darklight03/StackMIAsub huggingface dataset:
If I were to take a particle, moving at a non relativistic velocity, it will have a wavelength (according to De Broglie). However, If I were to change the referance frame of the motion, I know that the wavelength will change because the momentum changes. But will the change be synonymous with the shift of wavelength, if I did the same problem, just considering it wave and applying doppler's shift. If so, why? And if not so, then also, why? What would be the changes if I were to take a relativistic frame instead of a non relativistic one? PS: Due be noted that I am a high school students, who just has a surface level understanding of lorentz transformations and relativity.
I know that we call a quantity a vector if it has magnitude and direction and follows vector laws of addition(the triangle law and parallelogram law). But why only it should only follow addition laws and not other laws like cross product or dot product and why they are not given in its definition. Is it like that if a quantity follows vector laws of addition it also surely follows laws of cross product or dot product or etc.
I have been told that Quantum fields are the real "fundamental" of reality and particles are excitations in these omnipresent fields. I have also been told by no less credible sources that Quantum fields are instead simply a good mathematical "abstraction" and a fine way to quantum mechanically "describe" reality, namely elementary particles - as excitations in the Fock states of their respective quantum fields. I am not sure if this is a controversy, or even a debate in the scientific community, but I would like someone to elaborate as to whether or not those two views contradict each other, and if the do, to understand why.
I am working on a package that could be use in different languages. I'd like to delegate the standard language settings to babel, mainly the spacing around punctuation and the writing of dates. Is it a bad idea to impose the loading of babel to manage local settings? The user could load babel before mine, such as to use babel fine-tuning before working with my package?
It is quite easy to demonstrate that an object at rest that has balanced forces doesn't move. All the Internet examples of things that have balanced forced moving are large scale objects - cars and airplanes. I thought of something like a deployable parachute on a light object but it sounds complicated to set up. What is a good demonstation of balanced forces producing a roughly constant velocity?
In a p-type semiconductor there are always free electrons due to thermal generation allowing for conduction. But If such an electron falls to a hole, it can no longer conduct. So shouldn't more holes slow down conduction? If intrinsic semiconductors have many more electrons in the conductive band at any one point in time, I don't understand why a p-type semiconductor should be more conductive. (My humble guess is that, when there are less holes, an electron jumping to the conductive band due to thermal generation is far more likely to jump back to the same place, because the other holes are too far away)
For full context: I'm looking to categorize adults succinctly into binary categories: those with children, and those without So we could say there are two buckets of Adults here: "Childless" and ... "Childfilled"? Antonyms of "Childless" appear to just be fruitful, fertile, or around the ability to have a child I know an option would be to say that there are two buckets of Adults: "Those with Children" and "Those without Children", but it's too wordy for the system that we are trying to build Similarly, it could be that there are two buckets of adults: "Parents", and "Childless", but we found that to be too confusing to read. "Parents" is a noun while "Childless" is an adjective. Ideally, we are looking for two adjectives.
When writing the equations for center of mass we assume as it to be the point where all the forces act and write the corresponding kinematic equations, and in doing so we dont assume any distribution of forces (like constant or linear wrt length or any dimension of the body) But when we consider the case of a rod lying on a surface with a force acting as F(x) = Kx where x is the distance from one end of the rod, we see that the force is more concentrated above the center of mass and the net force doesnt necessarily pass through the com. I am unable to wrap my head around this difference in result. Need some help understanding where im going wrong in my thinking
The original Computer Modern Math Italic font has a modest amount of kerning listed in its TFM metrics (largely for punctuation, but also for some exceptions like lower case d). But when I use Latin Modern Math as a replacement using unicode-math in either of xelatex or lualatex, those kerns seem to be AWOL. The GPOS table in all of the unicode math fonts I've looked at has no kern tables. Is it really the case that OpenType math fonts don't have pair-based kerns? There's italic correction information in the MATH tables, of course, but I didn't see anything in the MATH table that corresponds to the kerns that seem to be missing.
