darklight03/StackMIAsub huggingface dataset:
Gravitational force is mediated by graviton exchange. If I am standing outside a black hole, I can of course feel the attracting force towards the black hole. This should correspond to gravitons mediated between the matter inside the horizon and myself; but then these gravitons should cross the horizon from the inside to the outside. My question is: how is this paradox precisely solved? I guess a starting point for an answer is that these gravitons are off-shell, much like in QED where photons exchanged between electrons that feel each other are virtual. But still, this confuses me a bit - is there some references explaining this in detail?
I'm writing an essay for a grad school application detailing my unique characteristics as an individual. I am leaning towards words & phrases like "thirst for knowledge" and "earnest curiosity". I feel these phrases are underselling this attribute though - I feel so genuinely interested and invested in how things work and how people think, and thus how others perceive stimuli in comparison to my response. Is there a word for this constant absorption of external data in order to think critically and formulate theories for why the world works?
I am trying to understand the following question: "How much experience do you have gathering data for web analysis?" I understand the concept of "web data analysis", and I understand "gathering data from the web for analysis", but the above question is not clear. Perhaps I am being too literal or picky, but the question sounds like I would first gather data, then put it on the web, and then analyze it, which is not logical. If you have any ideas, could you please provide a specific example of what kind of work would satisfy the question. For example, maybe the question means I would download Apache Server logs from a website, import into Excel, and perform analysis?
Is there a word to describe the co-opting of a well-known phrase in the course of regular conversation or writing? For example, a sentence regarding death might refer to "shaking off the mortal coil" without mentioning that the phrase is taken from Shakespeare (perhaps assuming that the audience will be familiar with the reference). If it's not an exact quote, this could be called a "paraphrase" of Shakespeare. But what could it be called if it is an exact quote? Example: What adverb could be employed to complete this sentence: The phrase "shuffled off the mortal coil" was made famous by Shakespeare, and is used by this author ______y.
The book < Geometry and the Imagination > (written by David Hilbert) introduces a property of a Quadric Surface without a proof. Property : The cone consisting of all the tangents from a fixed point to a quadric cuts every plane in a conic, and the points of contact of this cone with the surface form a conic. Moreover, the quadrics are the only surfaces having any of these properties. It was easy to prove the property itself, but i found it difficult to prove that it is a sufficient condition for a surface to be a quadric. (the statement starting with "Moreover, ...") I would like to know the proof of this statement.
Ok, so I am trying to computationally model a Carbon Nanotube FET and I need to know a lot about the actual equations and PDEs(Partial Differential Equations) involved while modeling such a material. I had taken a course in material science in my sophomore year , but that just covered the basics of CNTs and its applications. I would really like to know if there are some good books out there that give an in depth understanding about CNTs ( structure, properties, behavior in presence of Fields, Equations and PDEs, Fabrication and applications, etc)
I am having a hard time figuring out how to configure TortoiseHg to do colored word diffs for my TeX and LaTeX documents. I found the following two threads How to use Mercurial for version control of text documents? Good strategy for line breaks with paragraphs of LaTeX source but they don't go in detail how to to set this up on TortoiseHg. I was wondering if anybody in the TeX/LaTeX community has figured this out already?
Given an urban area such as a shopping mall, is there a statistical model that estimates how often during a working day the area becomes depopulated and what is the maximum time of depopulation? By depopulation I mean that the number of people per unit area becomes zero. In particular I am interested to know the answer to this question: Can we say that typical urban areas are usually populated (during the working day) and there is an upper-bound for the depopulation time? any article that exposes some research regarding this subject would be useful.
In the following paragraph, is it appropriate to use the term "transversely" to describe something that has the opposite effect? Tests have shown that the lower the range, the more likely that a submatrix will be singular. Transversely, the larger the range, the least likely that a submatrix will be singular. If not, is there another word that I can use instead? I know that, in this instance, I cannot use the word "conversely" as this means something totally different.
This was an experiment I saw in my son's workbook. It said to mark out the top of your forehead and the bottom of your chin on a mirror using a whiteboard marker. Then slowly move backwards, and investigate what happens to the size of the reflection subjective to the two marks made. It actually got me quite flabbergasted. I always thought the reflection would get smaller as you moved away from the mirror. Why is this?
While explaining the quantum adiabatic theorem recently, I appealed to a thermodynamic analogy: when slowly contracting the walls containing a classical gas, the relaxation timescale can be taken to be fast, so the system remains always in thermal equilibrium. By analogy, the quantum system remains always in a stationary state. The hidden assumption here is that stationary states (eigenstates of the Hamiltonian) are in some sense attractors of the system: that a system in some energy-superposition will, over time, relax to a single energy eigenstate. Is this actually true? It seems like maybe it isn't, since for example coherent states of the harmonic oscillator are stable (?). Maybe it's true in neighbourhoods around the stationary states only?
