@EmilioPisanty Seems like that could be unlocked but maybe you could make a meta post about it? Just in case there is some reason to keep it locked, I'd like to see people have a chance to make it known.
Yeah, I thought so too. I just don't like to undo a moderation decision (like locking a post) without understanding why it was made and checking that the original reasons don't apply. Let me look into it.
@dmckee what is with these national labs...they expect students to travel across the country, rent a place for two months without any assistance from the lab, and get paid $15 an hour?
@0celo7 I'm not sure I'm familiar with the situation you're asking about. But then when I did summer work at a couple of labs it was as a RA, so I was paid and housed by my department.
This professor has a few documentaries available explaining science to the layman like myself and he showed an equation no longer then a sentence that he says unifies all the know forces and particles in the universe. How can this be possible?
Maybe I should add a thought or two for clarity. ...
Hi there, how do u guys get something useful out of a lecture that requires too much mathematical background? (I am here and they are talking about tensor categories, functors, braidings, etc etc, which I am very not familiar about).
well, the problem is that they seem to associate everything I have some idea (boundaries, fusions of particles), into something mathematical (bdry -> modular category, fusion category, etc). And then the talk goes into math...
@TheDarkSide It's a perspective projection of a pentagonal prism. :)
@TheDarkSide Not as bad as I expected. I haven't done extensive rolling with mine, but it seems to be about as fair as cheap platonic solid dice sets (which isn't saying a lot, because the manufacturing tolerances of standards sets is actually pretty low).
What I mean is: a voter choosing Trump or Clinton had a simple binary choice (I'm simplifying by 'forgetting' other candidates). Yet, would it not be unfair to state that all voters' votes contained the same, small, amount of entropy?
After all, much information has gone into forming the final ch...
At certain velocity the falling water hit's the still water without any disturbance. I consider this is macroscopic quantum phenomenon; Similarily like the reflection of light depends on material thickness, the viscous force depends on velocity difference, and at certain velocity it might be zero -> cause of Turbulence.
@TheDarkSide There must be a ratio of pentagon-side-length to other-side-length which makes the die roll fairly. I don't know how to calculate it, but presumably the people who make these things do know. Seems like a good question for a physics-based Q&A site, if anyone knows of one.
How is the Falcon 9 aerodynamically stable while ascending? The rocket doesn't look like it should be able to fly straight. With the large, largely empty fairing at the top and the heavy engines at the bottom and no fins, it looks like it would want to flip around. Is it simply really well contro...
@EmilioPisanty I had forgotten the Meta was an option on the move to other site close reason. I generally only use that for suggesting migration to the Math SE.
What I mean is: a voter choosing Trump or Clinton had a simple binary choice (I'm simplifying by 'forgetting' other candidates). Yet, would it not be unfair to state that all voters' votes contained the same, small, amount of entropy?
After all, much information has gone into forming the final ch...
@HritikNarayan the spacetime of the accelerating observer is equivalent to a spacetime in which the gravitational field is constant i.e. does not change with distance.
However the gravitational field of the Earth decreases with distance above the surface. That's why there is no horizon.
Actually, no, wait ...
While what I've said is true the black hole horizon in the Rindler geometry is below the observer i.e. you fall towards it. So in your example of the Earth the horizon would have to below the ground.
In the Rindler geometry there is a horizon above the observer but it is a white hole horizon not a black hole horizon. This white hole horizon doesn't exist for the earth because the gravitational field decreases with distance from the surface.
The Rindler black hole horizon is analogous to the event horizon around a black hole i.e. if you're hovering above a black hole there is a horizon below you.
The question is getting at something subtle and not necessarily obvious to me.
It is often claimed that an atom being composed purely of fermions is either a boson or a fermion itself. I interpret this as meaning that the atom can be treated as a fundamental particle (in the sense it can be put ...
@Slereah indeed they are quite famously not bump functions
@Slereah Here's a nice exercize... Let $M$ be a paracompact smooth fold and let $C\subset M$ be closed. Then there is an $f\in C^\infty(M)$ such that $C=f^{-1}(0)$.
