@Qmechanic?

Anyone know anything about this?

racers-republic.com/technology1223/…

"A Kazakh mathematician claims to have found a partial solution to the Navier-Stokes equation of fluid mechanics, one of the seven millennium problems launched by the Clay Foundation in 2000 and are awarded one million dollars."

hi @EmilioPisanty I am attempting to answer your Sarychev cloud hole question

@Amaterasu Looking forward to it :)

well, the controversy is not resolved, but I am applying some information to evaluate the two sides of the controversy

^-- Given the look of the available links, it's most likely something like the reported counter-example to Fermat's Last Theorem in early April 1994, but who knows

@Amaterasu If it hasn't been settled, then it hasn't. If there's relevant papers explaining the different options, and particularly recent references that make clear that it's still not settled, then I'll happily accept an answer with those references, and hopefully with readable summaries.

@EmilioPisanty heard of this yesterday

almost done

full of images

@Amaterasu Looking forward to it. I'm signing off now - it's late here.

lol no worries, hope you won't be disappointed

@EmilioPisanty for when you gt back, the reply is done and done

I am beginning to wonder if there is anything wrong with my answers?

@ManishEarth?

Sigh, How can I write a good introduction for a paper?

"Once upon a time..." just kidding

outline the main idea with rationale, then outline the research that has been done (the background) and briefly describe how the paper is stuctured

I have no story to tell :(

sory of my life

I know that, but I am not sure how to rasie the importance of my work, compared with others work

what applications are there that make your work stand out?

Not sure, except it has not been done before.

I can;t find any papers did the same thing, neither can't prove it has not been done

okay then, what applications will it have

that would improve other related aspects of physics

The only one application is to create the phenomenon itself. Its use is out of my imagination

hmmm

hello @Waffle'sCrazyPeanut

hello @Waffle'sCrazyPeanut

Heya, can someone help me out with a problem?

I have an object of mass $m$, releasred from rest and falling towards earth.

And asides from the force of gravity $mg$ there is a resistive (upwards) force $kv$, where $k$ is a constant and $v$ is the object's velocity.

I'm tasked with finding an expression for $v$ as a function of time.

@nsanger The first thing you need is to draw a free body diagram, then write down the Newton second law and include every forces.

Yeah, so what I have so far is

$F_{net} = ma = mg - kv$

And then solving for acceleration we get $a = g - kv/m$

@nsanger no

hmm?

what's wrong there?

you need to use a=d^2x/dt^2 and v=dx/dt and then solve the second order differential eqt

@nsanger Because both a(t) and v(t) depends on t, so the equation is Implicit

Well, since the object is dropped from rest don't we know that $v(t) = \int_{0}^{t} a dt$

you cannot solve it this way

okay...

@Amaterasu @hwlau Hey there :)

@Waffle'sCrazyPeanut Hello :)

You don't change your name back?

Quantum Cheshire Cat: medium.com/p/718c885f6a98

Seems interesting

@hwlau Nah, I thought this name is much better than the last...

better in the sense, quite crazier

@Waffle'sCrazyPeanut I am guessing whether your behaviour in your life is the same as the description.

No, I'm good & humble :D

But, most of my fellas are scared of me :P

(that whether I'd start talking about Physics)

Can somebody explain how he got the intensity? :physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87287/…

@Waffle'sCrazyPeanut That means you can't say something interesting about physics

@Anonymous Why don't you ask him directly?

Because I was hoping to get an answer tonight lol

@hwlau Interesting/non-interesting/funny --> doesn't matter, they just don't like Physics, nor do they like their own engineering course...

@Anonymous I guess he was here an hour's ago

Oh...

You can check it yourself...

I swear it's basic I'm just being stupid

I don't know how a 4 came out on the outside, and... I'm just confused.

It is because |2 cos(...)|^2, so it is 4

But they have different arguments.....

@Anonymous Not sure, have you tried to rederive it?

I'm looking at it...

It obviously has typo in his answer if you notice

This is just completely wrong...

@Anonymous Then why are you accepting it as answer ......

@Amaterasu Dunno. I haven't really had a look, I'm busy these days. Your Chem answers are awesome, though

From the few of your Phy answers I've seen, they're good but remember that it's not as easy to get votes on Phy and Chem as it is on other sites

Uh Oh. I'm talking physics on Biology SE. And I know nothing of either! Can somebody check this (for major f*ck-ups), please? biology.stackexchange.com/a/14454/3395

Nobody?

How about you, @EmilioPisanty?

@GlenTheUdderboat I had a look. I think you're off on a weird track

@EmilioPisanty lol. OK. How's that?

Evolution is complicated, and the question of whether randomness is 'true' or not seems to me to miss the point. I think it's unlikely that it matters whether it's quantum mechanics or chaos or pseudorandomness going on as far as evolution is concerned.

@EmilioPisanty OK. But I am of the opinion that if there is randomness at all it must be quantum-mechanical. There is no other randomness (if at all) when it comes to the history of the world, right?

@GlenTheUdderboat May be. Does it matter?

@EmilioPisanty Yes, because I argue that quantum-mechanical randomness cannot (with 99.99% prob.) disturb an evolutionary path.

If you replaced the universe with one with no weird quantum mechanical randomness but simply inherent classical randomness (while keeping, of course, all of molecular biology the same), would evolution notice?

@EmilioPisanty What do you mean with "inherent classical randomness"? (Isn't that for models, precision, etc., but not for reality?)

@GlenTheUdderboat No, you 'guess' that that would happen. Your answer is indecisive and speculative; you provide little evidence for you real claims and you spend too much time on points about e.g. relativity that are not relevant to the question and can only distract and confuse your audience.

@EmilioPisanty Good points. What would your guess be? (Come on, give it a go!) :)

Actually, I didn't guess that that would happen. I guessed that it would happen with at least 99.99% probability.

The value 99.99% is the guess.

@GlenTheUdderboat You claim that the fact that nature's randomness is quantum mechanical is crucial to evolution. How could you prove or falsify that claim? Consider the negative of your premise: 'nature has a source of randomness outside of quantum mechanics'. Does life in the universe still display evolution?

@GlenTheUdderboat Regardless. A guess is not an argument.

@EmilioPisanty Of course it will still display evolution. The point is that evolution doesn't need randomness. Pseudorandomness would easily suffice.

In general, I think it is misguided to place too much emphasis on the quantum nature of randomness after a measurement has been performed. Once you are committed to one of the branches (i.e. once you've measured/decohered/whatever) then you can no longer 'see' the other branches of the wavefunction and you cannot perform interference measurements. The randomness is not a crucial element of quantum mechanics

@EmilioPisanty I'll accept that (for the sake of argument). So, where's the other randomness supposedly needed for evolution?

@EmilioPisanty BTW thanks for talking to me.

You're welcome, but please stop presupposing I'm expected to answer your demands for answers. You asked for opinions on your post and I gave them.

@EmilioPisanty Yup. Appreciate it. No presuppositions here.

OK. gotta go now.

@EmilioPisanty Thanks!

Anybody who might feel like arguing?

(I think) I am arguing against "[it is widely accepted that] genetic mutation is random". Any takers?

Anyway, I've made an attempt at drawing 't Hooft back onto the site. If it works, all credits are mine. Just remember that.

I don't really argue - I just do the research and see what the data says, and if data is unavailable or incomplete, then I usually say 'I dunno'

@Amaterasu Good for you. But, the data is always incomplete. :)

And if it would be complete, we wouldn't know it. :(

@GlenTheUdderboat then, if it is in my field, I do research and experiments.