She will (or already has) leave for Jamaica soon. She will leave (or already has left) for Jamaica soon. I'm uncertain which of these (if either) is more correct. Should I simply not use this language construct, opting for this instead: She will leave for Jamaica soon, if she has not already. I find the previous constructs, despite being awkward, do a better job of conveying the uncertainty of tense. Is there a better way to construct the parenthetical version to avoid tense conflicts?
As I understand: Accelerating electrons generate electromagnetic waves. An emitting antenna have an alternating current (electrons are moving) which generates an electromagnetic waves. The electromagnetic waves reach the receiving antenna and makes the electron inside move. Greate, the communication is done. However, since the electron in the receiving antenna are moving too, the receiving antenna is generating an electromagnetic wave too. How is this not affecting the incoming wave? Does it have a different wavelength?
I'm looking to communicate the idea that performing a task would be less costly (more than just financially; technically, or when risk is considered) if you start from scratch or anew, instead of attempting to alter or change some existing object or entity. The closest phrase I can think of that satisfies this is "it may be cheaper to build a new house than to renovate an old one". What other sayings exist?
Is it always true that projective objects are retracts of free objects? I know that retracts of projective objects are always projective, so in particular, retracts of free objects are projective. To prove the converse for modules, write your projecive module as a quotient of a free module, and then take its kernel to get a short exact sequence. This sequence splits because it ends with a projective object and so by the splitting lemma our module is a direct summand of the free module. How to generalize these to an arbitrary algebraic theory? I guess we should somehow look at the kernel pair of the quotient map?
A question regarding drawing checkers pieces and boards using TikZ has been asked here previously and I'm aware of the chessboard package. However I want to draw a Chinese checkers board: I want to draw it as opposed to using an image because I want to be able to edit the locations of pieces. The question is how I would go about drawing the board. Two options I see are: Draw the board as rows of circles and then draw the outline similar to the above. Draw the board as rows of equilateral triangles as seen here. Either way is fine, but drawing either one is a mystery to me. Any tips?
When a sensor registers electromagnetic radiation, such as that used for the transmission of communication like light or radio waves, does this radiation "abrade" or "erode" the material of the sensor? Are there any traces of the received radiation that can be detected, even if only theoretically? An example from a biological background would be that high energy light (such as that in the UV range) destroys the pigments in the eyes, which is why animals that live longer than a few years cannot see in the UV range. Maybe something similar happens with man made sensors for different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation.
I was about to use this word in an email to refer to its recipient, as in: I was the guy who nabbed you as you were leaving to ask about ... I'm going for a friendly, familiar tone. Is my usage of 'nab' inappropriate? Looking it up in the Oxford Dictionary: verb (nabs, nabbing, nabbed) [with object] informal catch (someone) doing something wrong: the Feds nabbed a suspected terrorist take, grab, or steal (something): Dan nabbed the seat next to mine
I'm currently studying Action. I've been reading about how a particle has particular probabilities of ending at an infinite number of events. Say I have a free particle that isn't experiencing any external forces (no potential, or friction). I give it a particular kinetic energy, whilst it is at some arbitrary event A. Why doesn't the particle stay at position A, "lose" its kinetic energy and reduce the action to a minimum? Why does it travel in a particular straight line? You can't argue from conservation laws since they are dependent on the idea of the stationary action principle. I'm curious to know the answer, cheers!
Today, in the midst of chatting on other SE sites, the term "bum buddies" was used. Some other users took this to be offensive, saying that it was just a slightly less egregious version of "butt buddies". I was not offended by the term, but others informed me that it has homosexual connotations. I always remember using the term to refer to close friends, almost as a synonym of "bosom buddies". Can someone guide as the correct usage (so I can avoid using inappropriate terms in the future)? If there is any history on the term that could be useful as well, please include it.
This was said by one of my mates while retelling a story. The story runs that there was a court being held, and there was a recording-clerk as well. But this was a humor story, and the story continued that everybody was telling the recording-clerk to take out what was previously said, to the point that the clerk lost his temper and "dropped the pen and threw up the sponge." Does this saying mean that he resigned?
Let's say the objects are marble size or even single atoms or quarks. They are placed in an otherwise empty universe(expanding or non-expanding) at opposite ends of the universe with an arbitrarily large distance between them. With a combination of great enough distance and small enough mass will the gravitational pull between the two objects ever equal zero or merely approach it? Given an infinite amount of time would they ever meet?
