« first day (2099 days earlier)      last day (1221 days later) » 

12:01 AM
"$^\rho \Bbb R$ and $\hat{\Bbb R}$ are isomorphic and $\hat \rho$ is a scale for $\hat {\Bbb R}$"
Aw yis
I need to read up more on archimedean fields, me thinks
 
I must be absolutely insane
What is happening
Is a compactly supported $n$-form with 0 integral automatically exact on $\Bbb R^n$??
Oh
I think this is trivial
Just view the problem as a sheaf cohomological non-archimedian field
biject it onto a Coulembeau algebra on a functorial category topos
@Slereah you know about this stuff, right
Ohhh, you need the differentiation under the integral sign rule
 
Oh god there's monads involved
 
That rhymes with gonad
 
12:38 AM
I hate algebraic topology.
 
apparently a monad in non-archimedean fields is like
A point + all the points infinitesimally close to it
and it is an open set, apparently
 
Holy god Bott & Tu's definition of the Euler class is disgusting
When a definition takes a page, you know it's bad
$$e(E)=-\frac{1}{2\pi\mathrm i}\sum_\gamma \mathrm d(\rho_\gamma\,\mathrm d \log g_{\gamma\alpha})$$
...that's crazy
That's literally nuts
Oh, but it makes functoriality trivial
$$\Phi=\mathrm d\left(\rho(r)\frac{\mathrm d\theta_\alpha}{2\pi}\right)+\frac{1}{2\pi\mathrm i}\mathrm d\left(\rho(r)\pi^*\sum_\gamma\rho_\gamma\,\mathrm d\log g_{\gamma\alpha}\right)$$
 
1:33 AM
Since most of the big extensions of the reals are isomorphic that should make the whole Hilbertoid space easier
 
shouldn't you be in bed
 
I'm a grown up
I do my own bedtime
I can eat candy all day if I want
 
but you're already fat
 
'fraid not
I ain't American
 
Australia and Mexico are fatter than America, bub
 
1:35 AM
Mexico has more overweight and obese than the US
But the US has more super fatsos
 
I never said you're super fatso
Just pudgy
wtf they don't even define what $\Lambda^qT^*M\otimes E$ means
oh god module tensor product
@Slereah found a copy of that Hadamard book in the library
 
for a used copy
 
Eh, used, new
Not a lot of difference
 
One might have semen on it, the other won't
Pretty big difference, imo
 
1:48 AM
Which one, though
Also who jerks off to an analysis book
 
Non-standard analysis seems pretty hipster
Probably any hipster who reads it, honestly.
 
hipsters do love ultrafilters and cofinite sets
 
what's an ultrafilter
 
It's the largest filter
 
what's that
 
1:51 AM
A filter is a subset of a partially ordered set
 
@Slereah hmm, why is it called a filter
 
Not quite sure
The propety is like
If $x$ is in the filter, and $x \leq y$, then $y$ is in the filter
 
...
what is $y$
 
and for $x,y$ in the filter, then there's a $z$ in the filter such that $z \leq x$ and $z \leq y$
$y$ is another element of the set
 
Take $\Bbb N$
if $1$ is in the filter, is the filter $\Bbb N$?
 
1:55 AM
3
Q: Definition of the integral in non-standard calculus

GregRosIn the sources I've seen, the integral is defined in non-standard calculus as the hyperreal extension of a function related to Riemann sums. E.g., Let $$ S(\Delta x) = \sum_{a}^{b}f(x)\Delta x$$ be a function of a Riemann sum where $\Delta x$ is the length of each partition. Then let $S^*(\Delta...

 
I'd say so, yes
 
What the hell are filters good for, then
 
not quite sure
Hence why the book should be read
 
It's probably prerequisite knowledge, fam
 
We'll see
IIRC the important thing is that one :
In mathematics, the Fréchet filter, also called the cofinite filter, on a set is a special subset of the set's power set. A member of this power set is in the Fréchet filter if and only if its complement in the power set is finite. This is of interest in topology, where filters originated, and relates to order and lattice theory because a set's power set is a partially ordered set (and more specifically, a lattice) under set inclusion. The Fréchet filter is named after the French mathematician Maurice Fréchet (1878-1973), who worked in topology. It is alternatively called a cofinite filter because...
That's how you define the hyperreals
 
1:59 AM
is z always get sandwiched by x and y since $x \leq y$ and x,y, in the filter but z is less than x and less than y?
 
