I wonder though: there's nothing I can think of that would prevent building something shaped like a parachute that displaces more air than its own weight and thus would floats, besides maybe the size or materials needed.
@Sklivvz If you find something that is less dense than air, that might work. The parachute shape would be coincidental, and the reason buoyancy, not drag, as you note.
You could always fill the parachute shape with helium, for example...
@Sklivvz Ideal parachutes don't actually displace any air, they just increase wind resistance. Of course you could build something that displaces air, but then it's acting as a balloon, not a parachute.
I have flaged 4 posts and my profile says that all the flags are helpful(i.e. 4 posts flaged, 4 helpful flags). But when I tried to flag one more post, I saw that I had only 8 flags remaining. Even though all my flags were deemed as helpful. I want to know why two of my flags were gone,even thoug...
came across a rather weird review today, but quite interesting after having read it, think most of you guys will be interested as well: topological quantum computing
@Phonon Indeed an interesting article. I'm a bit surprised that they don't mention Chern-Simons theory, since that is a TQFT that indeed computes knot invariants as its observables.
@ACuriousMind yeah, probably he just wanted to choose a more intuitive approach to showing knot invariance, I agree that it would have been much nicer had the article been written in a more technical manner
tbh I didn't quite catch the example given in figure 4
" A computation is performed by physically dragging the particles around each other to form a space–time braid" ...
@Phonon It sounds strange, but Wilson lines (which are the observables in such TQFTs, essentially) are nothing but the path of a particle. The well-known Aharonov-Bohm effect is nothing but a non-trivial expectation value for a Wilson line - the line that contains the solenoid
So what they do is - they trace out a very complicated Wilson line whose knot invariant would be terrible to compute classical, and then they just measure to determine the invariant through the quanutm process without really having to "compute" it. I think.
@ACuriousMind aha, starting to make a lot more sense, thanks for this clarification. You're the one who should be writing a review on this stuff ...no joke! still not getting the Wilson lines though (
@Danu yeah, well if he wants to play another Berlin defense this is what he gets (Anand)... I think this is good for carlsen, because he just won't get tired that easily, it's anand who s gonna be worn out soon, very tough to make it now in the next 3 games, specially now that his mindset will always be ("I have 3...2... more games to win back...")
@ACuriousMind I'm just thinking how on earth are would the superposition of knots be prepared... Q-computers that are based on qubit polarizations are much more understandable intuitively, also from a experimental point of view, but this one oO
@Danu LOL the title... don't tell me there's sth to it... :((
so from what I get is that, topological Q computers will not allow the preparation of pure states (not with acceptable error rates at all, hence the cloud idea), in contrast to the more usual ones based on polarization.
@Phonon I'm not buying HotS anytime soon I think - I'm not that into strategy atm and there's enough other stuff I want to play. And I never played Dota2 - only played the original ;)
Is it me, or is this user just asking endless variations of the same question, which we invariably close as homework and/or non-mainstream?
it s not just you, he really is, it's ridiculous...
it's like that guy who kept dividing c by G and posted it bout 10 times...saying he was onto new physics...and he even changed accounts every time...hate this type of spams...
@ACuriousMind pity bout gaming man, we'd have so much fun...!
