@EnderLook Quantum Tunnelling is responsible for e.g. alpha decay and cluster decay.
@EnderLook quoting Wikipedia: "The unpredictable composition of the products (which vary in a broad probabilistic and somewhat chaotic manner) distinguishes fission from purely quantum-tunneling processes such as proton emission, alpha decay, and cluster decay, which give the same products each time. "
@danielunderwood No. Just no. Array are not pointer in c. Array names resolve to pointers, and that means that arrays get passed as pointers, but there are different.
Well, you can treat it as such for a lot of purposes. You can obvious use [] to access elements of the buffer and so on, but the compiler considers them different things (data typically stored in the symbol table).
The differences go from subte to irreconciably as soon as you start to consider 2D arrays and pointer-to-pointers.
You can construct a ragged array and dereference it with [][] (like say argv), but its memory layout is incompatible with an array-of-arrays (like char s[5][5];).
Ahh I've never actually used an array of arrays and don't know what its memory layout is
Though I haven't really used arrays for anything except for a fixed-size buffer for reading things. I've had the thought that a static array wasn't really useful since I started C++. That may not be the case it seems
"I have not the slightest hope of making an instructive argument for this postulate. For example, some have questioned antisymmetry, asking us to consider 'causal chains' that double back upon themselves. I am unwilling to do so, but I am equally unwilling to argue the point."
> Namely: quantum mechanics over the quaternions is a flaming garbage fire, which would’ve been rejected at an extremely early stage of God and the angels’ deliberations about how to construct our universe.
@Slereah Haag-Ruelle scattering is a rigorous use of the Heisenberg picture. What's Colombeau got to do with it? If you are concerned about the "multiplication" of the fields, the rigorous version is to just always work with smeared/localized operators.
@Slereah I've been thinking the last few minutes :P The problem is not that it's an integral of a distribution, $\int \delta(x) = 1$ is perfectly well-defined, the problem is that it$\mathcal{H}$ contains products of distributions.
Not the integral, the density itself is the problem
However, I think axiomatics give us a way around that - we don't need to compute that ill-defined mess because a representation of the Poincaré algebra exists on our state space by assumption, so we've got the Hamiltonian simply as the generator of time translation
@Slereah If we had the Hamiltonian "directly", we'd also have the correct space of states, i.e. sidestepped Haag's theorem, and we wouldn't need to rely on asymptotics.
Has anyone ever came across any documentation where the motion of a spacecraft is studied in general relativity for non-geodesic motion? i.e. when external accelerations are present e.g. something along the lines of a non-conservative force?
You had me scared there for a moment. At least the paper seems to be about emojis
On the other hand, it sounds like they're talking about using them in actual literature from a skim. I could see them as kind of a memory device for education, but I'm not so sure about having them in journals
> Although serious scientists and small children may be harmed or at least distraught by reading this manuscript, ethical approval was not sought for this work.
My problem lies in finding readable documents that relate the transformations from global to local frames and the corresponding transformations relating coordinates @DavidZ
