1,552 reputation
21648
bio website axiomsofchoice.org
location
age 15
visits member for 3 years, 11 months
seen 6 hours ago

dr dr dr! im cia he wasnt alone uh you dont get to bring friends theyre not my friends dont worry no charge for them and why would i want them they were trying to grab your prize they work for the mercenary the masketta man bane aye get them on board ill call ittin the flight plan i just filed with the agency lists smee maimen doctor pavelheer button lee juan ovyu first one to talk gets to stay on my aircraft who paid you to grab dr pavel he didnt fly so good who wants to try next tell me about bane why does he wear the mask a lotta loyalty for a hired gun or perhaps he's wondering why someone would shoot a man before throwing him out of a plane at least you can talk who are you it doesnt matter who we are what matters is our plan if i pull that off will you die it would be extremely painful youre a big guy for you was getting caught part of your plan of course dr pavel refused our offer in favor of yours we had to find out what he told you nothing i said nothing well congratulations you got yourself caught sir now whats the next step of your master plan crashing this plane with no survivors no they expect one of us in the wreckage brother have we started the fire yes the fire rises calm down doctor nows not the time for fear that comes later


Aug
19
comment Kinetic energy as $\pi k_B T$
@LubošMotl: The question is if it matters as long as you keep on using a temperature-unit that's formally distinct from an energy unit. Sure, you may take the reductionist approach and fix all factors using the deeper theory, but "I haven't seen what the energy (...) is converted into" and so if all quantities in the theories account for this strange $\pi$, it may end up not ruining any results. I agree that it's odd that a particle should carry an irrational energy-quantity - I'm not advocating it. But apparently people have used this quantity for some time and it worked for their use.
Aug
19
comment Kinetic energy as $\pi k_B T$
@LubošMotl: You don't need to violate any exact entropy expressions or the absolute temperature scale. Just consider $k_B^*\equiv \pi\,k_B$ the auxiliary constant. Some like $k_B=1$ and electron volts, and some might find $\approx 10^{-23}J/K$ and kelvins or "pi-kelvins" useful. That's why I said I don't know what would be the merit of adopting another $3.14$ to get energy out of temperature. I showed OP where $\sqrt{\pi}$ pops up. In expectation values, it will pop out anyway, because the density $\rho\propto{\mathrm e}^{-H\,/\,k_BT}$ gets normalized.
Aug
17
comment Isothermal versus Isometric/Isochoric
You can make a big delta $\Delta$ via backslash Delta. Also, are you sure it "literally means zero temperature change"? 'zero' in Latin would be a word starting with 'n'.
Aug
17
comment Third principle of Nernst
@Qmechanic: The duplicate has been deleted.
Aug
16
comment How to compute this change of Gibbs energy for a Van der Waals gas?
@Gert: I'm not sure which aspect of your question isn't answered by the first sentence.
Aug
14
comment Configurations and configuration manifold in Lagrangian Optics
To what extent are you aware of variational principles in simple geometry, energy functionals, etc. I'm not sure if here you want to make sense of the notion "configuration" for a theory without dynamics, just for the sake of it.
Aug
10
comment Why $C_{abcd}C^{abcd}$ in de Sitter–Schwarzschild metric doesn't depend on $\Lambda$
@user34669: I'm not sure if this is intended as a response to what I propose, is it?
Aug
10
comment Why $C_{abcd}C^{abcd}$ in de Sitter–Schwarzschild metric doesn't depend on $\Lambda$
It would be interesting take $-f(r)\,\mathrm dt^2+\frac{1}{f(r)}\mathrm d r^2+r^2\mathrm d\theta+r^2\sin^2\theta\,\mathrm d\theta \mathrm \,d\phi$, compute the scalar, set it to $c\,r^n$ and solve the ODE. Challenge accepted?
Aug
2
comment What are the technical obstructions that prevent scale relativity from being a viable theory of quantum-gravity?
I have the feeling that hardly anybody knows of the theory (which in part is an answer to the question too). Like with Fractional anything, if no big solution to an old problem through it is being made popular and/or if the author isn't popular, getting ideas known is very hard. Nobody's who isn't payed for it is gonna invest the time to look into it in the first place - to take the time must presuppose a suspicion you can get something out of it. There are also tools like Gyrovector spaces nobody uses for SRT, and so on and so on.