No, those are different properties
 
@Secret best not to ask him about filters
 
ok
 
let him read the book
 
also it's a poset, so if x and z, and y and z have a relation, there's no guarantee that x and y have a relation
 
2:00 AM
then maybe we can get some straight answers
 
whenever I see topology, I start thinking about venn diagrams of some sort
 
venn diagrams make the topological world go round
 
noncommutative probabilities of quantum, however obeys a different logic that cannot be represented by venn diagrams (although that's still fine because I think in columns)
One reason I struggle a lot with analysis is because series don't look like columns
 
Is it, you insane man
 
I could probably get you banned for that insult
Be nice.
 
2:05 AM
That is not an insult
I sincerely believe he is a crazy man
 
Not nice
 
Well, at least that's how I understood that PSE link about noncommutative probabilities

"Think in columns" means tend to find things simpler when represented by matrices, which is good for matlab coding
68
A: Why is the application of probability in QM fundamentally different from application of probability in other areas?

Valter MorettiThe theory of probability used in QM is intrinsically different from the one commonly used for the following reason: The space of events is non-commutative (more properly non-Boolean) and this fact deeply affects the conditional probability theory. The probability that A happens if B happened is ...

An example of something that cannot be easily phrased in columns is: Expand (a+b)(c+d-e^2+exp(f))
and that's where I often made my careless mistakes in computation (e.g. missing out terms)
But hopefully as I continue to study I will eventually get better because non chunky things like analysis have a lot of fun things to play with (e.g. investigating the properties of some PDEs)
 
I'm trying to get some concepts straight in my head and I'd appreciate any clarification or references. I'm trying to tie Maxwell's demon together with some computational complexity arguments. It seems like there might be an argument to be made that if Maxwell's demon could simulate the system faster than it takes to let the system evolve (by using some NP-complete oracle, say) then this would be a violation of conservation of energy
Is this totally off base? Does anyone have suggestions on how to formalize what I'm getting at or have any references?
 
2:21 AM
@user834 I only found an arxiv paper that mention both topics, but does not seemed to have something that fits exactly your description
 
Secret, I've done google searching (including Physics SE search) and haven't found much
 
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-computational-oracle-physically-possible.529995/
Related
 
QUOTE wikipedia
In an abstract setting we can generally say that a projection is a mapping of a set (or of a mathematical structure) which is idempotent, which means that a projection is equal to its composition with itself. A projection may also refer to a mapping which has a left inverse. Both notions are strongly related, as follows.

Let p be an idempotent map from a set A into itself (thus p∘p = p) and B = p(A) be the image of p. If we denote by π the map p viewed as a map from A onto B and by i the injection of B into A, then we have π.i= IdB. Conversely, π.i = IdB implies that π∘i is
...
Visualisation give the feel of something, but it is abstraction that lay out the bare bones of what is truly relevant
 
Tfw a book says something you have literally no clue how to prove
Not even a slight idea
Huh, I wonder if transition functions of a bundle vs. its dual are inverses.
 
@secret, thanks, good find. Not exactly giving answers but a step in the right direction
"In 1982, Bennett showed that, however well prepared, eventually the demon will run out of information storage space and must begin to erase the information it has previously gathered."
 
3:35 AM
 
SLEEP
 
 
2 hours later…
5:52 AM
@Obliv the Schwartzschild metric doesn't transform smoothly into the Minkowski metric as you take the mass to zero because the Schwarzschild metric has a point (the singularity) missing.
However no real black hole has a geometry described by the Schwarzschild metric.
I think any real black hole will deform seamlessly back into Minkowski spacetime as it evaporates.
 
