« first day (3163 days earlier)      last day (1749 days later) » 
04:00 - 16:0016:00 - 00:00

4:35 AM
@OneMug if you mean me then I'm afraid I still think the question is off topic.
 
@JohnRennie OK. I just thought a tag of "Estimation" actually meant "Estimation". That doesn't seem to be true in this universe.
 
@OneMug the ideal question for the PSE is one that illuminates some important physical principle. Aerodynamics is based on many such principles and we have lots of related questions on the site. But it's not clear to me why calculating the energy consumption of crow flight fits this description.
Note that this is of course just my opinion, but then my close vote is just one of five. Apart from a few special cases I have no power to unilaterally close or reopen questions.
 
link please :-)
also, in other news, I wonder when the questions about the new property of light will start?
\o @NovaliumCompany
 
@skillpatrol that is Emilio's paper. It has already been asked about.
 
@JohnRennie thanks for the info
 
4:50 AM
@JohnRennie A civil conversation. Thank you! Having been a practicing physicist, I have learned that the skill of estimating something that seem kinda "off the wall" is an ABSOLUTE must! I have spent literally years reviewing all sorts of proposals for research grants of one kind or another. The ability to see thru the muck to find a more familiar model to make quick calculations (estimates!) against was essential. ...
 
Hey @skillpatrol I thought of another alternative username for you: skirl petrel. :)
 
@OneMug I worked as a colloid scientist and I agree with you that in our everyday lives pragmatic approaches are essential. It's just that the long term vision of the PSE is as a sort of repository of information for physicists - in principle all physicists though in practice it's physics students who are the biggest beneficiaries.
 
@OneMug Fermi estimation is certainly a useful skill that should be encouraged.
In physics or engineering education, a Fermi problem, Fermi quiz, Fermi question, Fermi estimate, or order estimation is an estimation problem designed to teach dimensional analysis or approximation, and such a problem is usually a back-of-the-envelope calculation. The estimation technique is named after physicist Enrico Fermi as he was known for his ability to make good approximate calculations with little or no actual data. Fermi problems typically involve making justified guesses about quantities and their variance or lower and upper bounds. == Historical background == An example is Enrico Fermi...
 
@JohnRennie As this site puts forward the image of a place to LEARN, I feel that learning estimation is one of the practical, useful things that could be effectively done here, while it doesn't ever seem to be done in most academic environments. This question "How far can a crow fly?" was my first "serious" introduction to the skill of estimation. I was blown away about how far my estimation of this site off the mark!
@JohnRennie and @PM2Ring. ... And that introduction was over 50 years ago!. And isn't Fermi also the scientist that jinxed every lab he walked into?
 
5:01 AM
whelp, the question wasn't even taken seriously at yahoo answers
no offense intended :-)
 
Maybe you're thinking of the Pauli effect.
I doubt that Fermi was a jinx. AFAIK, he was excellent at both theoretical and experimental work.
 
21 hours ago, by Emilio Pisanty
Chicago Pile-1 (CP-1) was the world's first nuclear reactor. On 2 December 1942, the first human-made self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction was initiated in CP-1, during an experiment led by Enrico Fermi. The secret development of the reactor was the first major technical achievement of the Manhattan Project, the Allied effort to create atomic bombs during World War II. Although the project's civilian and military leaders had misgivings about the possibility of a disastrous runaway reaction, they trusted Fermi's calculations and decided due to time pressure to carry out the experiment in a densely...
> experiment led by Enrico Fermi.
 
@PM2Ring Yup, your right, it was the Pauli Effect. Thanks, I just looked at the clock and it's after midnight here. That must be why I got crossed up with the names there.
 
No worries.
 
thank goodness Pauli didn't walk into CP-1
 
5:13 AM
That woulda been really bad!
 
@OneMug I didn't see your Q&A before you deleted it, but I guess from what's been said here & on Physics Meta that it's essentially a worked example. And Physics.SE doesn't want to be a repository of worked examples. This ties in closely with the homework policy. Personally, I think worked examples can be very instructive. But if we permitted them that would make it difficult to close all the no-effort homework dumps that we get.
Also note that "check my work" questions, where the OP obviously has expended effort are also off-topic.
 
