darklight03/StackMIAsub huggingface dataset:
Background: In the SG experiment, an inhomogenous magnetic field affects a force on particles passing between two magnets. "Measurement" takes place when a screen is placed on one end, blocking one of the states. The final measurement we perform (spin state of particles exiting) is heavily dependent on whether we perform a measurement or not, whether by blocking particles exiting the device or by blocking particles by setting up a screen within a modified SG device The interaction between the particles and magnets should also exert a force on the magnets, causing them to move slightly. The motion of these magnets seems to not affect the outcome of the experiment significantly, yet that would imply that the motion of the magnets could be measured without affecting the outcome of the experiment. This seems at odds with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, that we are getting information for free. My Professor tells me that the force exerted on the magnets by the particles is so minuscule that it cannot be measured (I assume it is similar to how we can't measure particles' momentum and position simultaneously, because any photons we shoot at the particle will end up imparting change?) What's going on here? I wanted to double check here and see where I went wrong with my assumptions.
How are Superposition and Entanglement related? I don't know much of Quantum Mechanics. I am CSE student and got started with this Quantum Computing. It is interesting! If anybody can help me on this, without digging deep into mathematical details. "The principle of quantum superposition refers to pure states of a quantum system. One considers a primary beam of quantal entities that passes into a primary beam splitter or quantum analyser that has multiple output channels. A beam has a pure state when every one of its quantal entities passes into one and the same output channel. A primary beam with a pure state is passed into another, different, secondary beam splitter or quantum analyser. Then the emerging quanta are probabilistically in its several output channels. These several emergent, intermediate, beams are respectively pure with respect to the secondary analyser. They are then passed to respective copies of the secondary analyser, arranged so as to bring them together into a single reconstituted beam. That beam is then passed to a copy of the primary analyser. In general, it will be probabilistically split into the several output channels." - Wikipedia I did not get that! Any help is appreciated.
There are lots of ways to apply the mean field method to deal with the Ising model whose ground state is a ferromagnetic state. Hence, it is easy to find the order parameter named magnetization to describe the mean behavior of spin-spin interaction. But, in the antiferromagnetic Ising model, the ground state is an antiferromagnetic state, and I realize it is difficult to find a parameter which effectively describes the mean interaction. If I choose magnetization similar to what we did in Ising model, then, I find it is zero, the mean field is always zero. I get nothing from this mean field. I cannot find a direct physical parameter describing the system to replace the spin-spin interaction. Does this imply that the mean behavior of spin-spin interaction is always zero? Is there a mean field method to deal with the antiferromagnetic Ising model? I hope you can help me, thanks!
My understanding of pseudovectors vs vectors is pretty basic. Both transform in the same way under a rotation, but differently upon reflection. I might even be able to summarize that using an equation, but that's about it. Similarly, I can follow arguments that pseudovectors behave differently in "mirrors" than vectors. But my response to this is always: Okay, so what? When would I ever "do physics" in a mirror? The usefulness eludes me. I'd like to gain a better understanding of the importance of this difference. When is it useful for an experimental physicist to distinguish between the two? When is it useful for a theoretical physicist to distinguish between the two? I believe symmetry is important to at least one of these, but would appreciate a practical rather than abstract argument of when one has to be careful about the distinction.
We are two partners about to launch a product that is currently called "Coralline". We are inspired from the animal and its habitat in underwater. Since this will be an international product I am having second thoughts about this word because it is hard to pronounce and transcribe for non-native English speakers. Also I believe it is not a commonly used word in English so even native English speakers will not grasp the meaning at first glance. I am looking for a word that resembles Coralline or coral reefs, like "seaweed" etc. My criteria are: Unique Easy to remember Easy to spell Any help would be much appreciated. Additional information: We ended up with Coralline through a research on fractals. That might be a cue for any suggestion. We are going with underwater/reef theme some words related to that can also help.
I can understand the causative form (quite less frequently, we simply say causal verb) with make and get but when used with have/has, it sometimes makes me think differently. Of course, I can understand the construction like the following. I had a barber cut my hair yesterday. In its passive form, it can be written as I had my hair cut yesterday (by a barber). I can also understand that the preceding sentence (passive construction) cannot be rewritten as follows. I had cut my hair yesterday. If it's modified in this way then both the sentences have a significant difference in meaning that I can understand. The thing I don't understand properly when a bare infinitive is replaced with an infinitive in such kind of constructions, such as. He has his wife cook dinner for him. What happens, if the bare infinitive i.e cook is replaced with an infinitive like the following. He has his wife to cook dinner for him. At a glance, you will be able to understand the difference between them but for me, it's not English but it's my native language in which as far as I know there is no difference between these two sentences and even the causative construction is simply made by just using some suffixes to the main verb in a sentence. So please take it easy. Could you please expose the important difference between these preceding two sentences?