 
1 hour later…
7:07 AM
@Obliv : you might want to read up on Hawking radiation.
 
user54412
7:31 AM
> HOW is my question OFF TOPIC? I clearly stated that I NEED help
4
 
8:27 AM
@ChrisWhite Best defense on the SE network I have ever heard in a while.
@0celo7 I am not quite sure what the question is, but transition functions of the dual bundle are just dualizations of the original transition functions.
But I feel like you know this.
If you equip the bundle with a Riemannian metric, then under the inner product on each vector space fiber, your map becomes the transpose (after identifying $\hom(V_x, \Bbb R)$ with $V_x$). Well, inverse of the transpose (because range and domain gets switched), but whatever.
 
 
2 hours later…
10:09 AM
-1
Q: Policy on asking questions in physics

don_Gunner94In the stack overflow site where people post questions on programming, it makes sense to have a policy where the question asked should state the efforts made by the asker to solve the problem and the problems he is facing in that implementation. But should this policy be applied to the the Stack ...

 
 
2 hours later…
12:19 PM
@BalarkaSen I need to calculate the transition functions of $\Lambda^n T^*M$, and am failing.
 
@heather This edit is really not quite there physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/271398/2
If you're going to edit, and particularly if you're going to do so regularly, do make sure you get everything that needs to be fixed in one go, and you don't introduce further errors.
(In this specific case it's the minor error \Pi → \pi, plus some formatting. But if you're doing unilateral edits, you need to be on point.)
no sweat, of course ;-)
 
:D
-1
Q: Why universe is not what we think it is?

Blue SoniqLet us assume that universe is 14 billion years old and that we look at the most distant stars that existed 14 billion years ago. Logic tell us that these stars should be very very young, maybe we should see only gas. But we see old supernovae probably many more times bigger than our sun and they...

 
Quite clear
 
OHHHHHH
USE THE POINCARE LEMMA
@Slereah I'm about to dive into the world of sheaves.
God help us all.
 
12:36 PM
maybe when you come back
you can tell me what the hell a sheaf is
 
you still owe me an explanation of a filter
and you still haven't sent me Shouten
 
"If $z\in B(x, r)$, then $B(z,r) = B(x,r)$"
Ultrametrics are weird
 
$\ot$
hmm
$\rightarrow$ $\to$
$\leftarrow$
 
$\uparrow$
 
Jim
@0celo7 As a cosmologist, I feel the world owes me a dollar for every time someone says the big bang was an explosion that happened at a specific point in the universe. Just to cover the cost of the mental damage they do to me. And because then I'd be stinking rich
 
12:43 PM
To be fair, it's your own damn fault
Why did you call it the Big Bang
That's what Fred Hoyle called it and that guy is a douche
 
@Slereah No sheaves, just presheaves.
> In this section, the MV sequence will be generalized from two open sets to countable many open sets
WHAT
wtf
 
Jim
@Slereah That was a joke that was taken too literally. I'm not happy but that's the name now
 
@Jim Horrendous space kablooie, then?
 
@EmilioPisanty That's a much better name
HSK
 
12:56 PM
Seriously, I've seen a bunch of on-and-off complaints that 'big bang' isn't a great name, but I've never seen any reasonable alternative.
 
Big expand everywhere
 
@0celo7 that's terrible
 
@EmilioPisanty why
@Slereah sheaves??
 
@0celo7 How is it different from the stuff after the big bang?
 
@EmilioPisanty what
 
12:59 PM
@0celo7 never mind
 
@0celo7 Understanding this diagram will definitely require me to understand the concept of sheafs, otherwise it looks like a bunch of points connected by arrows in some kind of "space" with p and q as the "axes"
 
Jim
@EmilioPisanty Hot Expansion Era? Cosmic Origin Theory?
 
Oh
@EmilioPisanty Really fast expand everywhere, then slow down
I think that should address your issue
@Secret Actually, this has nothing to do with sheaves, yet.
 
ok
 
We have a doubly graded differential complex with two differential maps
 
Jim
1:05 PM
@0celo7 that's a perfect name for the big bang theory
no layman could possibly understand it and so none of them would misuse it
 
I'm a layman
 
Jim
lies
 
I don't have a technical degree -- that makes me a layman.
 
