physicians. I would be happy to read their posts and they try to understand them with others on a MathSE-like site.

@peterh the attempt was made and has largely failed.

@JohnRennie Maybe a next try?

@peterh there's no point trying the same thing as Physics Overflow since that failed. So what would you try instead?

@JohnRennie I don't know the PO enough well, if they are professional site, I think it is better if I let them in peace. As I let the MO also in peace.

10:30 AM
I just don't think the culture amongst physics researchers lends itself to a site like MO.

@JohnRennie But, on my opinion, the Theoretical Physics shouldn't have been killed.

@JohnRennie I'm not sure who you're thinking of - the only really big names I've seen are 't Hooft and Shor, and the former seems to have left after that strange thread that was actually discussing his work, the latter is still around, but after all more on cstheory than here. And we don't know how many big names are among us anonymously, after all

@peterh Theoretical Physics was dying in the same way that Physics Overflow is dying. I can't find it in my heart to criticise SE for pulling the plug. After all they are a commercial organisation and they have to make a profit. If they don't then none of the SE sites exist and we all lose.

@JohnRennie Maybe because physics is important? It is high science, in the objective reality. Everybody knows it and it causes often... not enough cooperative social structures to born.

Which bit of After all they are a commercial organisation and they have to make a profit did I fail to make clear? :-)

10:36 AM
@JohnRennie Every site starts hardly. I think, with time it had been better. They committed some mistakes, too, as I know. A low-traffic SE site doesn't mean real cost for the SE Inc, on my opinion.

The SE aren't a charity and it's unfair to expect them to be. You're criticising them for not being what you want them to be, but that isn't what their shareholders want them to be.
Good grief!
0

Is there a scientific explanation for planetary and star formation? If you don't give details in your response, you only prove that you don't know what you're talking about.

@JohnRennie I'm not sure that there are SE shares, but you're right about their for-profit aspect nevertheless.
@JohnRennie I was highly tempted to VTC with "I'm voting to close that question because I don't know what I'm talking about".

@ACuriousMind I would guess they're venture capital funded.

It's difficult to search for because all I get are money.SE questions :D

@ACuriousMind :-) I was also tempted to say something sarcastic, but I doubt the OP cares.

10:43 AM
@JohnRennie It surprises me that PSE is full of trolls (I mean, orcs @ACM) like that. The amount I think is far greater than MSE comparatively, given the fact that MSE gets more traffic.

@BalarkaSen It is because physics is important.

@BalarkaSen yes I agree. I think it's because maths has a high barrier to entry while many people have watched a physics documentary on the Discovery Channel.

Yeah.

Actually I don't criticise the MathSE for allowing homework. It seems to me (as someone who didn't do a maths degree) that worked exercises are a much bigger part of a mathematicians education than they are for a physicist.

I hope they won't broadcast Numberphile in near future.

10:47 AM
@BalarkaSen But...in this case "trolls" was correct! Aaaaaaaaaaargh! ::goes into orcish rage and searches for new picture::

Sometimes we get insulted after we post answers. Insulting us before we post our answers is something new. Off to help someone else then! — David Wallace 58 secs ago
lol

"Watches The Big Bang Theory. Thinks he knows astrophysics. Realizes astrophysicists don't know crap about what they are doing."

@JohnRennie This is true, but the reason of their success is that they allow (2) and (3) to play.

Well doing worked exercises is a good way to learn, and we do get questions where the OP is genuinely trying to learning by doing an exercise. I don't mind questions like that, but the problem is reliably distinguishing them from homework cheats.
NB my view on worked examples is on the liberal side of the distribution. How many sigmas out I am I don't know :-)
@JohnRennie now deleted. Shame really :-)

10:59 AM
@JohnRennie If somebody really wants, he can be a repwhore also here, but it is much harder here. Answering MathSE questions, is like a dream. You go after the questions, and answer, answer, answer. On the PSE it doesn't work, because 1) most of the answers can be much better answered by HQ users. A 2nd grade equation can be solved by anybody, and it will be an O.K. solution. A trivial question like "how planets form" will have significantly different quality answers from me, and from you.

One of the stranger comment threads I've seen on our meta...

@JohnRennie If somebody really wants, he can be a repwhore also here, but it is much harder here. Answering MathSE questions, is like a dream. You go after the questions, and answer, answer, answer. On the PSE it doesn't work, because 1) most of the answers can be much better answered by HQ users. A 2nd grade equation can be solved by anybody, and it will be an O.K. solution. A trivial question like "how planets form" will have significantly different quality answers from me, and from you.

I heard you the first time :-)

@ACuriousMind lolwut

@BalarkaSen I think rob is having fun, but I can't tell for sure, he's being so wordy!