@PM2Ring No, it was not a worked example exactly. I worked out a solution to that question as an undergrad in the 60's, and lost the solution to mother nature (a tornado). But when it looked I was not going to get any answers, I redid my solution so I could post my own and came up with a MUCH better solution than back then. Took a couple of days to type up. But whose going to see it now?
@PM2Ring Certainly, "check my work" should be off topic. I've been successful physicist longer than many of you have been around! This WAS NOT A CHECK MY WORK project! Where do you all get the idea from that everyone who comes here is some flake? It's insulting!
 
@OneMug Ten years ago, I would have recommended posting it on the xkcd science forum. I reckon it would have generated a fair bit of interest. That forum still exists, but it's very quiet these days, mostly frequented by a handful of the old regulars. And it no longer has Latex support (although there are userscripts for that).
@OneMug Sorry, I was not suggesting that your Q&A was a "check my work" scenario! I just mentioned the "check my work" thing as an example of homework-like questions that are off-topic.
 
5:29 AM
@PM2Ring a Google on xkcd brings up all kinds of references to the work "comic". Is that what you meant?
 
@OneMug Yes, xkcd is a comic that's popular among scientists and IT people. It has a forum associated with it, which used to be linked from the comic page.
 
@PM2Ring accepted. As I said, I agree, and dealing with that issue here can get trying at times, so in that sense I understand the impulse to assume that first.
 
@OneMug I don't think anyone in this chat (or the people who close-voted on your question) thought it was homework.
 
@OneMug I guess over-reacting and refusing to read what I actually wrote is also an option.
 
@EmilioPisanty an oblique apology?
 
5:37 AM
@OneMug should I apologize for the fact that you misread my comments? No, I don't think so.
 
@OneMug nobody meant to "insult" you...
 
@EmilioPisanty this darn editor. that last one was not supposed to be sent yet, I was still editing. My bad, sorry about that.
 
@JohnRennie it's hardly 'my' paper - I helped analyse the simulations, but the project ownership rests with the joint first authors, Laura and Kevin.
But thanks =)
 
@OneMug you can edit and delete posts up to 2 minutes after posting. Click the triangle and you'll get a pop-up with various options:
 
@JohnRennie (unless you're on mobile)
 
5:40 AM
@EmilioPisanty ah yes
 
sadly :(
 
Or (if you're not using a mobile device) just hit the up arrow on your keyboard to quickly get back to your previous posts.
 
lol
 
@EmilioPisanty Don't think I misread it. Basically took it to say "Don' ask questions until you have substantial more experience writing questions and answers, as well as reviewing both" That says to me that I shouldn't "ask" questions until I have more experience "writing" questions. I take that to mean to my "writing" practice somewhere else.
Hay, the up arrow works. Thanks!
 
5:45 AM
@JohnRennie Reminiscent of the classic stackoverflow.com/questions/588004/…
 
@OneMug what is the intended audience for your book the The Principal Principle?
 
@OneMug my view would be that if anyone is in doubt about asking a question they should just ask. The worst that will happen is that the question gets closed, but closing your question doesn't mean we think you boil kittens in your spare time. It just means the question isn't considered a good fit.
 
@OneMug in case it wasn't obvious from the context, that was specifically talking about self-answered Q&As.
Those are rather more tricky to get on-topic than regular questions or answers.
 
If self answered Q&As are so frowned upon, then there should not be such a large edit box at the bottom the OPs question page that says "Answer your own question"
 
imho, self-answered Q&As have a lot of "learning and understanding" potential; if done right
 
5:52 AM
@OneMug again, I did not say frowned upon. I said they're tricky to get right.
0
Q: Impossibility of Monochromatic Light

The PointerPages 24-25 of my textbook, Optics by Hecht, says the following: Using the above definitions we can write a number of equivalent expressions for the traveling harmonic wave: $$\psi = A\sin k(x \mp vt)$$ $$\psi = A\sin 2 \pi \left(\dfrac{x}{\lambda} \mp \dfrac{t}{\tau} \right)$$ $$\psi =...

Duplicate of its link?
 
And like I said above, this was not initially (when the question was posted) meant to be a self-answered question! That came after no interest (positive) was shown, LATER.
 
I don't want to take unilateral actions.
@OneMug I don't see how it changes things.
To be honest it makes it worse.
You had one specific answer in mind, and you were testing this site to see whether we got it right?
I don't see how that's ok.
 
@EmilioPisanty is that Laura in the video?
 