I've come across many pages, articles and texts which say something like When X does Y, God kills a kitten When X happens, God kills an elephant Like here - God kills a pigeon here - God kills a kitten What does it exactly mean? Does it mean that something great was achieved, so a sacrifice was made? or Does it mean that a particular action/event is bad and should be avoided?
Two non antipodal points on a sphere have a geodetic which is a segment of a great circle on that sphere. I'm trying to calculate the Euler angles that would rotate the "equator" great circle of the sphere (in my case, the normal to this plane is the y axis) into the great circle that intersects two points specified by two pairs of angles (theta and phi, latitude and longitude, whatever. Though, yes, latitude and theta aren't the same, I know.) I feel like I've made it way more complicated that it needs to be and I'm stuck.
I came up with this question when I received an email from a committee with a sentence 'We have decided not to publish it', which seems really strange to me because the grammar I learned in English classes is 'decide not to do something' and 'decide to not do' was told incorrect. I searched for answers to this problem online, but did not find a clear as well as persuasive answer. In terms of grammar, is 'decide not to do' correct ? If it is incorrect, is there a reason why people say 'decide not to do' even in official letters ?
I was wondering if anyone knew how to make music notation that looks like the below: I'm not even sure where to start with this kind of thing, I've tried doing it by hand before in Inkscape, but I did not find that easy, algorithmic, or professional looking. I was hoping some kind of package might be available in TeX. This is another, similar example:
For a particle attached to a rope moving along a circle that has the length of rope as radius, the tension provides centripetal force and work done by tension is zero since velocity of particle is perpendicular to tension at any instant. But I am thinking about this case: Here, a particle is tied to a vertical cylinder and is given a velocity perpendicular to rope. My doubt is the work done by tension. The length of rope decreases and the particle moves towards P which is along the direction of tension. So the work done is non zero. Am I correct? (Let the particle move in a frictionless surface)
I am wondering if there is a word to describe a person who likes chaos. By this I mean a few specific things: The person is pleased to hear when chaos is created, or confusion emerges The person will take opportunities to create chaos or confusion The person enjoys taking part in chaotic or disorganized situations. I can't seem to think of a word to describe the type of person who would act in this way. I hope this question is clear. EDIT: Below gbutters sums up nicely: What I wonder is if there is a word for a generally good-natured person who just likes some good old-fashioned chaos. It seems like any person that thrives on chaos would have to have some extra baggage.
I need a good book containing many challenging exercises (or problems) on Convergence Concepts in Probability. The topics I have covered are: Borel-Cantelli Lemmas Modes of Convergence and individual properties Laws of Large Numbers Central Limit Theorem Levy Convergence Theorem and Kolmogorov's Maximal Inequality Expectation and Limit Theorems like MCT, DCT and Fatou's Lemma. I know that there are several books offering enough theory but I am in no need of those. I would want a book containing stimulating problems because just by studying theory, I cannot be sure that I can apply those concepts in relevant areas. Thank you.
What does the noun "lucker" mean? It's not in the Webster, but Google does give search results for such key phrases as "I am a lucker" or "He is a lucker" (and those are not misspellings like "luckier" or "lurker"). So people DO use that word. I myself heard it a number of times. And if they use it, it should have some meaning. So, here is my question: what does the noun "lucker" mean?
I am being told that "sports" is a singular noun. This is creating a problem for me (as a teacher) because it sounds 'odd' even if it is correct (i.e. one of the exceptions to the rule). e.g. Sports has (rather than sports have)... I always thought sports referred to more than one team activity (e.g. football, rugby, golf, bowls etc.); hence, it was plural. For example, I like playing sports. Sports have always been of interest to me. QUESTIONS Is sports a collective noun? Which usage is correct?
A busy intersection sees two traffic accident per month on average. Suppose the number of accidents follow a Poisson distribution. Starting from January next year, which month do you expect to be the first one in which there is no accident? I figured it would be the same for every month (as in every month is equally likely to have no traffic accidents), and can't figure out why a particular month would be expected as the first one to have no accidents. Any reason a single month is more likely than others?
I'm looking for the appropriate term to use for what gets "used up" as potential energy is converted to heat and work. For example, some of the the energy in solar radiation is converted by photosynthesis to chemical energy; much of the rest is lost as waste heat. The bio-chemical energy is used to power various biological functions until it has all been lost to waste heat. At the various steps along this path what term would you use for what there is less and less of? It can't be "energy" since that's conserved. It's potential energy, but is that really a standard term for what's lost when potential energy is converted to waste heat?