11:05 AM
I've just been bitch slapped by ACM!! :-)

@JohnRennie 2) On the PSE, you take away the meat from the repwhores. And also from the vampires. While they are working hardily to produce content ( ;-) ) their questions are closed and this makes impossible to answer them. The result: both (2) and (3) goes away. And (1) starts to elevate the quality limit, because there is always something to moderate (= delete)

@JohnRennie hmmmm?

-3

If F = ma, F/a = m If acceleration is 0, does it mean that mass is infinite ? Note : I am a applying a force of very less magnitude - so less that the force is absorbed by the particles of the object and the object does not accelerate. If F = 0 = a, Does it mean that mass is not defined ...

I just thought you misread the question trying to make it more meaningful than it is - and I thought I'd let you know. One of us has a non-standard meaning of "bitch slapped", I think

@peterh which is good! But where I came in was you complaining that we were trying to turn the site into something like the Math Overflow.

11:08 AM
Irrelevant, but isn't photon massless?

@BalarkaSen it is

@BalarkaSen photons are surprisingly elusive objects. You need to be very careful when making broad brush statements about photons.

@JohnRennie No, I WANT a MO-like PSE. And also I WANT a MathSE-like PSE. I want BOTH. But I don't get any of them.
@JohnRennie Well, on a MO-like PSE I would be only a visitor.

Yeah, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If they are massless (@ACM confirms, so I guess it is), photolectric effect then becomes hard to interpret.

But I don't get any of them - unsurprisingly really since those demands are mutually contradictory :-)

11:10 AM
But I don't know any physics, so...

@BalarkaSen photolectric effect then becomes hard to interpret - eh?

@JohnRennie This is my big problem. And probably I am not alone with it.

@BalarkaSen are you finding yourself puzzled how a massless particle can carry momentum?

Right.

@BalarkaSen What if they have rest mass, but it is $<10^{-18} eV$?

11:12 AM
I was writing essentially that in a long-winded way in response, good that you brought that up in a short way.

91

As an explanation of why a large gravitational field (such as a black hole) can bend light, I have heard that light has momentum. This is given as a solution to the problem of only massive objects being affected by gravity. However, momentum is the product of mass and velocity, so, by this defini...

hehehehehe

@ACuriousMind oh you bugger!!

I mean, I "know" $p = E/c$, but I don't understand it. I'll read the answers though.

@JohnRennie And, if a MO-like PSE is impossible, then the rational optimum would be the MathSE-like PSE. And it means, (2) and (3) should be allowed to love.

11:15 AM
Perhaps I didn't make clear just how FRAKKING AWESOME I think the PSE is in its current form.
in its current form

OK, I went though the first two answers and it doesn't seem to address my particular confusion. I am "aware" of $E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4$ and how one formally manipulates this to $p = E/c$ for $m = 0$. But given $E/c$, $E$ being the photon's energy, how do I interpret that - directly - as the momentum?
Why should it be the momentum? What's an obvious physical - not symbolic - reason?

@ACuriousMind damn, I did misread the question trying to make it more meaningful than it is

@BalarkaSen I'm not sure what you mean by "directly" - are you familiar with the classical concept of momentum for the electromagnetic field?
this thing with "momentum" being unintuitive is not a quantum phenomenon - already in classical EM one has to ascribe momentum - both linear and angular - to the electromagnetic field to have momentum conservation

@ACuriousMind I was asking how to intuitively recognize that as momentum. No to the second question.

You can refuse to assign such a momentum on ontological grounds (Like "that's unintuitive"!), of course, but that just breaks momentum conservation and has no benefit.

11:19 AM
@BalarkaSen I suspect the problem is that intuition is born of everyday experience, and everyday experience tells us the impact of a moving object is related to its mass and should go to zero as the mass goes to zero.
But relativistic mechanics isn't an everyday experience so we have no intuition for it.

In essence, we have decided that for both energy and momentum, defining them to be conserved is far more useful than defining them to conform to our intuition.

That intuition is only gained by much blood, sweat and tears.

Fair enough. Admittedly I don't know anything about physics; I do mathematics and there I mostly interpret everything on intuitive grounds rather than formally. I have found it harder to do for the few random things I have heard of physics.

The main barrier for students new to QM and relativity is abandoning their preconceptions. It's hard!
But then I remember a time (in primary school) when I knew that multiplying numbers together made them bigger, and I couldn't understand how multiplying something by a fraction could possibly make it smaller.

heh

11:27 AM
Oh well, I have to go sort out lunch ...

12:03 PM
0

On the meta question What does everyone mean by "insufficient research effort"?, in the third note below the question, user Chris White says Explicit mobile links (e.g. en.m.wikipedia.org) are a scourge on the internet and should be fixed. Later, in the comments, user Emilio Pisanty says ...

