Reputation
836
Next privilege 1,000 Rep.
Create new tags
Badges
1 9 17
Newest
 Yearling
Impact
~48k people reached

1d
awarded  Yearling
2d
awarded  Good Answer
Apr
25
reviewed Approve Do all equations have identical units on the left- and right-hand sides?
Apr
25
awarded  Yearling
Apr
25
awarded  Nice Answer
Apr
25
comment Do all equations have identical units on the left- and right-hand sides?
@mrc: The reason I avoided that is that I thought it could be confusing because "dimensions" in the physical world also refer to space and time...
Apr
25
answered Do all equations have identical units on the left- and right-hand sides?
Apr
23
comment Why rotating reference frames are not inertial?
Not only that, but it completely misses the point of my question, but unfortunately for me I can't find the words to explain it better. However, I can say that if a Foucault pendulum is your answer, then I think you haven't understood the crux of my confusion... in fact I was already familiar with the Foucault pendulum before I asked this, and it did not answer my question. I'm confused why the world behaves the way it does, not asking how it behaves.
Apr
23
asked Why rotating reference frames are not inertial?
Apr
20
comment What are the next generation physics experiments?
I had to re-read BSM to make sure it wasn't something else...
Mar
25
awarded  Citizen Patrol
Mar
24
comment Classical gravitational waves, again
@EmilioPisanty: What I'm confused about it, though, is this: do I really have to predict the mathematical equation of something in order to make a prediction that it almost certainly exists? For example can't you presumably predict the speed of light is finite through observations without ever calculating what it should be? If I did that in the year 1800, would you not count it as a prediction if I didn't calculate $c$? Why is finding an equation considered part of predicting something's existence? Doesn't it suffice to predict how it should qualitatively behave?
Mar
24
asked Classical gravitational waves, again
Mar
23
comment Uncertainty in Uncertainty?
:) I would also prefer $\sqrt{\left\langle \left(A - \left\langle A \right\rangle\right)^2 \right\rangle}$ if that's the actual definition in physics, since it's also more intuitive.
Mar
23
comment Uncertainty in Uncertainty?
I'm no physicist but do you happen to be missing a square root?
Mar
20
comment Why do beams of light (from torches or other directed sources) not extend to infinity?
@SeñorO: On the plus side they're not repeating the information in the question back at the OP with a period at the end to make it look like an answer, which is something I've also seen happen in scenarios when people don't know the answer....
Feb
15
comment What is the difference between the meaning of “state space” and “configuration space”?
Wow, I really appreciate this but actually I'm even more confused now. I didn't expect probability to be involved at all in classical mechanics. How would probabilities be involved? Or did you mean quantum mechanics?
Feb
15
asked What is the difference between the meaning of “state space” and “configuration space”?
Jan
24
asked Same amount of light, spread across larger surface area = more reflection?
Jan
17
comment Can the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle be explained intuitively?
@HotLicks: I never understood what Schrodinger's cat was doing in that box in the first place...