What would happen if an object (like a space ship) was to stop its orbit around the sun. would time slow down with that object (the same way time sped up for the characters in that great film Interstellar). Or even more so, if that object was to stop its orbit around the galaxy so to speak. And so on and so on. At what point is an object considered motionless? Could it be that the finite origin of the big bang has no time?
If the mass of A is greater of the two, and if air resistance is the same on both, which ball will reach the ground first/simultaneously? I thought that since the acceleration acting on them is same, both will reach the ground simultaneously. But the answer in the book says that ball A (the one having greater mass) will reach first. I mean, isn't this what people thought before (I guess it's true) Galileo performed his experiment, until they were proven wrong?!
Which would be correct? What is your favorite song, and explain why? (I'm thinking this is right.) What is your favorite song, and explain why. This could be written as, "What is your favorite song? Explain why." But that seems kind of clunky. Looking at similar questions on this site I see that maybe there isn't a great answer to this (or maybe that this question is more straight forward than what I was looking at). I dislike the Chicago Manual of Style format, so ideally one of the two choices above would be correct.
I want to create a separate file for tables so that the main latex file doesn't get cluttered. I know I can define tables in new file and add the same file in the main file using input{Tables.tex}. However, I am not sure how can I ask for/produce (not refer) the tables using the labels of tables in the main document? Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.
I want to make someone a present by subscribing for him to a mathematical journal. (It should appear every month or every two months). The contents should be comprehensible to an undergraduate in mathematics, and be about a broad selection of topics (for example not only analysis). I expect the content to be something like proposing interesting problems and then giving solutions with some references for further study. Are there some famous journals you could suggest me?
I have seen that sometimes, in particular in number theory and combinatorial commutative algebra, our questions are somehow related to finding the number of points with integer components in a region/shape. Since this seems to be related to some open problems and conjectures, does there exist a branch of mathematics that specifically study such questions? If yes, what it's called and what prerequisites one must know to study it.
I think it may not be possible. Given all the pair correlation functions (e.g. calculated from Ornstein Zernike theory), it seems possible to obtain the internal energy (assuming different species interact through pair-potentials (i.e. potentials that do not involve more than two bodies)). To obtain the free energy, the "naive" way is to obtain the partition function and take logarithm. Yet it seems not easy (except possibly through cluster expansions? which is not exact.) Any help will be much appreciated.
Assume an airtight bag occupied by air such that the pressure inside the bag is equal to the atmospheric pressure. Assume the surface tension of the bag is negligible. What is the change in air pressure inside the bag relative to a weight placed on it? Is it possible to approximate the weight of the object on top of the bag by the air pressure inside the bag, without knowing the volume of the bag or the area of the object?
Ionization energies/Electron affinities are well mapped. I wonder about opposite processes... I imagine for anion the necessary energy will be equal to the electron affinity (energy released when the anion was created). What about cations? If I had an cation and free electron (both with low kinetic energies) will it automatically recombine? Or if I had let's say grounded metal surface and near it a cation of some gas, will it do the same (and how would react an anion in this case)? Thank you for answers. If you could direct me to the proper literature I would be grateful :) (I know it requires QM for any decent description).
The American convention in quotations is (typically) to place punctuation inside quoted text. But I always run into situations where the punctuation of the quote interferes with the punctuation of the sentence. How would you punctuate this (American, non technical)? When my friends ask, "What do you want for your birthday?", I never know how to respond. It seems odd to place the last comma outside the quote simply because of the question mark. Is that the preferred (i.e. most often accepted) standard?
I have heard that in my next semester, our quantum mechanics teacher will be giving a great emphasis on difficult integrals with the most of them having to do with gamma functions. Does anybody know a book(or any other source) that I can learn about and practice gamma functions integration (with applications to physics and more preferably quantum mechanics if possible)? The only thing I have found are books that just list the integrals of gamma functions in tables rather than having a few examples and them some practice problems.
Hullo, Im just starting up with LaTeX. I keep getting error messages even though I feel as though everything has been done correctly. I am just doing the intro exercise which is shown from the help tab from my MikTeX install. I am getting errors like article.cls not found. Can I download a LaTeX editor from somewhere, or is the MikTeX which I installed mising some files. Can someone please help me?
I've heard this phrase used many times. e.g. -Got a completion date back on your new conservatory? -Ha! Chance'd be a fine thing. I think I have a general idea of what it must mean from its context. But I just don't see how it makes sense. What does it actually literally mean, and why? It doesn't seem to make sense to me. What does "chance" have to do with anything?