@BalarkaSen the main way to see $E/c$ is momentum is dimensional analysis, the units are those of momentum, to see it more clearly - if this was classical mechanics, $E = \frac{1}{2}mv^2$ and $c = v$ so $E/c = \frac{mv^2}{2v} = \frac{1}{2}mv = \frac{1}{2}p$

Eh yes, but just an equality of unit doesn't feel satisfying.
I have seen this sort of explanations before though, admittedly in different contexts

But why not? You clearly just have a scalar multiple of momentum when the units are those of momentum

Because this, after all, is no more than a formal or symbolic manipulation. This doesn't convey any physical meaning, to me.

@bolbteppa That doesn't work. Torque and energy have the same unit, but neither is a multiple of the other.

12:28 PM
@vzn

@ACuriousMind That is incredibly incredibly misleading, torque is a vector quantity, energy is a scalar quantity, in the strict SI system where angle is not given a dimension answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090427104719AA7HhMI to turn it into work as a line integral you integrate it against a dimensionless parameter physics.stackexchange.com/a/36085/25851 so it is entirely consistent,
if you actually include radians as a dimension torque is more accurately a bivector physics.stackexchange.com/a/37890/25851 and the line integral (scalar) still produces the correct energy quantity

@peterh : as Danu said, no field is the same in the whole universe.

@bolbteppa Right back at you: E/c is a scalar quantity, momentum p is a vector quantity. If the argument doesn't work for torque and energy (it doesn't!), then it doesn't work for E/c and p, either.

1

The site says we are no longer accepting questions from this account when I try to submit a question in physics section. I don't even have a bad reputation. All I asked was one single question which got me two upvotes. So I don't even know why I'm being targeted or something like that.

@BalarkaSen All I can say is to try to figure out why it makes sense and to find out why it should be intuitive, a lot of things can be derived by dimensional analysis instantly, the Bohr radius instantly following from the Hydrogen hamiltonian via dimensional analysis being a cool example

12:38 PM
@BalarkaSen : what we're dealing with is energy-momentum. Forget about scalars and vectors, and think about a cannonball coming at you at 1000 m/s. It has considerable kinetic energy, and momentum. But these are merely two sides of the same coin. One is effectively a measure of stopping distance, the other is a measure of stopping time. You divide by c to go from one to the other. And you cannot reduce the cannonball's kinetic energy without reducing its momentum.

@JohnDuffield And the Higgs field?

@BalarkaSen : a photon has energy-momentum but it has no rest mass because it has an E=hf wave nature. It's never at rest, and you cannot make it go faster or slower like that cannonball, so mass does not apply. That might sound odd, but think about a wave in the sea. It conveys energy-momentum and it can knock you over. But it has no mass, because the water has the mass.
@peterh : sorry, what about it? Guidice said it's only responsible for circa 1% of the mass of matter. E=mc² accounts for the rest. For example, when you trap a massless photon in the gedanken mirror-box, you increase the mass of that system. But the Higgs field is not responsible for this mass increase. Matt Strassler said it isn't responsible for the Higgs boson mass either:
"Now it is true that the W and Z particles, the quarks, the charged leptons and the neutrinos must get their mass from a Higgs field. It’s not possible for them to have masses any other way. But this is not true of the Higgs particle itself."

2 hours later…
2:36 PM
@JohnDuffield you misread the quote by Strassler: He is saying that it is in principle possible to give mass to the Higgs in different ways. Nevertheless, the mass of the Higgs does come from the Higgs mechanism.
Note the word "must" in the quote.

@Danu oO
What do you mean, "the mass of the Higgs does come from the Higgs mechanism"?
To me, the Higgs mechanism is how a non-zero scalar VEV induces masses of massless fields that would ordinarily be protected from acquiring mass

2:56 PM
@ACuriousMind...and the field parametrizing fluctuations around the minimum (the field usually called $h$) also acquires a mass.
...I just mean that its mass also comes from the Higgs potential (which is kind of a tautology)

Well, but it had a mass to begin with (it was tachyonic) - it just shifted. I wouldn't call that "getting a mass from the Higgs mechanism", but I suppose that's a matter of taste

As opposed to its mass coming from any additional input. This is why we could predict the Higgs mass.
I would, because it's a normal mass, not a tachyonic one
Also the main point is the above: the Higgs mass is not due to something different from the quartic potential---it's part of it.

I'm back. Lunch now successfully prepared and consumed!

what did you have?

3:15 PM

looks yummy

That's a pizza with chopped Polish sausage and fried eggs on top, and it was delicious :-)

:-)
four eggs is a bit high on the cholesterol count, no?

I eat healthily during the week, so I can afford a cholesterol binge at the weekend :-)

Four eggs is standard

3:24 PM
for you?

Sure

:-/
do you exercise it off?

