About whether we are living in a simulation, I recall I once talked to Howard about it and he suspects a nice support that our world is not a simulation is if we can find a physical phenomenon that is uncomputable. The existence of such phenomenon will then convince us that we are not in a simulation
However the more I think about it, the more it seems there is a catch: what if being in a simulation or not has nothing to do with computing power, then such thing will still not be a conclusive test
I need to check whether in QFT there are operations that can transform one type of quantum field into another
The 2014 sci-fi movie Predestination makes me wonder whether a time traveler is no better at the knowledge about the future compared to a none time traveler. For example, a time traveler will often think he or she is at their own present hence they
they had free will to decide their future. But what they don't know yet is that they might be still part of a predestination paradox in the next couple of minutes
I think I need to check again how exactly systems with memory operates in CTC (yes, what I said above will hold in type 1 time travel, but will fail for type 3 and 4)
Fun fact: Most of the time, people don't know what I am investigating when I started to post a stream of maths. Interestingly however, they almost always able to give relevant comments and answers
It's as if we all know what we are doing without having a clue on what we are doing
Hey! Anyone here (or could you perhaps recommend someone I could write at) who has experience with modeling semiconductor surfaces? Or well, how to accurately include them in a finite element model? I'm working on nanowires, where the surface to volume ratio is very large and one definitely needs to do something with that
@Secret you can't find uncomputable phenomenon per Craig's theorem and also there's no such thing as uncomputable, things are only uncomputable wrt a computation model
Ie a Turing machine
An uncomputable problem will be computable in a morepowerful model
You don't need the rate constant or pre-exponential factor. The question just tells you that some proportion X of the molecules have an energy $E_a$. You just need the equation for the probability of finding a system some energy $E_a$ above the ground state.
In statistical mechanics and mathematics, a Boltzmann distribution (also called Gibbs distribution) is a probability distribution, probability measure, or frequency distribution of particles in a system over various possible states. The distribution is expressed in the form
F
(
s
t
a
t
e
)
∝
e
−
E
k
T
...
Shipping from the UK to India is £20-40 depending on the carrier and how fast you want it shipped. But the Indian customs will grab it and levy an import duty that you have to pay before they'll release the laptop.
If you buy from ebay.com you may find they have an option to pay the import duty when you pay for the laptop. In that case it should get straight to you.
Actually that may also be true buying from ebay.co.uk, and since the pound tanked after Brexit the laptops will be 20% cheaper.
@Slereah I see, so... if there is no limit on how far can Turing machines improve, then there is no way to experimentally test for the possibility that reality is a simulation?
I am actually having a hard time envision what a reality without simulation be like, I mean, you see how powerful programming is in building convincing looking scenes and dynamics, and it is not very clear what a non simulation world could allow/disallow that can make it different from a simulation
It's turned out to be very nice. You're never entirely sure what to expect buying on eBay but this is in excellent condition. The battery is in good condition as well. I got four hours out of it, which is excellent for a large screen laptop.
Given an image of a goat, your program should best try to identify whether the goat is upside down, or not.
Examples
These are examples of what the input may be. Not actual inputs
Input:
Output:
Downgoat
Spec
Your program should be at most 30,000 bytes
The input will contain the full goa...
I currently have 103 reputation in Physics Stack Exchange but why there is no any edit option under the posts. In other stack exchange websites it appears very well and I can edit any post and the edits are applied when it is peer reviewed. But this problem is happening with me in this Physics St...
Should've been habe instead of hat and drei, not drie, and using an instead of in would've been more idiomatic. In the end it should be das meiste, not (am) meistens
@BenNiehoff There are...different kinds of volumes of it. I think the "standard" Duden is a single volume, but there are specialized volumes like one focused on etymology
In Strathdeee's "Extended Poincare Supersymmetry", the first entry on page 16 lists the massless multiplets of 6d $\mathcal{N} = (1,0)$ supersymmetry as
$2^2 = (2,1; 1) \oplus (1,1; 2)$. This is the half-hyper (matter) multiplet.
$(2,1;1) \otimes 2^2 = (3, 1;1) \oplus (1,1; 1) \oplus (2,1; 2)$....
@BenNiehoff Yes I know about the Euler formula but I don't see how large $t$ which would be in the arguments of $\cos$ and $\sine$ i.e. $\cos(Et) + i \sin(Et)$ would change the frequency of oscillations?
@ACuriousMind It's referring to an integrand, integrated over $E$, so $E$ increases in the integrand and $t$ increases as well...Does this then imply rapid oscillation?
@skullpetrol What was you point about the general definition of frequency? How does this imply rapid oscillation with regard to Eulers formula?
@JohnDoe No. The point is that you view the integrand as a function $f_t(E)$ of $E$ for fixed $t$. If $t$ is large, then $f_t(E)$ oscillates rapidly as a function of $E$.
@ACuriousMind Discussions beneficial to SE should be always public, yes. But the SE design hinders getting out of the system. Not everyone wants to show their email or social media accounts publicly.