7,475 reputation
1646
bio website
location
age
visits member for 2 years, 2 months
seen Apr 5 at 8:31

I like physics.


Apr
10
awarded  Notable Question
Apr
5
revised Quantum mechanics and everyday nature
Fixed a minor formatting typo.
Mar
27
comment Electron Shell Configuration
Well stated, and my thanks for adding specificity (vs. my hand-wavy "a lot of approximations" being used).
Mar
27
comment Why can't my eye see itself in the mirror through polarizing 3D-glasses?
Good catch and exactly right on both points. The quarter-wave plates in front translate the two circular polarizations into the two linear polarizations, and the linear polarizers closer to your eyes then select between them.
Mar
23
answered Electron Shell Configuration
Mar
23
answered What is information?
Mar
23
reviewed Approve suggested edit on What is information?
Mar
23
reviewed Approve suggested edit on Why do we want to entangle qubits?
Mar
23
answered Are photons absorbed by expanding space?
Mar
18
awarded  Necromancer
Feb
24
comment Conservation of phase space volume in Rindler space-time
Intriguing... do you have any papers on your analysis so far? Also, just a random thought: time dilation relative to an unaccelerated observer also changes over time for acceleration. Since "hidden observers" can sneak into equations in surprisingly subtle ways, is it possible you have such a hidden unaccelerated observer implicit in you formalisms? (Even more random: time dilation vs phase space reductions: any connections?)
Feb
24
comment Conservation of phase space volume in Rindler space-time
To ask bluntly: You are using this approach to question certain aspects of the equivalence principle, yes? My reflex reaction was to say that under EP the phase space volumes at $t_1$ and $t_2$ must be equivalent. Or am I just badly misunderstanding your intent? More specifically: I don't see gravity changing phase space volumes over time, so I would not anticipate it for acceleration either.
Feb
24
comment Why is introductory physics not taught in a more “axiomatic” way?
I think the best answer is "darned if I know!"... and by the way, that's a pretty impressive math/physics relationships graph on your web site. I certainly never thought of S-matrices that way, but now I'll go back and try to do something weird to my brain that may change my perspective. Thanks for the tip, definitely!
Feb
23
comment Why is introductory physics not taught in a more “axiomatic” way?
Heh! Well, yes, that happens to be exactly what I believe to the the case: QM is the deeper reality, classical space and time are just emergent properties of it. I have no idea if that's considered a radical idea or not, but hardware is hardware, and Feynman's QED seems much closer to that hardware in terms of simplicity of concept. But QED as a calculation method is based on rigid space-time lattices, so you have a bit of a conceptual paradox there. I don't know an easy mathematical resolution for it... anyone? Does QED without rigid spacetime as a framing assumption exist?
Feb
23
comment Why is introductory physics not taught in a more “axiomatic” way?
Just saw this one. Interesting. But beware: Who says time and space are the deepest axioms? I can construct a program in which space, at least, is an emergent property of rules that restrict how a globally accessible set of points interact with each other. That sounds pretty abstract, but if you look carefully at how quantum mechanics works, there are some uncomfortable similarities in it to just that sort of situation. Also, defining time when you are always in "now" requires you to model of the past, not touch it directly. That implies intelligence just to define t meaningfully.
Feb
23
comment What is the energy distribution of light if it has an infinite length?
Oh I shouldn't do this: Technically, at least as Feynman saw it, a photon is an instantaneous interaction between the emitter and receiver. Actually, two such interactions, since there's that pesky advanced solution photon that gives a kick back at the emitter. So... you can sort of say "infinite length" for a single photon, as viewed from our ordinary passage of classical time, with the energy per unit of length simply being the energy of one photon divided by that length. And somehow I don't think that was the intent of the question, but points like that are just so nicely weird...
Feb
23
answered Can we see refraction of light in the air with our eyes?
Feb
14
awarded  Yearling
Feb
3
asked Is the new Hawking black hole all about photon launch angles?
Feb
2
comment Does Galileo's Tower of Pisa argument contradict quantum mechanics?
I'm delighted to get your views! I just meant that Stack Exchange automatically tries to move long discussions over to Chat. In fact, SE is trying to redirect this very comment to Chat...