What's that

@ACuriousMind what I meant by scalar multiple is the $\frac{1}{2}$ when you do $E/c = \frac{mv^2}{2v} = \frac{mv}{2}$, for the magnitude of torque you can do dimensional analysis too, I don't understand what the issue is

@user685272 four eggs is about 300 calories, which is about 12% of the daily dietary requirement. You don't need to exercise off.
Although those eggs were fried in butter, which adds a calorie or two :-)

3:36 PM
@bolbteppa My issue is that just like dimensional analysis doesn't tell you that torque is energy, it doesn't tell you that E/c is momentum, either. That E/c is half the momentum of a massive body moving at the speed of light in Newtonian mechanics where the speed of light is nothing special doesn't to anything to convince me that E/c should be the momentum I associate to a massless particle in relativity.

And they're probably small European British eggs
European civil war when?
When the south tried to pull a UKIP they got #rekt

well, 4 ostrich eggs would definitely be over 12% of the daily dietary requirement :-)

They were large eggs, where in the UK large means between 63 and 73g. In the USA that would make them Very Large/Extra-Large.
@ACuriousMind do you mind, we're talking about eggs here :-)

Ya! and the chicken, which came first?

@ACuriousMind dimensional analysis does tell you (the magnitude of) torque is energy (per angle) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque#Units Dimensional analysis does tell you $E/c$ has dimensions of momentum (also dimensional analysis ignores the $\frac{1}{2}$ factor...) How do you prove that $E/c$ has dimensions of momentum?

3:46 PM
Speaking of large things, I've been doing my weekly blog reading session and I see the 750GeV particle has now been ruled out. Shame.

@bolbteppa I'm not debating the statement about dimensions. Yes, E/c has units of momentum. That in itself doesn't mean it has any simple relation to the actual momentum of a particle with energy E moving at c.
You have to do more to establish that E/c really is momentum to avoid being this guy
4

lol
that xkcd is gold

pure

I don't understand what that means, I don't think I am doing the same thing as that pic

@bolbteppa Then I must have misunderstood your argument. From where I'm reading, you appeared to be saying that because E/c has units of momentum and checks out to be momentum in a different circumstance, it should also be the momentum of a massless particle in special relativity.

3:51 PM
You said $E/c$ has units of momentum, well as long as you don't deny $E$ has units of energy, then you seem to be denying that $[p] = [E/c] = [E]/[c]$ is allowable

So, to clear this up, tell me what the proper exegesis of
4 hours ago, by bolbteppa
@BalarkaSen the main way to see $E/c$ is momentum is dimensional analysis, the units are those of momentum, to see it more clearly - if this was classical mechanics, $E = \frac{1}{2}mv^2$ and $c = v$ so $E/c = \frac{mv^2}{2v} = \frac{1}{2}mv = \frac{1}{2}p$
is, if not what I just said.

Is $[p] = [E/c] = [E]/[c]$ correct or incorrect, it's as simple as that, all I did was write this non-relativistically in what you just quoted, literally as simple as that

It's correct. But it doesn't tell you that $p\propto E/c$.

Obviously I wrote it non-relativistically to try and make it more physically intuitive, technically $c \rightarrow \infty$ non-relativistically
I agree, I never said that

@bolbteppa In response to
4 hours ago, by Balarka Sen
Eh yes, but just an equality of unit doesn't feel satisfying.
you said
4 hours ago, by bolbteppa
But why not? You clearly just have a scalar multiple of momentum when the units are those of momentum
If you didn't mean that equal units imply $p\propto E/c$, I'll stop saying that now - but then you sure didn't address @BalarkaSen's actual question at all.

3:55 PM
The way to see that $E/c$ is momentum is because it's units are momentum, whatever scalar multiple it actually is is another question, I said "scalar multiple" to say that just because you have $\frac{1}{2}$ $mv$, that does not detract from the fact that it is a momentum
That is unbelievable
@ACuriousMind "I was asking how to intuitively recognize that as momentum", by showing that it is in units of momentum I completely answered how it is intuitively a momentum, what's your problem?

Recognizing the units to be that of momentum is not sufficient to recognize it as momentum, is the point.

Well it should be, welcome to real physics

Sorry, I don't care about real physics when it gives garbage logic.

I can give you a better explanation using Lagrangians if you want it

Sure, I will be happy to listen to it. Ping your stuff with my name, I'll see it in the morning - I have to leave in a bit.

3:58 PM
@bolbteppa What? Not everything that has units of momentum is momentum that was my whole point with torque and energy!
In particular not everything that has units of momentum participates in momentum conservation, which we really should take as the definition of being a momentum.

The magnitude of torque is energy per angle, as a vector quantity it is a completely different concent and that rings true in the fact that it is really a pseudovector not a vector, sloppy thinking to conflate torque with concepts like momentum!

00:00 - 16:0016:00 - 00:00