« first day (2717 days earlier)      last day (2210 days later) » 

7:00 PM
maybe there's no issue
yawn, idk
 
conceptual errors should be slept on
unless its really important
to you
 
Running out of time, only a year left
 
7:17 PM
@dmckee: how about this?
Question: Does light really travel more slowly near a black hole?

It is a routine problem for beginners in general relativity to calculate the coordinate velocity of light for the Schwarzschild metric. Starting from the metric:

$$ ds^2 = -\left(1-\frac{r_s}{r}\right)c^2dt^2 + \frac{dr^2}{1-\frac{r_s}{r}} + d\Omega^2 $$

We use the fact that light travels on a null geodesic so $ds^2 = 0$. This immediately gives us for a radial light ray:

$$ \frac{dr}{dt} = \pm c \left(1 - \frac{r_s}{r}\right) \tag{1} $$
 
@JohnRennie Worth a try. It is certainly less baroque than what I did.
 
Hi there
I have a particle physics question
Do hyperons have protons and pions as their final decay products?
The reason I ask is because a textbook is unclear about the particles, only calling it baryons
 
'the exterior derivative $d \omega$ of an $r-$form $\omega$ of a tubular neighbourhood $U$ of a manifold $M \subset \mathbb{R}^n$, is the $(r+1)-$form defined by $d \omega(\dots $' why tubular?
 
'cuz it looks like a tube
It's a fact that if $N \subset M$ is a submanifold of any manifold there is a neighborhood $U$ of $N$ which looks like a disk-bundle on $N$.
So, it looks like $N \times D^k$ where $k = \dim M - \dim N$, but twisted
That's called the tubular neighborhood
(As an example of when it can be twisted, consider the central circle of a Moebius strip. There is no neighborhood of that dude which looks like $S^1 \times (0, 1)$ - they're all that with a twist)
 
I would appreciate it if somebody could answer my question. Thanks!
 
7:29 PM
I can't but I starred it, so whoever can will see it
Even if the chat scrolls up and away
 
I gotcha
 
vzn
@JohnRennie (nice) are you going to post that? suggest your answer incl that it has nothing to do with black holes per se but is a simple result of a gravity center. & cite the ("relatively recent") atomic clock experiments. the same general result (but not the same math) holds for any gravity well.
 
Lee gives a pretty cool motivation for tubular neighbourhoods
Differential forms do look tubular alright, that's a fair point
 
7:48 PM
 
That explains everything...
 
Anonymous
@SirCumference If you get the time, just go through the first lecture of this series. I'm still drooling over the clarity of the lecture.
 
8:17 PM
@Blue Thanks, but I might be better off taking a course in topology, to get a more in-depth understanding
 
Anonymous
@SirCumference Sure
 
9:04 PM
\begin{align}
D_{\mu} A^{\nu} &= \partial_{\mu} A^{\nu} + \Gamma^{\nu}_{\rho \mu} A^{\rho} \\
\Gamma_{ {\color{red} \mu \nu}}^{\rho} &= \frac{1}{2}g^{\rho \lambda} (\partial_{ {\color{red} \mu}} g_{ {\color{red} \nu} \lambda} + \partial_{\color{red} \nu} g_{ {\color{red} \mu} \lambda} - \partial_{\lambda} g_{{\color{red} \mu \nu}}) \\
\Gamma_{ \lambda \, {\color{red} \mu \nu}} &= \frac{1}{2}(\partial_{ {\color{red} \mu}} g_{ {\color{red} \nu} \lambda} + \partial_{\color{red} \nu} g_{ {\color{red} \mu} \lambda} - \partial_{\lambda} g_{{\color{red} \mu \nu}}) \\
That's most of the useful stuff as condensed as I can get it for now
(Some of the colors are off for no reason, not in my tex)
 
@Turbo A hyperon is a baryon (three-quark state) containing at least on strange quark and no heavier flavors.
The low mass hyperons are the $\Lambda$s, the $\Sigma$s, and the $\Xi$s (often called "cascade"), with the $\Omega^-$ not too much heavier. Excitations exist.
If you track any normal matter baryon long enough the ending state of all decays has to include a proton, so your only question is if the decay includes pions.
Hint: nearly all hadronic decays include pions.
 
9:29 PM
@BalarkaSen so deep has me teared up every time
 
@skullpatrol I feel like hbar is worse...
 
vzn
@G.Bergeron so have you heard of others (professionals) opinions on verlinde? is your sense that some of what he is doing may tie in with GR + QM unification? (agreed defn a core question of modern physics, although many day-to-day physicists may not care for Big Pictureâ„¢ type questions...)
 
hi @SirCumference
 
@eulB Hey
 
watcha doing
 
9:37 PM
Astronomy homework, you?
 
the usual
 
@vzn My personal opinion that is not consensual at all is that the structure of GR is slightly different than standard gauge theory when framed in terms of differential geometry. Moreover, the intuition from GR is that gravity is not really a force and rather a pseudo-force. Hence, as much as it was logical to pursue a quantization à la QFT (which nominally leads to standard string theory), it seems not to be the most direct approach to the problem.
 
vzn
@G.Bergeron ok. then what is a more direct approach? does any of your work touch on GR + QM? so you work with other physicists right? heard any others opinions on verlinde?
 