@skillpatrol I agree completely with "learning and understanding" potential. So how does one "do it right" on PSE? Obviously I did not get it right last time!
 
In any case, the message stands. The question is at best on the edge of topicality. It will be much easier to fix it if you have more experience with the site.
If you don't want to listen to me, then don't. Just stop quoting garbled versions of my comments at me.
 
5:58 AM
@OneMug it comes with experience :-)
 
@skillpatrol yes. Also Carlos Hernández-García, who also has substantial ownership of the project.
 
@EmilioPisanty I think that's a bit harsh. We haven't seen OneMug's answer nd it may be an elegant treatment of key concepts in aerodynamics.
Or it may not. But without seeing it I think it's a bit unfair to criticise.
 
@EmilioPisanty nice, a very enthusiastic scientist
 
@EmilioPisanty Well, I like your answer to the linked question (and zero's). But the OP obviously still doesn't quite get it. Anna just posted an answer, but I doubt that it will help much...
I guess the OP isn't very familiar with the Fourier transformation. And a textbook on that would be too large to fit into an answer. ;) Trying to explain the core principles would work better in a back & forth discussion, not the Stack Exchange Q & A format.
 
6:15 AM
Sorry for dropping out the conversion for a bit. Had to say goodnight to my better half.
@skillpatrol The 'audience' for The Principal Principle is anyone and everyone interested in what principles make nature what it is. It is an observation principle, as it simply states what we observe (in eleven words at the current statement of it) and definitions of those words in terms of we observe. From that all of classical mechanics, including the dimensionality of space, can be predicted. ...
... If I had a more mathematical bent, it could even be called an axiom, and as such would be a very good start to answering one of Hilbert's 'challenges', but I am not a mathematician. As a physicist, I don't think nature can even be 'axiomized', because claiming that we done such a thing is like saying we know everything there is to know about nature. We do not, and IMHO will not, ever! ...
... Concerning QM, I do not yet have a clear path to a justification for QM. Another question I have posted here (smallest grain size ...) is partially aimed at finding that justification. Can we macroscopically observe an object that definitively predicts a 'fundamental' object such as an atom or molecule. I've been struggling with the grain size question a long time, so I ask it here, and it is definitely not a self-answered question! ...
 
6:36 AM
@JohnRennie the question needs to stand on its own, regardless of any answers (self-provided or by others)
That's part of what makes self-answered Q&As tricky
 
... And I am NOT here testing this site or whatever was intended above. Damn, I'm getting tired, been a really long day. My typing has gone to pieces.
 
6:50 AM
@JohnRennie You mentioned something about saving criticism until after seeing my answer. Is there a way to have it reviewed here?
 
@OneMug you can upload it somewhere and post a link here, but the problem is attracting enough people to look at it. I'd be willing to read it though since aeronautical engineering isn't one of my strengths I'm not sure that I could make any useful comments.
 
@JohnRennie something like Drop Box or Google Drive?
 
@OneMug yes
 
@JohnRennie OK then. I'll 'sanitize' it (remove my cryptic reminders, etc) tomorrow (guess later today!) and post a link in a message to you here in chat. OK?
 
Yes, I'm in the chat room every day so I'll see it as soon as you post it.
 
7:06 AM
What on Earth is wrong with this chat search
 
@JohnRennie Thanks. Gotta hit the sack. Good nite.
 
cya
@SirCumference i think it searches for individual words first
"what" appears a lot :-/
 
7:27 AM
if you search for "what" alone you get about the same number of messages
 
7:38 AM
@skillpatrol It apparently just omits a bunch of words. "It", "is", "the", etc.
the only word that got registered in my query was "what"
 
yup
 
7:54 AM
i think my messages are being serially starred?
np
 
8:14 AM
morgen
 
8:43 AM
Phew
Managed to prove that all $SO(1,1)$ transformations can be represented by the usual matrices
And all I had to do was use the most complex math of all
High-school level hyperbolic functions
I even had to use sum of hyperbolic functions
Although I guess I should probably prove that it is basis independant, too
 
9:27 AM
0
Q: Oh! What a Shape it has

Naga Sandesh GoliWhen I saw that thing I did not understand how that shape is formed. To be ideal, take a vertical smooth plane. Now aim at wall with the thin water tube. Then the outer layer forms a parabolic shape with stagnation point as focus of it. I found it by tracing that shape. How could you explain thi...

