Gerenuk
Reputation
624
Next privilege 1,000 Rep.
Create new tags
 Aug 25 comment How can new interpretations of QM help? @RonMaimon: Not an existing one. Any interpretation that could be found in the future. However, if there is no practical problem to solve, even a new interpretation wouldn't provide new value. Btw, is the work of Hooft considered serious? Did he have any concrete results? Jun 5 comment Adding 3 electron spins Thanks. I tried a brute force approach diagonalizing the 8x8 matrix for total angular momentum. The result was img31.imageshack.us/img31/6228/3spins.png. The cyclic operator turned out to be nice and also works for 4 spins. I need to study your approach - I forgot the basics :) A bit surprising that there is no easy answer. Jun 5 comment Show quantum entanglement to a classical thinker I'll have to study that paper. Then just a last question. Has there been absolutely no objection to the set up? Because the CHSH inequality should (apart from statistics) allow for a statement no matter what physically happens unexpectedly. Unless there are additional assumptions about physical measurements needed. Of course you do not need 100% correlation but only above a limit. Jun 5 comment Show quantum entanglement to a classical thinker Thanks, talks exactly about this question. The answer of Frédéric describes it a bit more, too. Jun 4 comment Show quantum entanglement to a classical thinker This is pretty good answer to the question :) Does that mean there is an experiment which is close to 100% winning? It could be an objection if the required state is not realizable. How can I find that experimental test? Jun 4 comment Show quantum entanglement to a classical thinker Thanks! This looks quite promising and I have to study this closer! I read the CHSH inequality, but havent got a deeper grasp on it. When a layman asked me what I'm trying to understand, I knew which way I wanted to answer, but wasn't sure how to frame the CHSH this way. Jun 2 comment Deriving Statistical Mechanics laws from Quantum Mechanics? True, that's what I meant by "presuppositions". You can apply the methods of statmech to anything where (micro)states have equal probability. Entropy laws follow from that. You could equally apply statmech to a set of cards or anything abstract. May 7 comment why people choose condense matter physics the most in 2007 and 2008 for their phd? And what are they studying and what is application in this subject? At university we learned that with logic, proper analysis and error analysis every smart person should arrive at the same conclusions. Why are experiments seem to "proof" completely opposite views at the same time? By "more real world applications" I thought that surely discoveries in more practical sciences like engineering are more often useful?! There were very few usable result in CMP in relation to the amount of papers published? Anyway, I hope this answer provides a complementary view from someone who doesn't regret that he quit the academic path for a reason :) May 4 comment Which new insight did $E=mc^2$ give us? The moon has simple binding energy to the earth which was way before Einstein. And you could knock out an orbiting object and get energy back. Is binding energy in particular isn't the difference. Apr 27 comment Which new insight did $E=mc^2$ give us? You helped me find the answer. In my opinion you just don't get to the point and the "in-depth/fundamental" part was missing. That's as much as I can say. Thanks. Apr 26 comment When does a pot not spill? I've found an article to the walking spill problem: pre.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v85/i4/e046117 Apr 26 comment Which new insight did $E=mc^2$ give us? It's certainly true. Let me try to draw a conclusion which is more the "fundamental insight" part that I was looking for. That splitting nuclei emits energy isn't surprising either due to the known concept of binding energy. But maybe the actual key point is that binding energy can be measure by the gravitational force? The conclusion I see is that kinetic energy can be converted to real particles. Is that the essence? Apr 20 comment Did they find a new particle with CMP? Thanks! So it's similar to magnetic monopol discovery. How boring :) Apr 16 comment Macroscopic laws which haven't been derived from microscopic laws Very good point! In fact I'm exactly refering to something like "more is different" and asking where such a high level law has been found, which was inaccessible from microscopic ones. Apr 7 comment When does a pot not spill? Sharp edges could be part of the answer. I also see different shapes and angles. Moreover it seemed to me an elliptic container drips less from the flatter side. What about the material? And why the fancy shapes of teapots openings? Apr 7 comment When does a pot not spill? If you have questions about details just ask. After you have poured the liquid there are often drops dripping. Some cans do that. Some don't. Mar 20 comment Are quantum mechanics calculations useful for engineering? OK, thanks. I see :) Mar 20 comment Are quantum mechanics calculations useful for engineering? @Jerry: No, I rather do theory than experiments and I'm glad there are people who do experiments for us. I'm just wondering why that ivory tower of research. If you obviously don't know an answer - get over it and don't get mad. If you can't take a critical view, just don't answer. Mar 20 comment Are quantum mechanics calculations useful for engineering? But does any of these discoveries rely on more than basic understanding? (see comment to Arnolds answer) Do you need calculations which a more "quantum-mechanical" than quasi-classic simple theories? Mar 20 comment Are quantum mechanics calculations useful for engineering? I mean QM calculations in particular. Do you need DFT and it's cousins to develop a transistor? Of course, some basic understanding is important, but in the end most devices are found by experimental trial and error?! Theory often lags behind and hardly ever reaches full agreement with experiments? So what's the point of theory from the practical point of view if it's cheaper to do an experiment rather than occupy a server-cluster for a year and still be wrong?