Jim
you're an amateur, not a layman
 
No, an amateur is someone who does not have a PhD, but does have a degree.
Layman --> amateur --> professional
 
Jim
1:07 PM
a layman is an uninitiated someone
 
The maps here are called "degrees"
 
Jim
you're an enthusiast
layman: a person without professional or specialized knowledge in a particular subject
(yes, I had to google it. Let's just move past that point)
 
"The p-adic numbers were discovered by Hensel at the end of the 19th century as a tool in number theory. Today, those numbers play a key role in many areas beyond number theory – among those areas are algebraic geometry, analysis, p-adic physics, p-adic quantum mechanics, representation theory, and many others."
p-adic QM
Gross
 
I never understood the properties of prime numbers.
to be honest, abstract algebra is less abstract than number theory
 
1:35 PM
@Slereah there is also adelic QM
 
@yuggib What do you think about making QM with a non-archimedean Hilbert space
Since there's an embedding of distributions in functions of generalized scalars
does that sound like a slice of fried gold
 
Quick interjection: let's have some eyes on this to see if it deserves to be reopened after having been edited
0
Q: Time it takes for proton decay to break a pillar

Albert BetonPicture a horizontal concrete pillar resting on two supports (one at each end). Assuming the pillar is only affected by a constant force $F=1N$ (applied to its center of gravity)and proton decay (big hypothesis, I know). Could proton decay eventually break the pillar into two pieces? If it do...

 
@Slereah no
 
You don't know QM
Go back to manifolds
 
I do know some QM
 
1:48 PM
Say 5 things about QM
 
It's Jewish
 
Wrong
Max Planck wasn't jewish
nor De Broglie
 
Einstein was
States are rays in Hilbert space
 
Einstein didn't work a lot on QM
 
They evolve via the Schroedinger equation
Born rule
Harmonic oscillator has bound states
Angular momentum is a multiple of 1/2
Do I win?
 
1:50 PM
Wrong
Anyons can have arbitrary angular momentum
Wait, can they?
I'm not sure
 
That's not QM you dummkopf
 
What's the angular momentum of anyons
 
Jim
6
 
It so is QM
 
There are couple of clarification questions one can ask him or put into the equation in the answer:

1. How thick is the pillar in terms of number of protons (that will also require knowing what material the pillar is made of)

2. Is the proton decay localised at one section, or all over the pillar in some random manner

he have given a simplification on the model on how he treat the atomic bonds and such as system of springs, thus the answer need to address how these bonds weaken when protons convert slowly into other particles
 
1:54 PM
@Slereah In 3 dimensions, angular momentum is a multiple of 1/2
 
Better
 
Ah, nice and gold now
 
Wait
 
(cont.) As a molecular chemistry problem, it will be quite hard to simulate, but as a newtonian mechanics problem, perhaps it might be tractable
 
What's the spin of the continuous spin representation
 
1:55 PM
anyons can have any value for their spin, that's what I remembered
 
Jim
2:08 PM
There's too many users around now. Whenever a good question I want to answer comes along, someone else gets to it and says almost the same thing I was going to before I even get a chance to read it. But more than that, all the terrible new posts to old questions are deleted before I get a whack at them. That used to be my favorite sport
Feels like us part-time users with busy real-world work are becoming obsolete
 
2:24 PM
I remember that Feynman was like telling that circular motion is like a combination of two orthoconal oscillations, along ix axis and along y axis. But, I wonder how do I get a harmonic oscillation by squeezing the circular motion into elliptic (I can do that reducing the y-oscillation energy). I see that there must be a zero acceleration when x-oscillation crosses the origin. But, it will be opposite in case of gravity because two bodies will be at 0 distance in the origin,
the attraction force will be infinite.
 
is the metric expansion of space logarithmic
 
depends on the metric
 
@Obliv assuming you man the FLRW metric, then it depends on the equation of state of whatever is filling the universe. None of the known stuff produces a logarthmic expansion.
@LittleAlien With two bodies orbiting each other in elliptical orbits the bodies sit at a focus of the ellipse not in the centre. So it isn't useful to try and model it using two SHOs.
 