How to clickbait a homework question
Sure the phenomenon is interesting, but this question needs more effort
 
9:40 AM
I wonder if EHT have any new follow ups
The Pauli effect is a term referring to the supposed tendency of technical equipment to encounter critical failure in the presence of certain people. The term was coined after mysterious anecdotal stories involving Austrian theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, describing numerous instances in which demonstrations involving equipment suffered technical problems only when he was present. The Pauli effect is not related with the Pauli exclusion principle, which is a bona fide physical phenomenon named after Pauli. However the Pauli effect was humorously tagged as a second Pauli exclusion principle...
> R. Peierls describes a case when at one reception this effect was to be parodied by deliberately crashing a chandelier upon Pauli's entrance. The chandelier was suspended on a rope to be released, but it stuck instead, thus becoming a real example of the Pauli effect.[8]
Lol that reminds me where I was so pissed off by the day before entering a music concert, and prepared to disrupt the concert with a heavy metal loudspeaker, only for that speaker to malfunction and hence never happened
On a more serious note, I don't think there is a way to prove or disprove the Pauli effect. All positive signs of it, you get a bunch of correlated events, and which none of these events can be put a causal chain of mechanism to them
thus making it just correlated noise
 
10:06 AM
@skillpatrol o/
(I'm left handed thats why the waving human is inverted)
 
10:31 AM
If EM waves are massless (photons), then how black holes warp/suck them?
And since they have energy, what is that special type of momentum they possess?
 
10:48 AM
@NovaliumCompany They follow the geodesics
All geodesics lead to the singularity
"A vector is said to be isotropic if its scalar square is zero, that is to say if its components make the fundamental form equal to zero."
Damn math people
 
11:49 AM
@Slereah Simply explained?
I dont care about complicated math, I need an explanation of why it happens.
How can anything affect a photon really? I mean, shouldnt the photon pass through a mirror and all mass essentially. Shouldnt the photon be like a ghost?
 
12:04 PM
@NovaliumCompany :0)
 
@NovaliumCompany General relativity changes what it means for something to travel in a straight line
and light travels in a straight line
 
"straight" is, by definition, the line along which light travels
 
Well, not really, but light does travel along straight lines, yes
 
@skullpetrol Yeah I wouldn't really say "by definition" there
 
Oops
how would you define "straight" then?
 
12:16 PM
Straight means paraneterized by a linear function imo
More general
 
@skullpetrol Geodesics :p
 
@NovaliumCompany John posted a nice explanation of how geodesics work a few weeks ago, starting here:
Jun 13 at 5:17, by John Rennie
@AbhasKumarSinha suppose you and I are driving cars and we are travelling at the same speed in directions that are exactly parallel with each other. Then we'll just drive forever the same distance apart. Yes?
 
Or actually yeah, geodesics works
 
Of course, we should make a distinction between timelike, null, and spacelike geodesics.
 
Eh that's just physics though
 
12:20 PM
Massless particles follow null geodesics, and bodies with mass follow timelike geodesics (if no external force is acting on them). Nothing can follow spacelike geodesics.
 
Tachyons
 
And invisible purple unicorns.
 
Boooo
 
In the 1967 paper that coined the term, Gerald Feinberg proposed that tachyonic particles could be quanta of a quantum field with imaginary mass. However, it was soon realized that excitations of such imaginary mass fields do not under any circumstances propagate faster than light, and instead the imaginary mass gives rise to an instability known as tachyon condensation.
 
12:29 PM
Straight line is a line that is not curved and curved line is a line that is not straight. Boom
 
Tachyons are Complicated
for a start "tachyon" refers to a bunch of things
 
Causality is overrated
All right I think I oughta wake up now
 
@NovaliumCompany how do u measure curvature
 
without a ruler :P
aka a "straight" edge
 
@Slereah With my moms hair, then straighten it out and measure on a ruler
What do you mean how do you measure curvature? It's length?
 
12:37 PM
There's a whole Thing about what measurement means but that would take us to the uncertain waters of epistemology
@NovaliumCompany Well, in a practical sense
you have an object moving
how do you know whether or not it is moving straight or not
 
no idea lol, straight is relative?
 
the shortest distance between two points is...
 
