Reputation
769
Top tag
Next privilege 1,000 Rep.
Create new tags
Badges
4 11
Newest
 Nice Answer
Impact
~27k people reached

  • 0 posts edited
  • 0 helpful flags
  • 13 votes cast
Feb
23
comment Why do we not have spin greater than 2?
"Every particle must interact with something to be part of the theory. If you have a noninteracting sector, you throw it away as unobservable." Doesn't everything interact with gravity, and shouldn't a "noninteracting" sector be retained as a dark matter candidate?
Feb
23
comment Do photons and cosmic rays radiate energy through gravitational waves? If not, why not?
You say "an oscillating gravitational dipole won't emit gravity waves". I'm pretty sure it would! It's just that you can't have an oscillating gravitational dipole because momentum is conserved (also you can't have negative mass).
Feb
22
comment Gravitational waves in other dimensions
I notice you used the singular. Was that theory predicting just one compactified spatial dimension? If there were more of them (see string theory) then the size range would be quite different.
Feb
22
comment Gravitational waves in other dimensions
Falsified? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say an upper limit has been placed on the size of the rolled-up dimensions (by testing the inverse-square law for gravity down to a certain distance)?
Jun
2
revised Is a “cathode ray drive” feasible?
expand on charge neutralization idea
Jun
2
asked Is a “cathode ray drive” feasible?
Apr
23
comment True randomness via Radioactive decay
OK, your edit makes a difference. A truly random sequence will be incompressible on average due to the pigeon-hole principle. But if you want to know if a particular finite sequence was taken from a "truly random" source, statistics can give you a hint but never prove anything. It just seems like a bad way to define randomness. If I told you I had generated a random bit and it was a 1, would you be able to tell if it was "truly random"? The only definition that makes a bit of sense is for nobody to have been able to predict that it would be a 1.
Apr
23
comment True randomness via Radioactive decay
It goes the other way too - you can have high Kolmogorov Complexity with low or no randomness, for example if you are reading from a table of "random" numbers, I can perfectly predict what you will say if I have a copy of the table or can see over your shoulder. There is no fundamentally unpredictable quantum process going on.
Apr
23
comment True randomness via Radioactive decay
Kolmogorov Complexity is irrelevant. Assuming your measurements have finite precision there is a certain probability of obtaining [1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1] for the first ten intervals, which obviously has low Kolmogorov Complexity, but was still perfectly unpredictable.
Apr
11
awarded  Nice Answer
Apr
11
awarded  Yearling
Apr
10
answered Are there any scales other than temperature that have different zero points?
Apr
10
answered Are there any scales other than temperature that have different zero points?
Apr
10
answered Are there any scales other than temperature that have different zero points?
Apr
5
comment How can anti-matter annihilate matter?
@RBarryYoung antiparticles have opposite charges of all types (except mass/energy) so forces carried by spin-1 bosons will be attractive.
Mar
29
awarded  Yearling
Mar
29
comment Why is the prospective new kilogram standard a sphere?
@Floris: thanks, didn't see that. Edited answer.
Mar
29
revised Why is the prospective new kilogram standard a sphere?
acknowledge priority of David Richerby's comment
Mar
28
asked spooky nonlocal communication, or bad abstract?
Mar
25
answered Why is the prospective new kilogram standard a sphere?