Referencing Stephen Hawking's recent paper Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes and this question. I understand concept of holding the information on the apparent horizon of a black hole for later release in the form of garbled radiation, but how is it that this differs ( if at all ) from the Hawking Radiation generated by the Unruh effect near the horizon? My, possibly flawed, train of thought is that the aforementioned black hole sucks in everything in matter in it's immediate surroundings, and due to the Feynman diagram that corresponds to particle-antiparticle pairs spontaneously popping into existence with one particle on the other side of the horizon, the energy from the matter sucked in, is imparted to which ever particle is outside of the event horizon to repay the energy debt to the Universe.
I'd like to know why in a parallel loop, the voltage, along with the current, isn't divided. e.g. in this image from a youtube video the voltage in parallel loop is the same across both resistors, for some reason this seems counter-intuitive to me. Also later on in the video, the resistance was proportional to the voltage. I talked about this in class today, there was some debate on whether the voltage is inversely or directly proportional to the resistance. My argument was that because the resistance is higher, there must be less voltage going through at that point. So as resistance increases, voltage drops, showing an inverse proportion, but then someone in the class brought up the equation V=IR, in the circuits we've looked at, the current is seen to be the same throughout, in series, so it can be simplified to V=(K)R, V(proportion sign)R which would mean as Voltage went up, so would the resistance. Then we were talking about this in parallel, and things got more confusing, he spoke about the current not being the same across both resistors therefore we cant use the above rule, which I understood, but he didn't explain what actually happens. I'm getting confused writing this question.. perhaps I should do a few practice questions. My teacher was worryingly also unsure. I Hope this question doesn't come across too ambiguously.
I have joined a grammar MOOC starting with an introduction to English tenses. One of the practice questions left me confused. The question is as follows: Do these two sentences have similar meaning or different meaning? Julie has studied French for two years. Julie has been studying French for two years. I'm not sure how similar is similar, but having a questionable sense of the language I think I should follow the rules. Grammar books state that Continuous tenses are designed to emphasise duration. If an author finds relevant to emphasise the duration, this semantic or emotional meaning is relevant to the reader. Both of the sentences deliver information about the duration. I'm not sure if there exists any difference in connotation or the second sentence is an example of 'grammatical tautology'.
(Too) Long ago, I had some problems with some equation. I wanted them to look like this (this is how they looked in LyX), but when compiled they looked like this: . What botheres me compared to how it looks in LyX is that way too much spacing between the columns is used in the compiled version. there isn't a space after the "=" the last column is aligned to the right (not to the left, as I wanted it to be). Because only now I found time, to post this question here, I unfortunately don't remember the name of the environment used for this (I only kept the screenshots). But I remember that I tried out all of the AMS environments( align, alignat etc.) as well as the eqnarray environment and not a single one provided me with an output that looks like the one in LyX. Has anyone an idea how I could get LaTeX make these (test)equations look like the LyX screenshot ?
Personally I learned Physics in high-school and found it very interesting, I read up a lot about physics in my free time. Personally I am also a programmer which I think is also good when it comes to Physics. Now I want to start studying in a university and my dilemma right is mainly between Math/Computer Science/Physics. It's possible to do a degree in just one or combine two of them. Currently, the subjects that I find most interesting in Physics are the most advanced ones: Relativity and most of all Quantum Mechanics. I've always been fascinated with materials, what they are formed of at the most elementary level. Now for the real question. From what I usually read it's very hard to get into physics research, of course it's not impossible but still I'd like to ask: Are there careers that are related to quantum mechanics or relativity that are not as a researcher? If so, what are they? can you give examples?
Why does the definition of an irreducible element require us to be in an integral domain? Why can we not define an irreducible element exactly the same in a commutative ring that is not an integral domain? We have that an element is irreducible if it cannot be written as a product of two non-unit elements. Unit elements are well defined and unique in a commutative ring that is not an integral domain, so I cannot see that being the problem. I've proven a proposition of my own design (probably well known and elementary, an definitely trivial). I used irreducible elements, but otherwise nothing that requires me to move from a commutative ring to an integral domain. Do irreducible elements really require me to be in an integral domain?