@johnR so is it a linearly accelerated expansion?
 
@Obliv for dark energy the expansion is exponential $a(t) \propto e^{Ht}$.
For normal matter in a flat universe we get $a(t) \propto t^{2/3}$ I think.
14
Q: How does the Hubble parameter change with the age of the universe?

John RennieHow does the Hubble parameter change with the age of the universe? This question was posted recently, and I had almost finished writing an answer when the question was deleted. Since it's a shame to waste the effort here's the answer anyway. Maybe this can be one of the canonical answers sugges...

^ Just feed your equation of state into the integral.
 
vzn
@MarkMitchison are you done ~sept? later? how about celebrating with a speaker session on it & while its fresh in your mind :D
@Jim we could certainly use you for a speaker session whaddya say :)
 
3:09 PM
@Slereah You are weird.
 
Why are mathematicians awful
Todorov gives an axiom saying that there's an embedding of distributions in functions on generalized scalars, but he gives no representations for it
What am I supposed to do with it
 
3:40 PM
True or false:
 
FALSE
 
Gravity is a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime due to any object that has a mass energy
@0celo7 You jumped the gun
 
I read your mind
 
Naturally. Do you stick by your original answer?
 
No
 
3:44 PM
Yay
 
4:01 PM
@NoahP : LOL. The answer is FALSE. The tidal force is a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime due to some concentration of energy.
 
@JohnDuffield And the gravitational attraction between two bodies is not?
 
Nope.
 
Oh, I want an explanation for this one
 
Look at my avatar.
 
whoa
what is that
I haven't seen that in my textbooks
 
4:06 PM
@JohnDuffield Care to elaborate?
I was under the impression that the tidal force is a secondary effect of gravity
 
The curvature you can see in this Riemann curvature tensor depiction is spacetime curvature. But light doesn't "follow the curvature of spacetime". It curves where spacetime is tilted. The force of gravity is the first derivative of potential, the tidal force is the second derivative of potential.
 
Oh lol, I thought I was wrong for a second. @NoahP the curvature is the obstruction to flatness, so a nonzero curvature tensor means nonflat, which means nonzero first derivatives.
 
@0celo7 @JohnDuffield So how would you correct the original statement?
 
@NoahP define gravity
 
Gravity or gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all things with energy are brought toward (or gravitate toward) one another, including stars, planets, galaxies and even light and sub-atomic particles. Gravity is responsible for many of the structures in the Universe, by creating spheres of hydrogen — where hydrogen fuses under pressure to form stars — and grouping them into galaxies. On Earth, gravity gives weight to physical objects and causes the tides. Gravity has an infinite range, although its effects become increasingly weaker on farther objects. Gravity is most accurately described...
 
4:11 PM
I don't want a wiki page
 
Okay
Well
The force between the earth and an asteroid, that causes the two bodies to move towards each other
 
@NoahP : to be honest I'd relegate the curvature of spacetime. It isn't actually why light curves or why your pencil falls down. You won't find Einstein saying that. Funnily enough I've just written an introductory chapter on gravity. Here's a little excerpt from it...
LIGHT DOES NOT FOLLOW THE CURVATURE OF SPACETIME
This is why light does not follow the curvature of spacetime. You can appreciate this if you zoom in on a section of the plot. If we represent a light beam with a yellow line, it curves wherever there’s a gradient in gravitational potential. That’s where the grid lines are tilted as opposed to curved:
The force of gravity and so the curvature of light is greatest where the tilt is greatest. The tilted light-cones in this Stanford singularities and black holes article are another way of depicting the same thing.
Alternatively you can emulate the tilt with a piece of stiff board. Lift one side up, and roll a marble across it. It follows a curved path because the board is tilted, not because the board is curved. It’s similar for the room you’re in. The force of gravity g is 9.8 m/s² at the floor and at the ceiling, so there’s no detectable tidal force, and so no detectable spacetime curvature. But your pencil still falls down.
 