Jul
8
comment How does one determine an inertial frame?
Seems so. And I see no paradoxes, let alone inconsistencies. Might be because at least the latter has a precise formal meaning that I inevitably read if one uses the word. Newtons system is just lacking and we find that not pretty. And even if, I'm a tolerant person :)
Jul
8
comment How does one determine an inertial frame?
That wasn't supposed to be my only point though. The "you need X" just jumped my eye. It's like if someone says you need to unlock the keys to your bike before you cross the road. No I don't, it's merely an action plan that leads to some particular outcome. You said "It's not possible to know the inertial reference fame. This is why you need GR." I need it for what? I guess you're saying to be in a framework where the problem wouldn't arise in the first place. That's a suggestion leading far away from the question. The merit is only in the education that in GR things are different.
Jul
8
comment How does one determine an inertial frame?
I like this related list.
Jul
8
comment How does one determine an inertial frame?
Yes, that's right. But it doesn't follow that one needs general relativity, just because the latter is a theory that doesn't exhibit this unnice circularity. One needs that particular alternative IF what? Maybe you mean if you want to describe gravity without inertial frames? You could just drop the obligation and state that the research relevant theory of general relativity doesn't make use of those frames.
Jul
8
comment How does one determine an inertial frame?
+1, the "really, on can't" was not yet stated like this in the answer section. (But I'm not sure what "one needs General Relativity, since..." really means, though - Newton didn't seem to need it either. When it comes to pure understanding of things, I think it's always unfinished business: The question what the right energy tensor for a physical situation should be is open enough to claim, I think, that the problem is just moved.)
Jun
29
comment Why can't the Navier Stokes equations be derived from first principle physics?
But probably one can't properly talk without making statements susceptible to semantic criticism like that. Where's the "let's take this to the chat" button here, actually?
Jun
29
comment Why can't the Navier Stokes equations be derived from first principle physics?
@CuriousOne: I don't understand how the second sentence about trusting principles is an "instance" elaborating on the "elements that are used by theory" in the first sentence. I also don't quite grasp what you mean by "do physics" here, if it's something I can only do when I have trust in a meta-principle. If you advice a Bachelor student to do an experiment, is he not doing physics? He doesn't need to have faith, he can work like an automaton and report back once something doesn't work.
Jun
29
comment Why can't the Navier Stokes equations be derived from first principle physics?
@CuriousOne: I'm skeptical that experiments can be first principles. An experiment is formulated with reference to a theory - for example they might be done by humans that have a notion of "particle", "mass", "location" which are theoretical physical concept which are more of less hard to define and not necessary. Maybe it works if "an experiment" is nothing than a sheet of numbers to you. As soon as you imply "this is a sheet with distances, measured in time intervals of five clock ticks", you're deep in theory land, speaking in context of a bunch of notions that people made up.
Jun
24
comment Why does hot oil explode when pouring water on it?
@babou: "debt". I feel honestly saddened you didn't listen to me at all.
Jun
24
comment Why do we must initially assume that the wavefunction is complex?
@ValterMoretti: I read your answer without reading the comments and was also confused at first. "End of 1900" should be the end of the year 1900, while you mean the end of the 20'th century. I see people discuss an associated issue here.
Jun
19
comment Critical Dimension of Bosonic Strings and Regularization of $\sum_{n=1}^\infty n$
@smiley06: Ah, here's another factoid: The sum was exploding as $\frac{1}{(1-z)^2}$, and the finite limit emerges after subtracting $\frac{1}{\log(z)^2}$. More broadly, $$\dfrac{1}{\log(z)^n}=\dfrac{1}{(z-1)^n} \left(1+ \frac{n}{2} (z-1)+ \frac{n}{2} \frac{3n-5}{12} (z-1)^2+\frac{n}{2}\frac{(n-2)(n-3)}{24}(z-1)^3+\dots\right)$$ and use may use this to produce limits for high powers too. Above, for $n=2$, you got $-\frac{2}{2}\frac{3\cdot 2-5}{12}=-\frac{1}{12}$. Or plug in $n=1$ and you find $-\frac{1}{2}$.