I am not sure whether the sun originally emits everything in the electromagnetic spectrum, (whatever the relative strengths of each portion might be), but I do read that many waves, including gamma / x-ray, and UVC, are filtered or 'converted' to heat after travelling through solar plasma and atmospheric layers like ozone. But what I am interested in is the lower end of the spectrum (frequency-wise) - like those we ourselves harness for communication. Does the sun emit low frequency radiation (below infrared), in the first place, and if so, how much of it - if any - actually reaches us on Earth within that same range? I am guessing it is either none, or only a very small amount as otherwise I assume it would interrupt severely with our own radio communication here on Earth.
When a nuclear device is detonated at ground level, we see the familiar mushroom cloud, which is undoubtedly caused by the weight of the atmosphere suppressing the upward thrust, causing the debris and dust to be curved down back towards the Earth. The horizontally propelled mass again does not travel very far from the point of detonation. One would expect the nuclear explosion to escape from the atmosphere, after all Gravity is thought to be the weakest force? But in reality, gravity is the only force and both nuclear and magnetic forces would not be present without gravity. So are we in error comparing like for like, when in reality we are comparing what are currently thought to be separate forces? Gravity is responsible for holding all particles, from sub atomic to planets and suns together and the nuclear explosion merely illustrates it perfectly?
While googling about whether "atheist" should be capitalized, and skimming past posts by people blogging about atheism rather than about English grammar, I came across http://uwf.edu/writelab/reviews/capitalization/ It says [Capitalize] Religions and religious terms Examples: Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddha, the Bible, Christian, the Ten Commandments, Baptist church, Mt. Zion Methodist Church NOTE: Do not capitalize the following: Examples: church, communion, atheist, agnostic, spirituality but I don't recall hearing of such a prescription before. Wouldn't most of the examples listed be capitalized because they're proper nouns? Are there good examples of words being capitalized solely because they're religious terms? I'm mainly interested in modern English, rather than days of past where a lot more words were capitalized than they are nowadays. Somewhat related: When should the word "God" be capitalized? - use "God" when referring to the name of the god of Judaism and Christianity (a proper noun), but "god" when referring to the general concept of a deity (common noun).
Say you have an author who has a lot of random personal stories from their life, all interesting, but don't stand on their own to be an interesting, single story. The author decides, "why not combine them all into one story?" Well, that sort of becomes an autobiography, I guess, if you actually tell the story in a more chronological way that follows the timeline of their life. What if the author decides not to do everything chronologically? Basically, taking these non-fictional stories, reordering them a little, and placing them all into a fictional character's life, somewhat shortening the timespan in the process? Basically, the story itself and the character would be fictional, but each separate story within the fictional story is non-fictional. Does the fictional part of the story trump the non-fictional parts of the story and just classify the entire thing as fiction, or a novel? Or is there any special word or perhaps genre that would be used to better identify something like this? Ultimately, is there a word to identify a fictional story made up of non-fictional stories? I've seen this similar question, but it talks about historical settings in a novel, mainly the non-fictional location a book is set in. I can't imagine that's really the same thing, as the situation I'm outlining is kind of the opposite. The stories themselves are non-fictional, but the setting, location, characters, etc are all fictional.
I am looking for a figurative or graphic expression to describe the minimal luggage content, fast to pack, or that you always have with you, without which you would feel less safe when travelling. The expression should be concise too. When I take a plane, and since luggage in the cargo area can get lost, I generally have a toothbrush and underwear. With those, I am not afraid of spending an unplanned night in an hotel in a unknown town. I would say in my language that I have my "pants and brush", as a short for "a second pair of underpants, socks and a toothbrush", but this does not seem colloquial in English. In other words, is there a colloquial figurative expression for what one carries when travelling light?
I'm taking the curl of the deviatoric stress tensor in index notation, and I've ran across something that I can't seem to be able to simplify. The issue is shown in the following portion of the curl operation: The first two terms on the right hand side should be zero because the curl of a scalar and the curl of a gradient of a scalar are zero. The last term will then be given by: Since U has a subscript m on that last term on the RHS, then I can't just define it as the gradient of the vorticity like I did on the first term on the RHS. Is there any further way to simplify it or does that just have to be the curl of the gradient of velocity?