@skullpetrol but then how do u measure the shortest distance between two points
IT IS A NIGHTMARE IN GENERAL RELATIVITY
Spoiler : you can't actually measure a distance with certainty in GR without some assumptions
 
I mean are infinite lines straight
 
"Relativity is relative" - NovaliumCompany 2019
I forgot what I'm even trying to understand with those straight lines
 
12:43 PM
@NovaliumCompany Did you understand John's explanation that I linked for you?
 
How can anything affect a photon really? I mean, shouldnt the photon pass through a mirror and all mass essentially. Shouldnt the photon be like a ghost?
 
I'm no geometer but I wouldn't necessarily equate straight with geodesic
 
@PM2Ring Somewhat yes
 
Oh good.
 
that's why I said "by definition"
 
12:46 PM
So black holes curve spacetime and therefore photons still fall in, but how when they have no mass. Still confused.
 
@SirCumference well what do you mean by straight
what's the fundamental property of straightness
 
@Slereah I mean that's the thing, it's not a rigorously defined word :P
In some cases it could probably just mean linear or affine
 
well sure, those are the geodesics of Euclidian space
 
"A straight line is a line that looks straight." - Novalium Company
 
@NovaliumCompany A photon is a quantum of electromagnetic energy, and matter is made of things like electrons and protons that feel the electromagnetic force. So you get interactions. OTOH, neutrinos only feel the weak force, and most stuff barely feels the weak force, so neutronos are like ghosts.
 
12:48 PM
Yeah but I don't think we even need a metric
An infinite line could be straight by some definition
 
@SirCumference omg yes
 
@SirCumference well you just need the connection :p
 
@NovaliumCompany The photons just go straight ahead. But in the neighbourhood of a black hole, "straight ahead" tends to take you towards the centre of the BH, no matter which way you're facing.
 
@Slereah sorry, I didn't mean to make you shout
 
@PM2Ring Because spacetime defines straight and the bh bends spacetime?
 
12:52 PM
@NovaliumCompany Pretty much.
 
note that "straight" now has "time" involved
 
The interactions between em energy and electrons, protons... is still a bit of a fog. Does it have anything to do with elementary particles and their functions?
I just realized its impossible for time to stop.
 
I would really advise to not worry too much about GR and QFT until you have actually learned all the physics leading up to it
 
@Slereah I'm not worrying about them, they are worrying me.
 
Well take them one step at a time
FIRST
Classical mechanics
which is awful enough as it is
the usual
 
12:58 PM
The slogan is "spacetime tells matter how to move, matter tells spacetime how to bend". But that's a simplification. It's not just matter that bends spacetime, it's stress-momentum-energy. And conversely, it's not just matter that moves along the spacetime curves, it's everything: matter, photons, and gravitational waves.
 
Well no, gravitational waves are part of the spacetime bending :p
although yes it can be source-free
 
@Slereah If you consider worrying about GR and QFT in the sense of learning the complicated math, then I am definitely not worrying about them.
 
Well you're not gonna do a whole lot of learning them then
 
do you have grade 13? @NovaliumCompany
 
@Slereah Gravitational waves certainly propagate changes to spacetime curvature, but they're doing that in the context of the existing curvature. ;)
 
1:03 PM
I'm in 11th grade
 
@Slereah I am not trying to, nor do I want to. :)
 
well I'm afraid your pondering about such mysteries will go unanswered
 
what mysteries?
 
@NovaliumCompany In that case, you'll have to be contented with simple analogies, like John's analogy of driving to the North Pole. You can't get more accurate answers about this stuff without the mathematics.
 
1:07 PM
@PM2Ring Yep, I understand that.
 
@NovaliumCompany Like asking how can a photon get sucked into a BH.
 
The BH warps spacetime and therefore changes what straight means. That satisfies my teenage curiosity needs.
 
@NovaliumCompany Ok.
 
1:36 PM
Wait are @skillpatrol and @skullpetrol different people
which one is skullpatrol...
 
Those are three different accounts for three different devices @SirCumference
Together we are raider nation :P
like SirCumference = 2pi•r = tau•r
 
2:32 PM
Cartan's spinor book is an old ass book
 
Have to go with the original
He basically sets up spinors from nothing in all dimensions as constructively as possible, applies them to SR and puts them on manifolds for GR and even proves you can't find finite dim spinor reps of GL(V)
 
2:52 PM
I suppose he had to
 
0
Q: Net Drift of Electron Between two Plates

Pox 219I am writing code for a 1D case where a positron with charge $e$ and mass $m$ is placed between a charged plate, and a grounded plate in the positive $x$ direction, a distance $d$ away . Let the initial velocity and position of the electron be zero, i.e., it is at rest on the charged plate (non p...

