meta user
network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | Belgium | |
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 2 years, 6 months |
| seen | yesterday | |
| stats | profile views | 581 |
"I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
-- Bertrand Russell
|
May 10 |
revised |
Why did Feynman's thesis almost work? added 1 characters in body |
|
May 5 |
comment |
Is Dr Quantum's Double Slit Experiment video scientifically accurate? I don't get what observers have to do with it? Just make a more elaborate measurement device that makes the "choice" and the delayed choice quantum eraser results will stay the same. Or do you mean to say that the measurement device would then have to be counted as an observer? What is an observer and what isn't? It's a very shaky foundation to build fundamental physics on the existance of observers when we know that there have not always been observers in history. |
|
May 3 |
comment |
Compatibility of economics and physics? Funny, but today I came accross this. |
|
May 2 |
comment |
Compatibility of economics and physics? While these questions are fun to think about, I think the most important relationship is between economics and thermodynamics. Economics is a kind of expression at the human level of what the laws of thermodynamics dictate. If your economics is at odds with thermodynamics, disaster will ensue. So, in my opinion a much more interesting problem is how much does thermodynamics constrain the possible economical systems we develop. |
|
May 1 |
comment |
A conceptual problem with Euler-Bernoulli beam theory and Euler buckling Yes, but a solution of the equation with two derivatives is still a solution of the one with four derivatives. The converse is not true, but what is lost in appearance must reside somewhere in boundary or other conditions. |
|
May 1 |
comment |
A conceptual problem with Euler-Bernoulli beam theory and Euler buckling But wouldn't the last equation correspond to the first one with $q(x)\equiv 0$? |
|
Apr 26 |
comment |
Can randomness exist? Molecular chaos $\neq$ dynamical chaos. But maybe I should have used another example. Decoherence is usually achieved because of compling with some heath bath. But in classical mechanics, we also have coupling with heath baths which lead to statistical descriptions. Therefore, by your reasoning, classical mechanics is inherently random. My point still stands. |
|
Apr 25 |
comment |
Can randomness exist? What is a logical deduction? |
|
Apr 25 |
comment |
Can randomness exist? But then classical mechanics is inherently random as well, because molecular chaos is a part of classical mechanics. |
|
Apr 25 |
comment |
Can randomness exist? I'd like to point out that there is no set principle in physics that stipulates that "every cause should have an action" to begin with. So I also vote to close the question as not appropriate for this site. May be more suitable as a philosophical question. |
|
Apr 25 |
comment |
Can randomness exist? On the one hand, you say that QM is deterministic and randomness is only an apparant effect due to decoherence. In the next paragraph you say QM is inherently random. What have I misunderstood? |
|
Apr 21 |
comment |
Transient radiation--heating a slab You don't need Euler's method, this can be integrated analytically. Use separation of variables and partial fractions. |
|
Apr 21 |
revised |
How does gravitation propagate along curved spacetime? propergation -> propagation |
|
Mar 22 |
comment |
Calculating the launch angle of a horizontal launch (mechanics) Your question is off topic, you don't show us what you have tried, you have a zero percent acceptance rate... |
|
Mar 9 |
comment |
Does existence of magnetic monopole break covariant form of Maxwell’s equations for potentials? By the way, a relevant but somewhat old paper about it: TT Wu en CN Yang "Dirac Monopole without Strings Classical Lagrangian theory", Physical Review D Vol 14-2 p437-445, 1976. |
|
Mar 7 |
comment |
Does existence of magnetic monopole break covariant form of Maxwell’s equations for potentials? Dirac's approach is a bit outdated though. Nowadays, one would treat the subject using fibre-bundle theory. |
|
Mar 5 |
comment |
What does Peter Parkers formula represent? @Jerry: It can be avoided by simply multiplying both sides by a factor $\Phi$. |
|
Mar 5 |
comment |
What does Peter Parkers formula represent? @Jerry: Is your comment meant to be sarcastic? A partition function can be seen as a moment-generating function, and this moment-generating function is naturally related to the cumulant-generating function through a logarithm. |
|
Mar 4 |
comment |
How to explain relativistic mass with 2 moving systems, but not 3? Mass doesn't change, it's one of the invariants of the theory. However, in older expositions of relativity, it was customary to introduce a concept of "relativistic mass", which would depend on speed. (Formula: $m=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}$ ) This terminology has been largely abandoned I think. Maybe you should post the exact chapter of the Feynman lectures you are refering to in your question. We could then address this. |
|
Mar 4 |
answered | How to explain relativistic mass with 2 moving systems, but not 3? |
