I have kept a drema log for 5 years. My dream log have been an importsat part of y life, as it lead me to google things that I otehrwise never will and thus learnign a lot of different things formr number theory to a new manga\
--- Please inform me if I miss a single question, cause I have tried my best to ensure they are all answered
I think the interesting aspect of roaming is that the naive way we might calculate the dissociation is wrong. The system does not simply follow the trajectory of minimum energy.
I wish ACM can now see that I can be coherent, it just take a HUGE effort
@JohnRennie Exactly.However for some reactions, traditional trnsiton state works well. Also roaming technically still involve a saddle point. IT jsut mean we need to esxpand our scoep of transiton state theory
thx to secret & everyone for participating. here is a link on the chat sessions. we are always looking for new speakers/ volunteers. will hang around a bit to listen to any feedback re this session/ others. also thx to DZ/JR. meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/…
The dissociation mechanism is a lot more complicated than that. For example it involves the transfer of energy between vibrational normal modes due to non-linear couplings.
@ConstantineBlack The only dream that I can call a deja fu dream is a drema in primary school where I argue with a friend in library, the next day the almost same sequenceo f event happened and then breaking the 4th wall I told them I dreamt about it and it is liek lol
It is a dangoerous question. cause I have a very nihilsitic dark side. There are two possibel outcomes. Like Sasaki in Haruhi Suzumaya light novels, I am pretty satisfied and thus will do nothing, or my dark side can take over and eveyrthing will become nothingness in a blink
@vzn I won't judge jsut yet, roaming in condensed phase is still young with very few exmaples. Perhaps they are actually ubiquitious. Msot objectiion will say that in condensed phase, they are too many solvent molecules that will force the radicals to recombin before they start to roam around
@Martin thanks, I've been taught them at the first year of high-school. also thank you about the explanation and the link referring to the "rigor". actually I knew this, I only didn't know what it is called in English. At least I've expected any mathematical proof to be rigorous to some extent (considering the level of math we use and what discuss). I googled it and knew sth more; thank you again for your effort to make it clearer to me.
@2physics: You're welcome. And you are right to think that "any mathematical proof [is] rigorous to some extent". And the level of rigour (from very hand-wavy to computer checkable) is exactly what distinguishes the physicist from the mathematical physicist. The mathematical physicist wants the rigour of the mathematical community, the physicist wants the rigour necessary to get 99% of the results correct without too much hassle.
Even though slereah and ACM have exchanged place of becoming a neutrino, I found that my time travel model have nontrivial tpology thus I should learn some topology , get then formalised before returning to that question
@Martin well why doesn't a mathematical physicist doubt that maybe there are some more axioms that we need to provide a better proof, therefore we have to assume some principles which later in future may be considered as axioms?
and another question: as a mathematical physicist, now that you know the relativity theory, can you propose an approach (or if you believe there exist, one) according mathematical physics (using those days accepted axioms) which would lead to the results of this theory?
@0celo7 thank you for looking up the ballentine stuff :) I agree that his approach is certainly peculiar; I've just found other parts of his book rather helpful, so I was interested in what you said
@secret Why do you listen to trance? just cos you like it or for "zoning" I don't know how I'd describe that in coherent english without using the slang from around here.
@2physics: Mathematical physicists do think that the current theory is probably not enough. But they are mostly working on making complete what is already there (which is more than enough to work with). Some, like Alain Connes, work on new theories which have additional axioms, but usually the maths becomes extremely heavy very fast.
@2physics My mind freely associate random ideas I have leartn throughotu my life, one reason why my posts look really disconnected from one to the next
@Martin alright.. so I think it would be great if a theoretical physicist would try to take some of mathematical physics considerations beside his/her approaches
Don't worry, the only thing so far I knew that really pisses ACM off is reading a bunch of seemly disconnected messages and continously making vague statements. I gather this information between the chat logs of 0celo7 and ACM
I am trying to figure out how to piece my research proposal together and I knew if I sleep now before that setence is finsihed, I am going to slack off tomorrow
@JohnDuffield I have a hyperactive response to ignorance, because it is basically the same as someone yelling at you on the ear. It is the nosiest of all the sound
@2physics ACM is not unkind, and I understood that. I am glad that the questions I ask him can be found via other means or experimentations (it just take a long er time), unlike some of the people I met in the past which frstrates me a lot because they are the only source of the answer
I'm sure a curious mind, doesn't care that "who" ask the questions, he just looks at what is the question. so, considering the name of his account, don't worry about that.
;)
go to bed sleep and rest it's late now for thinking about those issues
Why would decreasing the amount of gas in a constant-volume gas bulb (submerged in some liquid) allow one to achieve more accurate results of the temperature of the liquid?
Less gas means faster particles to make up for the decrease in mass (pressure must increase with temperature in this case by definition)
is it because pressure is easier to calculate with fewer particles?
Okay so it's saying $T_3 = KP_3$ is the triple point of water using this method. We decide to use $273.15K$ for $T_3$ then to eliminate the constant we find the ratio of the pressures. $T = T_3(\frac{P}{P_3})$ then take the limit as the gas goes to $0$. $T = 273.15(\lim_{gas\to 0}\frac{P}{P_3})$ and it says this gets the ideal gas temperature
also do you know why the temperature gets more accurate if less gas is in the bulb?
I should mention that the motivation for using this method of reducing the gas in the bulb is because different gases will get slightly different results
@vzn: I guess it'd be interesting, but unfortunately, I'm on a workshop of my group from 3rd to 6th of October, which'd be exactly the date you propose.
What the heck is heat capacity of an object? It's defined as the proportionality constant b/t the heat $Q$ that the objects gains/loses and the corresponding temperature change $\Delta T$
so $Q = C\Delta T$
shouldn't $Q = \Delta T$ dangit let me read further
did you write any other papers in your years of high school @0celo7 also do you have them in your hd to upload?
@Obliv it's actual strictly speaking a derivative of internal energy or enthalpy with respect to temperature; if it is constant you have $Q = c * \Delta T$, but that is a special case, in general it's $Q = \int c dT$
:32150359 the partial derivative of internal energy/enthalpy w.r.t. T
OH I see. Suppose there was a fixed temperature difference between an object and its environment (so as the temperature of the object increases/decreases to match that of the environment) this would be a constant change in internal energy $Q$ right? @sanya
@Secret Look, I'm sorry that me ignoring you caused you so much distress. Unlike with the people I permanently ignore, it's not that is dislike you. But conversations with you feel very...draining to me. I need to invest far more energy into understanding what you're saying and responding to it than with others, and I just needed a break for a few days. You may well think I'm a dick for just stopping talking to you, and I'd understand that.
Ok, so suppose we want to do the standard variational procedure $\mathrm d_t E(f+t\eta)|_{t=0}$. What are the conditions I need on $\eta$ for that derivative to actually be defined?
Next question...I have this weird statement $H_c^{k,p}(\Omega)\subset C^m(\bar\Omega)$ for $0\le m\le k-n/p$. I don't really understand the proof, but how is that subset defined? These are function spaces over different sets!
@ACuriousMind Last question: are you aware of the theorem which says a compact Riem. mfld. contains a minimizing geodesic in each homotopy class of curves?
@Bass I feel we might have talked past each other in the comments here. It's one thing to be confused about how dinosaurs sustained their own weight, it's another to claim professionals (archeologists) are still wondering about that like the question does.
@ACuriousMind Indeed. I've finally confirmed my hypothesis that I'm a physics person, not a philosophy person. Fortunately, first semester is pass-fail here, so that's cool.