 
None of those fancy Clifford algebras or bundles back then
 
He sets up Clifford algebras as a side product which is cool too
 
yeah he is constructing multivectors rn
So I'm guessing this is where he's going
What's the modern equivalent of the volume of a $p$-vector?
 
Have most of that 'orthogonal transformation is a product of reflections' proof down, tricky bits at the end
 
2:55 PM
Is it just the tensor norm of it
 
wedge product of forms
 
Isn't the $p$-vector the wedge product of form already
 
I think it's just talking about p-forms in an old way without differential form notation
 
well yeah but he also defined the volume
Which is a scalar
as the determinant of the ugly matrix of the $p$-vector (squared)
 
I always hear about coordinates of a point. But what is a points if it's not the coordinates themself?
 
3:00 PM
or whatever
 
Pseudo-scalar the way a 3 form in 3D gives the volume of a paralellepiped
 
@bolbteppa is it the $p$-form multiplied by its dual
@SimoBartz most manifolds don't look like $\mathbb{R}^n$
You can't define coordinates naturally on them
 
A manifold is just a set that can be rapresented locally by R^n
a point of a manifold is just an element of the set "manifold"
but in physics when we say space time is a manifold
what is a point on the manifold?
 
I guess it's his old way of multiplying a $p$-form by the $p$-form built from the duals of those $p$ vectors to get a scalar from it
 
So just $*p \wedge p$
I guess
 
3:07 PM
A point in space has different coordinates depending on your choice of origin
 
I agree, but how do you define what is a point?
 
A point is a member of the set that the manifold is :p
 
ahahaha good one
 
I mean sure
There isn't really a better definition of a point in a manifold
 
It's all empty sets of empty sets at the end of the day :p
 
3:09 PM
You're gonna have some hard times when you read about the hole problem :p
In general relativity, the hole argument is an apparent paradox that much troubled Albert Einstein while developing his famous field equations. Some philosophers of physics take the argument to raise a problem for manifold substantialism, a doctrine that the manifold of events in spacetime is a "substance" which exists independently of the metric field defined on it or the matter within it. Other philosophers and physicists disagree with this interpretation, and view the argument as a confusion about gauge invariance and gauge fixing instead. == Einstein's hole argument == In a usual field equation...
 
Every set of elements (points) that can be mapped (with certain rules) in R^n is a n manifold.
But what is this set of elements in general relativity?
is it just a set not better specified?
 
In mathematics, particularly in differential topology, there are two Whitney embedding theorems, named after Hassler Whitney: The strong Whitney embedding theorem states that any smooth real m-dimensional manifold (required also to be Hausdorff and second-countable) can be smoothly embedded in the real 2m-space (R2m), if m > 0. This is the best linear bound on the smallest-dimensional Euclidean space that all m-dimensional manifolds embed in, as the real projective spaces of dimension m cannot be embedded into real (2m − 1)-space if m is a power of two (as can be seen from a characteristic class...
Every real manifold is a subset of some $\mathbb{R}^n$ basically
 
@SimoBartz It doesn't matter terribly
You technically don't even need the manifold to be based on a specific set
You can construct that set from the transition functions
If you have the transition functions for the entire atlas you can construct the manifold set and topology from those
But many manifolds are usually based around something more "traditional", yes
Like $\mathbb{R}^n$ or $S^n$
 
The point of using multivectors seems to be that representations of tensors break up into sums of vectors and multivectors
 
So it doesn't matter which set I'm looking, spacetime is an abstract set that I assume to be a differentiable manifold
 
3:14 PM
So like an old direct way of doing representation theory
 
is it the same with Euclidean space?
i mean
 
Well it can be, yes, although Euclidian space you usually assume to be simply constructed from $\mathbb{R^n}$
It makes things simpler to think about
 
just to be sure with R^n you mean the set of all the possible n-ples?
 