Im slightly confused as to why everything else ive read says that curvature of spacetime results in gravity
When i say curvature, i mean a non-flat spacetime
 
It's because you need some curvature to have some tilt. If you don't have any curvature your rubber-sheet Riemann-curvature plot is as flat as a pancake. Like the top image here:
 
what is the difference between 'tilt' and 'curve'
they seem synonymous
 
4:20 PM
^ yeah
 
@Obliv you're too smart to listen to this man
 
@Obliv : lift one side of a flat board and it's tilted but it isn't curved. Now roll a marble across it. The path is curved.
 
@0celo7 help.. i forgot my wallet at home so i can't get lunch and my exam is in 3 hours ;(
i hate taking exams hungry
@johnD That is contradictory. The path is clearly a straight line angled downward.
 
I think this needs a question
 
@Obliv : lift the left hand side of the board up so it's like this \ and roll the marble forwards. It's path curves down to the right.
 
4:27 PM
so what if the board isn't a flat one, and instead when tilted it looks curved?
explaining gravity with either tilt or curvature is the same business
something is being deformed negatively with the mass at the end of lower potential
 
@Slereah Not even an example or even some abstract statement on what the embedding look like? That's sounds so Axiom of Choice to me (in that whatever proved to exists by AC, cannot be explicitly constructed)
 
that's a common math thing
Although he does use Robinson's hyperreals as a representations of generalized scalars
 
0
Q: Is gravity due to the curvature of spacetime?

Noah PHaving looked at this question online, multiple sources overwhelmingly support the statement that 'Gravity results from the curvature of space-time due to mass-energy'. However, discussions on the H-Bar (See here in the chat logs) have led to me doubting this. So, is the above statement correct...

 
Which isn't that hard to show since they're basically all isomorphic
 
@Obliv : I'm not sure what you're driving at. If you have a floppy board and you lift one end, the local slope of the board denotes the force of gravity, whilst the local curvature of the board denotes the tidal force.
 
4:32 PM
ok, that's better than the vagueness shown to exists by the axiom of choice, at least there's still something "tangible" to work with
 
19
A: How does "curved space" explain gravitational attraction?

John RennieIf you have a look at my answer to When objects fall along geodesic paths of curved space-time, why is there no force acting on them? this explains how on a curved surface two moving observers will appear to exprience a force pulling them together. However two stationary observers will feel no fo...

might also be useful
 
@JohnDuffield But surely if you have no mass in a universe, there are no gravitational forces, and also no curvature of spacetime - the two are ilinked?
 
12
Q: How do I calculate the (apparent) gravitational pull with General Relativity?

MalabarbaAssume a static metric with (known) components $g_{\mu\nu}$. I'd like to know what is the gravitational pull $g$ of a test particle placed on an arbitrary point $X$. The gravitational pull being defined as the acceleration the particle suffers as measured by an observer sitting in a reference fr...

 
@noahP You can't measure curvature of spacetime afaik
 
But you know that with no mass-energy, there is no curvature?
The magnitude is irrelevant
 
4:35 PM
how do you know that? according to GR sure
 
Is that not a prediction of GR?
Mass-energy results in curvature of spacetime
 
@NoahP : they are linked, but there's an issue of cause and effect. A concentration of energy in the guise of a massive star "conditions" the surrounding space rendering it inhomogeneous in a non-linear way. This is modelled as curved spacetime. Light curves and your pencil falls down because space is "neither homogeneous nor isotropic", not because "spacetime is curved".
 
Two masses will gravitate towards each other
 
I have to go I'm afraid.
 
@JohnDuffield Would you mind submitting a formal answer later on?
 
4:38 PM
No problem, but Wednesday night is roast chicken dinner night. It will have to be tomorrow I'm afraid.
 
@noahP Theory is meant only to explain observation and withstand experiment. It can surely predict situations but without experimental evidence you can't know anything that a theory predicts.
 
Haha okay, thanks @JohnDuffield
@Obliv Okay, but thats just being perdantic
 
@JohnDuffield hm, I don't like that phrasing, but all these things are not especially well defined anyway
 
@David Z : that's what Einstein said. See this answer for the exact quote.
 