@vzn In view of this, I feel like frameworks that earmark gravity as something different than the other fundamental forces are worth a deeper look. As I tend to be fond of placing information itself at the forefront of physics, I am naturally inclined to find entropic approaches interesting.
 
vzn
9:40 PM
@G.Bergeron but does verlinde "earmark" gravity? not sure if he does or doesnt wrt that distinction...
 
@vzn The opinions I've heard go from crackpot to interesting, but be aware that most do not even care/know it even exists.
@vzn He just frame it as an entropic force
And there are still problems with his approach
 
vzn
arguelles seems to get a lot of (popsci) coverage too, need to buy his book, hes looking into similar areas, any reactions on his directions?
 
@vzn I am not familiar with his work
 
@SirCumference say what
 
@eulB No idea...
I didn't post anything
 
9:46 PM
wait
you don't see that?
empty message
 
@eulB No I see it, no idea where it came from tho
 
let me flag it
@Everyone let's get @SirCumference's mysterious empty message to 30 stars.
 
That's not an empty message, it has 3 unprintables in it
 
you can do GR kind of as a gauge theory, but not really
There are some fundamental differences
 
wait
no way
last year i tried using blank characters in a message and it would not post.
 
9:50 PM
Figured it out, I was trying to reset the cache on the page but apparently cmd+alt+ctrl+shift+R makes a blank symbol instead
(on mac)
 
DC2 followed by 2 SUB characters
 
@Semiclassical "The course may reappear on the course catalogue for the Spring semester in 2019. Please check its availability later on this year." :'(
 
@vzn Yes I do work with physicists, but my main work does not concern GR + QM as it is bad for grants (yes, one has to be pragmatic sometimes) but rather mathematical physics. However, I do spend some of my time on those questions at a serious level, but mostly on the QM side of things. A close friend is working on issues with the merging of QFT and GR.
 
@eulB Why flag it?
 
because i am offended by the void
 
9:51 PM
@Semiclassical Now I'm down a class. Dunno if I should take it as a sign
 
@vzn An easy to bring the problem to forefront, without talking about blackholes or extreme energies is when thinking about thought experiments coupling a quantum measurement to the position of macroscopic masses.
 
vzn
@G.Bergeron are you saying by associating gravity with entropy it gives it a new distinction wrt other forces even more than previously?
 
You see, GR is kind of an all encompassing theory that ''puts its tendrils in anything you want to put in space''.
@vzn No, it just puts it to the forefront.
@vzn By pushing frameworks, you can almost describe everything as entropic, a gauge theory, etc. Now, the question is if this is helpful or not.
 
vzn
yeah it seems like there is some new thinking on dark matter etc, found the news re anomaly galaxy (with none) interesting... it seems like some fundamental properties of the universe are not well understood. space.com/40119-ghostly-galaxy-almost-no-dark-matter.html
 
@vzn I have some reservations with respect to dark matter if you understand the term as positing a new kind of matter...
 
vzn
9:57 PM
@G.Bergeron yeah its pretty mysterious and who knows
 
@vzn Well of course it is mysterious, but what I wanted to say is that the option of new particles is less and less attractive in view of recent results at the LHC. On the gut feeling level, I always have this irk along the line of which observations couldn't you fit with a source term you can't detect via other interactions than the one it is a source for. As a counter-argument, there is the role dark matter plays in the current cosmological model.
@vzn Do keep in mind this is not my area of specialization, though.
It certainly made sense to evaluate the simplest possible explanation, that being that there are new particles, and try to detect them. But yeah, at the end of the day, we rely on GR to infere DM on scale where it hasn't properly been verified. I'm not saying it is wrong, just pointing at issues making the arguments in favor of DM less strong then it might appear so.
At the end of the day, I'm all for exploring diversified avenues.
 
10:20 PM
@G.Bergeron It is? Last I heard (just a couple of months ago) there's a distinct possibility of a discovery of a Z' boson. Of course, they only had it at the 3.[something] sigma level, so not a discovery, but a strong indication, alongside a few other things also pointing in the 'same direction'
 
@Mithrandir24601 Last time it happened it turned out to be a statistical fluke, let's wait and see...
 
 
2 hours later…
11:55 PM
There should be an emoticon for that rolling ball of desert weed...
 
roll weed everyday-dee-dub-dee-daaayyyy
 

« first day (2717 days earlier)      last day (2210 days later) »