Does entanglement not immediately contradict the theory of special relativity? Why are people still so convinced nothing can travel faster than light when we are perfectly aware of something that does?
Do we actually know what causality violation phenomenon is predicted to like, what prevent a phenomenon that look causally violating simply because the way the information of the event is relayed to our senses?
I think the issue here is the following:
Suppose we have a timelike separated event A followed by B. Then in some inertial frames travelling at superluminal velocities, it will look like B preceeds A.
But when we observe it, we only see events A and events B. In practice, how will we know whether e.g. event B is travelling back in time vs it is actually travelling forward, but move in a manner as if it is travelling back in time?
Let $G$ be a semisimple Lie group. The set $\mathcal{P}$ of all proper parabolic subgroups of $G$ with reversed inclusion relation forms a poset
$$ (\mathcal{P}, \supseteq). $$
It follows from the structure theory of parabolic subgroups that there can be constructed a simplicial complex $\Delta(G...
In philosophy and mathematics, Newcomb's paradox, also referred to as Newcomb's problem, is a thought experiment involving a game between two players, one of whom purports to be able to predict the future. Whether the problem actually is a paradox is disputed.
Newcomb's paradox was created by William Newcomb of the University of California's Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. However, it was first analyzed and was published in a philosophy paper spread to the philosophical community by Robert Nozick in 1969, and appeared in Martin Gardner's Scientific American column in 1974. Today it is a much debated...
I don't think there's a paradox. If a predictor is imperfect, then there are two different ways to think about what maximise means
if the predictor is 99.9999999999% perfect, then go with the strategy that picks box B, otherwise, it is always safe to pick A+B
In other news, I wonder if any time travel scenario that cannot be realised by CTCs must all be self inconsistent in some manner
Put it simply, does there exists an isomorphism between the class of all self inconsistent time travel schemes and the grandfather paradox?
@HritikNarayan The Rindler horizon is simpler than you think. Have a read through this. In fact I think understanding the Rindler horizon is a good way to understand horizons in GR.
@0celo7 I'm not sure I'd grind it too finely as I think the taste suffers. If you really want a smooth paste I guess just keep crushing it or maybe use a pestle and mortar.
@JohnRennie It's pretty damn good. I had some unexpected problems, like the cheese not melting correctly. I had to scrape some of it off the bottom of the saucepan, but who doesn't like a little burnt cheese :)
@JohnRennie It all made sense when I looked at the form of the metric. It's beautiful. So the same horizon in three dimensions would be like an infinitely large wall?
@0celo7 I looked into whether you could use second hand Dell, but the PSU in them isn't big enough. Dell's gaming range are the XPS desktops, and a second hand XPS 8700 with a respectable i7 is around $300, which leaves lots of money for the GPU.
But you would also need to upgrade the PSU and that makes them less of a bargain.
f suppose there is a very very heavy object on a frictionless surface and if a force of very small magnitude is applied to object will the object move!!!?
bcz what i believe is when i apply a force to a object it means transfer of energy and since in a very heavy object mass is more so when ene...
More of a sanity check than anything else; say I have an effective 1D problem (x and y are translationally invariant) with from z = 0 to z = t some dielectric layer of permittivity epsilon = epsilon1, and on top of that there is a semiconductor with epsilon = epsilon2. If I now apply a potential V1 at the bottom of the dielectric (at z = 0), I should be able to find the potential at z = t quite easily right?
@rob I suspect this fell off you radar—buried in more pressing stuff. I'm still interested if the offer is still good, and if getting the finished product from your colleague is a problem I'd be grateful even for the data.
@HritikNarayan There are, of course, many more people out there that want someone to help them with their homework than you have close votes, but a fast and muss-free close is the least abusive thing we can do to discourage them.
@Sid It came to my attention with @HritikNarayan's first message here and it is a pretty cut-n-dry case.