The setting: Imagine the scenario where I am searching for something and once I find it I identify it, then afterwards when I no longer need it I discard it. If at some point I need to identify it again I perform the search again and will succeed since it's still there. The problem: The noun for the process of identifying something would most likely be "identification". I'm pretty sure the word "discardation" is not an actual word, and "discard" or "discardure" just leaves me wanting for something less overlapping and more commonly used. The Question: What would be a nice noun to describe the process of "discarding" something temporarily. Looking at the thesaurus words like: remove, reject, cancel, reject, relinquish and the like come into play but I feel like those words have a more dramatic impact imposed behind them than I would like to portray. Something similar to dislocate perhaps, with an intention to remove. Disconnect seems like a good option yet I feel like I would have to change identify to connect if I choose to do so.
Although I know the clear meaning of commonly used prepositions in English, sometimes, I'm a little confused with them and cannot understand the difference between them. A week or so ago, I asked a question on StackOverflow which was titled by me as follows. Varargs in method overloading in Java. In this simple question title, Java is a programming language as everybody knows, "Varargs" (abbreviated to variable arguments, specifically variable number of arguments) and "method overloading" are two concepts used in the Java programming language. Before I asked the question, I was not sure at all whether the question title should have been as it is mentioned above or it should have been modified as follows. Varargs with method overloading in Java. Which one is grammatically correct, both or none of them?
Many of the books I use are parts of series. biblatex gives you more fields to add bibliographic information to than BibTeX does, but it has no fields appropriate for the editor of a series. If I use the EDITOR field, the bibliography will (by default) print edited by, which doesn't give the right impression of what the role of the series editor is. I'm wondering if there is any easy way to add a new field SERIESEDITOR, which will make biblatex by default print its content preceded by Series edited by or make sure that whatever is in SERIESEDITOR gets printed directly after the name of the series, such that is says something like [Name of series], edited by [series editor]. In other words, is there any way I can do this in the preamble of my document, without having to venture into writing new bibliography styles?
Pardon my ignorance, but I am really interested in understanding the quantum mechanics and it's interesting implications, but clearly I don't, since I keep coming up with violations to many physics theorems. In particular, the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment is of interest. Consider the wikipedia diagram, In this experiment, there is random chance for the path that will be taken in the lower part of the diagram. Hence, one must wait till the end of the experiment and then (using the coincidence counter) filter the information of each photon's path. Hence, the patterns one sees are only known after the experiment. The Quantum entanglement is only verified after the experiment is completed. But instead of allowing random chance, what if you forced all photons to go to a particular path. To my understanding, if PS was modified (see the following diagrams) into a switch that forced either "separate slit" detection or "interference" then would that allow "faster than light" communication?
On this site, people ask questions and then answers and proofs for those answers come from readers. Readers mark the best answer and then people focus on the next interesting topic. Sometimes, a question will have many answers with proofs from different points of view and people commenting on whether the proofs are valid or not. My question is this, "given a statement, how many valid proofs are there for that statement?" For example, if one is interested in the irrationality of root two there are many proofs available, all equally valid, some longer than others, some requiring basic math skills, others requiring in-depth knowledge. We have a proof for Fermat's last theorem, but how many other proofs are there? Is it possible to look at a statement and know that it has a finite number of proofs or an unlimited number?
I would like to make the bubbles in my soda drink last longer. For example, one good thing to do is to keep the bottle shut when you don't drink. But what else I can do? Should I try to minimize the surface between the drink and the air from the bottle? How about the surface of contact with the bottle? The bottle should be made of glass, or plastic? Does the temperature matter? Should I keep the bottle in a vertical position, to ensure more pressure at least for a part of it? Other, less realistic methods, are to keep it under pressure all the time, use a carbonating device, or drink it on the ocean floor. Or never open the bottle :), but assume that I want to open and drink from time to time.
I'm trying to understand where energy is located in a quantum field world. For force fields, there are conserved properties that (in my mind's eye) are always stuck in that field. These arise from symmetries in the fields, by Noether's Theorem. As such, I imagine that properties such as charge can move around in the field but never leave or appear. Noether's Theorem also explains conservation of energy as related to a symmetry, the invariance of the laws of nature at any point in time. It seems fair, then, to say that energy is a property of the field that makes up spacetime itself. When a charge is carried by a particle, that particle can have different masses with equal charge. I am not sure how I should picture the difference in the fields. A muon, for instance, has both mass and charge. My question is then, which fields contain the muon's properties? Is it all in the muon field? And does this mean that both charges and energy can transfer between fields? Or is a muon a sympathetic coupling between the muon field, EM field (charge) and spacetime curvature (energy)?