@NoahP No, I'm telling you that GR is only a theory. gravity breaks down at the quantum level so if you can claim space-time curvature as the reason for why masses gravitate towards each other, can you explain why we can't observe such behavior from particles?
 
4:40 PM
If I say yes, will you give me a nobel prize?
I've also gotta go now, would appreciate answers to the question on SE though
thanks!
 
you'll have to not only explain it, but prove it ;)
cya
 
4:58 PM
@NoahP Hi Noah, are you still around?
 
 
1 hour later…
user54412
6:06 PM
@NoahP fyi just about everything said in the above conversation is false. Don't think too hard trying to make sense of it.
 
Jim
@vzn a speaker session? (sorry for delay, got new computers at work today. Just setting up)
 
@ChrisWhite Pretty sure what I said was correct.
 
vzn
6:24 PM
@Jim yeah as you may have noticed everyone has been recruited from in here so far. you have masters in physics? cosmology? good enough! :) the Phds are ("even") more busy & harder to recruit :|
 
Jim
@vzn I'm more curious about what this session is
 
vzn
@Jim have you been following? more info in meta posts/ transcript. we've had 2 so far & 3rd with DS is scheduled. slereah (masters) did the 1st. think of it like thesis presentation if you are interested/ have time
 
Jim
I'm not sure if I'd have the time
 
vzn
@Jim ok np. we are doing them about 1/mo and next mo is ~sept. plz keep it in mind & let me know if you chg your mind, think youre qualified & ppl would find it interesting :)
 
Jim
obviously I have no problem with an "ask me anything" session. I know my cosmology fairly well. But my job requires me to be away from my computer most of the time
 
vzn
6:29 PM
@Jim no kidding? sounds a bit strange/ unusual wrt typical jobs which are more the opposite. (what is it?)
 
Jim
I'm basically a lab technician right now. I'm constantly debugging, fixing, creating, and maintaining physics experiments
 
vzn
@Jim ok. its only 1 hr session it goes by fast but it is during US working hrs. could possibly schedule it at other time at your convenience. cosmology is a big topic in here, lots of cool stuff going on, am sure your pov would be worthwhile to share
 
Jim
We'll see. I suppose I could do it during a lunch hour
 
vzn
@Jim ok cool :) ... am gonna blog about it soon & theres the meta posts etc
what kind of experiments are you working on?
 
Jim
Right now I'm trying to redesign my own franck-hertz experiement
the one the university had is frustratingly uncooperative
 
vzn
6:34 PM
ok interesting sounds like great topic. did a few std physics experiments as undergrad long time ago... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franck%E2%80%93Hertz_experiment
@Jim re a somewhat relevant topic wrt this site/ room etc
 
Jim
6:56 PM
if you tell me he is you...
 
 
2 hours later…
8:31 PM
@DavidZ : Noah's question has been closed with a reference to an alleged "duplicate" where all the answers are wrong because the question is wrong. And we have posters saying "just about everything said in the above conversation is false". That's not nice. IMHO your intervention is required here. Please ensure that Noah's enquiry is properly addressed.
 
can you provide a link? :)
 
@Sanya: here it is. Noah started a conversation earlier this evening then asked a question. Now I've got some time to answer it I find it's closed as an alleged duplicate of a question that confused curved spacetime with curved space, and where the answer, by the person who closed Noah's question, is totally wrong.
 
thank you :)
 
Sigh.
Bye.
 
see you :)
 
9:29 PM
ICHEP 2016 has begun!
 
particle physics is overrated
 
10:13 PM
@JohnDuffield (1) wrongness has no bearing on whether a question is a duplicate (2) saying that something is wrong is perfectly within our policy on civility. Nothing for the mods to do here.
 
10:55 PM
Guys
For two points in a non-archimedean fields, with a distance that isn't infinitesimal, is it possible that the monad of those points intersect
 
11:16 PM
"It is the intersection of all of the standard neighbourhoods of p"
Hm
I think not
 

« first day (2099 days earlier)      last day (1221 days later) »