@DamienIgoe AFAICT you're not screwing anything up :)
And it's perfectly OK to screw too :P
I've had some major whoopsie moments in the past on this site. In fact, I think I gave a wrong answer recently (of course, the community pointed out the mistake to me so I fixed it ^.^)
If you're writing an answer, in some way - you're disturbed and you start write something else, and in the end (one day), you notice that you've spewed something in the page...
Can any one please suggest which out of these three engineering streams will be most linked to Physics and help me later to get a masters in physics. The fields are : Mechanical and automation engineering, Computer engineering and electronic and communication engineering
I want to do research in physics/mathematics but not able to pursue a BS right now. I have these three options for engineering
@Iota Not really I think... Different engg. have different fields in Physics... For instance, Mech. people concentrate more on Materials Science, intro to Mechanics, etc...
@ManishEarth Last sem, we had Design concepts (much like this marketing business), Manufacturing (& production) process, Material science (which are all mech-based)
That's why we people suffered...
@ManishEarth: Okay Manish... I should rush now... Gd n8 :)
@DamienIgoe People do both. I generally state which I'm up to if I think it likely that other may read the question differently. Best is to get the OP to clarify, but sometimes they don't stay around to respond in the short term.
if we have different perceptions of the answer - this will lead to problems (like in my answer where I was publicly admonished for not having the same perception as a moderator).
I've been following Tom Bearden's videos and articles for quite a while and have a couple of questions regarding the Second Law Of Thermodynamics (I'm by no means anywhere near an expert on physics, quantum, electrodynamics, etc, so please correct me where needed)
According to Tom Bearden, the s...
@Sklivvz It appears to be nonsense. I left a comment at skeptics. I would just as soon not see it sent to physics, but won't protest if other feel differently.
The question is a bit long, but the topic seems to be reasonable nonequilibrium (statistical) physics and this is not at all nonsense @dmckee. It nonequilibrium physics it is well known that larger structures (sometimes called dissibative structures) can form from smaller ones, self organization istopic too in this context. Violation of the second law is just a misleading way to say that there is an upward energy cascade instead of the more well known downward energy flow.
So the topic the question askes about is not nonsense but legitimate physics.
Sorry for the typos, I am too clumsy for my iphone...
In Feynman path formulation, when a particle goes from A to B. Is there an uncertainty in the position, since we know that the particle is in A and B?
user54412
honestly, all it needs is for someone (I call not me :P) to explain what the 2nd law says, and how yes, of course, if you are in the exact middle of a potential well, why indeed your next random step will take you to a higher potential - this says nothing about long-term averages
user54412
but I won't force the question on this site if others don't want it
user54412
@jinawee Sounds like a reasonably good question on the main site
