3,961 reputation
11334
bio website
location
age
visits member for 1 year, 11 months
seen 8 hours ago

1d
comment Curvature of a particle move
I think this is a (two-dimensional) Brownian motion. Even though the concept derives from physics, mathematicians (and economists) have done a lot with it. Given the (unnatural) 'steps', I'd think they (the mathematicians) would be better at it. I believe the continuous case is called a en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiener_process.
Nov
29
awarded  Nice Answer
Nov
6
revised If light is linearly polarized, does it have some spatial extent?
included link to other answer, as order of answers may differ in different user set-ups; fixed the probable misspelling and added link to merzbarcher
Nov
2
revised What is the speed of the fastest moving body in our solar system?
edited body
Nov
2
reviewed Edit What is the speed of the fastest moving body in our solar system?
Nov
2
revised What is the speed of the fastest moving body in our solar system?
m/s -> km/s, other misc; edit on edit: I removed the km again
Nov
2
comment What is the speed of the fastest moving body in our solar system?
Related: astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/891/789
Oct
27
comment I don't get the concept of “God plays with dice” - In what scenario is it proven that he does?
@NikosM. Well, let me disagree with that. What kind of logic equates unknowability with inconsistency?
Oct
27
comment I don't get the concept of “God plays with dice” - In what scenario is it proven that he does?
@NikosM. Fair point. :) I should have written more clearly. My understanding (rather than my belief) is that, logically, there will always be such logical loopholes. (Which, I think, sort of puts me at the other end of the spectrum: a non-believer.)
Oct
27
comment I don't get the concept of “God plays with dice” - In what scenario is it proven that he does?
@DavidHammen I believe there are logical loopholes (and I believe there will always be loopholes, making it, even defining it, philosophical). Logic allows for, e.g., en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism. (But any deeper and I am lost.)
Oct
27
comment I don't get the concept of “God plays with dice” - In what scenario is it proven that he does?
@DavidHammen I think we mostly agree. Except that inductive reasoning is also the explanation of the success of science, which, I repeat, doesn't or claim to (logically) prove anything. About 2: Yes, totally improvable (I think), but also not logically provably false (given QM). (I might add here that Deutsch et al. believe a working quantum computer might be evidence. I don't buy it, but I'm also a layperson. I'm also not well-versed in local vs non-local.)
Oct
27
comment I don't get the concept of “God plays with dice” - In what scenario is it proven that he does?
@DavidHammen Are you questioning my 1 or my 2 or my going from 1+2 to 3? If it's 1, then fine, you may question QM being true. If it's 2 or 1+2=3 then I'll challenge you.
Oct
27
comment I don't get the concept of “God plays with dice” - In what scenario is it proven that he does?
I believe that it is accurate to state that if 1) quantum mechanics is true (as it appears to be; the evidence for it to be right is said to be overwhelming) and 2) there are indeed hidden variables or many universes, then 3) "we" in principle cannot and will not (ever) have access to those variables or other universes. Depending on taste you may still consider that indeterministic, as in: in principle (because of QM) unknowable and unpredictable (if even existent) to physicists.
Oct
27
comment I don't get the concept of “God plays with dice” - In what scenario is it proven that he does?
Physics doesn't prove things, it provides a model (e.g. quantum mechanics). There are many en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics, some of which are deterministic in a naive sense, but some of those also include a radical reinvention of the meaning of universe, e.g. the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation. The issue with judging interpretations is that - by definition - the difference among them is untestable by experiment and therefore more properly belongs to the philosophy of physics.
Oct
12
comment Pulling on a weakened rope - where will it tear?
Perhaps you could expand a little bit on this tension wave in your answer. It might be fully correct, but for people not familiar with tension waves (like me) it seems slightly hand-wavy.
Oct
12
comment Pulling on a weakened rope - where will it tear?
I don't follow the tension wave bit. If you'd pull very abruptly, the wall wouldn't be an issue (and could be thought away). The closest weakened point would break. Somewhat similarly, if the rope would be (cooked) spaghetti on a table with three severely weakened points, the closest one would break even when pulled slowly. Actually, thinking about it that way, the follow up question becomes an exercise in game theory. +1 for that (the question). :)
Oct
12
comment Benefits of rear spoiler in cars
Also see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_(automotive)#Passenger_vehicles.
Sep
30
awarded  Explainer
Jul
30
revised Why is fundamental physics taught in terms of particles?
added 334 characters in body
Jul
30
revised Why is fundamental physics taught in terms of particles?
added 296 characters in body