Yes.
 
ok then a point in the Euclidean space is a n-tuple
 
3:17 PM
Constructed from $\mathbb{R}$, constructed from $\mathbb{Q}$ by the Dedekind construction with the usual metric, etc
 
a cartesian coordinate of a point in the Euclidean space is the point itself?
 
Yes.
 
mmm namely a curvilinear coordinates is a bijective map between two Euclidean spaces?
 
For Euclidian space the most basic coordinate patch is $(\mathbb{R}^n, \operatorname{Id})$
Well, not necessarily but it can be yes
 
you are saving me
wait a second
in Minkowski Space, a point is a 4-tupla
 
3:20 PM
true
 
cartesian coordinates of a point in Minkowski Spaces points are just the point itself
but wait Minkowski Space it's also a vector space...
 
that it is
Although it is the only spacetime that is a vector space
 
There is a way to do something like defining $0$ as the empty set, $1$ as the set containing the empty set, $2$ as the set containing both of these, etc... and then you define a function which gives what are called the Peano axioms for the natural numbers then you build up the rationals and then the reals via e.g. Dedekind cuts
 
but if Minkowski Space is a vector space, and the cartesian coordinates are the points or vector themself
what if I want to change the observer
i can transform the coordinates but the point in the minkoswki space is the same
A point in Minkowski Space is a 4-tuple. Coordinates are how I label this 4-tulples. It means when I change coordinates I'm not changing the observer... So Lorentz transformation are not change of observer?
it sounds nonsense
I can do a change of basis but not if I have a translation
 
3:37 PM
@SimoBartz Welp my textbook defines a point as any element in a metric space
 
@Slereah what do I see above
"what is a manifold?"
 
Yes purely mathematically i agree on that, i’m having some problem in understanding how to use it in physics
If i consider euclidean space, a point is a 3-tuples, but the same point for another observes is a different 3-tuple for example
So, are there 2 euclidean space one for each observer?
 
A point with respect to one coordinate system having one set of coordinates will have a different set of coordinates in a different coordinate system where the coordinates are related by an isometry of the underlying metric space
 
@SimoBartz Now that I think about it, this is reminding me of the idea of tangent spaces. I wonder if they are relevant here
 
Hi, everybody.
 
3:48 PM
@DanielSank How's life
 
Life is good.
 
@SimoBartz math is always better than physics
 
How is yours?
@RyanUnger False.
 
you can't say an opinion is false!
 
Pretty good
@RyanUnger Mathematical physics is the way to go
 
3:49 PM
that's definitely false
 
Combines the beauty of math with the wackiness of the universe
Two for the price of one
 
mathematical physics involves too much algebra these days
 
Algebra is good stuff
I mean it shows up plenty in all areas of math :P
 
Math without physics is basically number theory
 
"all areas of math" is definitely false
 
3:50 PM
@bolbteppa Ahem set theory exists
 
set theory is a meme
 
The overlooked hero of math
 
Set theory is just number theory in some sense
 
@RyanUnger Everything else is just applied set theory
 
that's a nonsensical statement
I have never and will never use any significant fact from set theory
Working with sets does not make anything "applied set theory"
 
3:52 PM
Ah that's not true. E.g. I had to prove in my manifolds class that a set was measure zero, so I used a ZFC theorem to show it was countable
 
@SimoBartz did @Slereah tell you about charts?
 
@RyanUnger Working with math makes physics applied math :P
 
@SirCumference countable union of countable sets is countable is not a significant fact
 
@RyanUnger Welp it was significant to me...
 
@RyanUnger False.
 
3:53 PM
@DanielSank You're false
 
True!
 
@SirCumference It's not significant in the sense I mean
 
::Waits for Ryan to explode trying to process that paradox::
 
@RyanUnger It relies on the acceptance of the axiom of choice. You have the set theorists to thank for that :P
 
No it requires countable choice, which is fine
the full axiom of choice is definitely false
 
3:56 PM
@RyanUnger Fine. But no one would know what the axiom of countable choice is if set theorists didn't come up with it.
And I wouldn't have my analysis proof
 
@SirCumference get Jech's set theory book if you want to see what I mean by significant
 
Math is ultimately just defining a bunch of axioms as "true" and deriving true statements from them
It's applied logic in nature
 
you're not using any deep statements about logic itself though
 
04:00 - 16:0016:00 - 00:00

« first day (3163 days earlier)      last day (1749 days later) »