I produced a set of lecture handouts using .cls files (ndjflart and dupart) that I'd previously used in the past for a paper I published in a journal . I've now been asked to convert those notes into a book. Is there a straightforward way to generate a memoir class file from them, so that I can have chapters, left/right page margins etc? Thanks a lot.
Is it possible to extract equivalent current sources from the partial measurements? I am specifically thinking of a scenario where we have a radiating source inside a closed surface and we measured radiated fields from that source. In principle, according to equivalence theorem or inverse source reconstruction method, if I can somehow measure all tangential fields over that closed surface, underlying current sources can be accurately extracted. But what if, only fields are measured over a part of a surface, is it still possible to extract equivalent sources correctly? What conditions do I need to enforce? Thank you
I am using Cascadia Code font as my tt font, and I wish to use Light series as upright font, LightItalic as italic font, Regular as bold font, and Italic as bold italic font. I am not considering using setmonofont from fontspec package since it's annoying to carry ttf files. Instead, I am using casacdia-code package. How to change default series only for ttfamily using cascadia-code package?
For context: This term or phrase is what it's called when a person (very often used in political debates) will try to take the rarest occurrence of any particular topic and present it as if it's the common practice in order to drive or support their argument. I would liken it to something like "anomaly argument" (except, not completely made up lol). I'll know it when I hear it but for the life of me, I just can't think of it. I hope my poor context helps just a little bit.
Is there a term/words to describe that you lost intrest in doing something because you have repeated it so many times? Examples for these scenarios: You liked hamburgers a lot, but because you have eaten them throughout the years so many times, you dislike them now That song you once listened to the first time sounded really good, but after listening to it for many hours, it becomes a pain in the ears or just a boring song
I kept a cold standing water in a glass for a while to warm it up. After a while I returned to see that small minute bubbles have formed in the glass. On closer inspection, the bubbles seem to not float to surface like fizzy drink but they have sticked to surface (mostly at bottom) while some but lesser bubbles have sticked to vertical surface of glass. I haven't seen or paid attention to this phenomenon, and also water is drinking water so it shouldn't be contaminated. I can't think of any physical phenomenon for this? So can anyone try to figure the root cause for this?
If relativity is symmetrical (triplets moving away and returning to the center) then what happens to the Doppler effect as seen by the moving triplets? A B C A should see C moving (Doppler) away/to faster than B C should see A moving (Doppler) away/to faster than B B should see A and C moving (Doppler) away/to at the same rate. Note that the clocks (long term) in each case should match the Doppler (short term).
Accoring to this question and a linked duplicate, it's been verified empirically up to some number that all twin prime averages greater than six, are the sum of two smaller twin prime averages. I was curious whether or not these formed a tree (with twin prime pairs at the vertices and the sum relation the edges). In order for these to form a tree, for every twin prime average, we would only be able to find one pair of smaller twin prime averages which summed to it. Can you find a counterexample, namely any twin prime average which is a sum of two smaller twin prime averages, more than one way?
When I was learning photoelectric effect, It was told that Photons incident on metallic plate in vacuum causes electron to emit if the energy of photon is greater than work function of metal, In this case to me, The emitted electrons in vacuum seemed like a similar condition like that of cathode ray tube, can these emitted electrons be called cathode rays and will they have all properties similar to cathode rays?
The two most popular ways to generate a topological manifold from others are picking a subspace of a topological space and computing the quotient space of a topological space. In differential geometry, it seems that looking at a subspace becomes far more popular than computing a quotient; an exemplary method is the preimage of a regular value of a differentiable function between manifolds. Is there an analogue result/ theorem for under which conditions a quotient space of some (differentiable) manifold is itself a (differentiable) manifold, the same way the regular value theorem spells out some conditions for which a subset of a differentiable manifold is itself a differentiable manifold?
For the converse, while I agree that the point will be on the pependicular bisector, we can't assume the line drawn is actually the perpendicular bisector... yet the above textbook example assumes it is. I don't see why, based only on XA=XB, we're allowed to conclude that XY is perpendicular to AB and YA is congruent to YB? Surely to make the given conclusions we'd need to state that if two points are equidistance from the endpoints of a segment, those points determine the perpendicular bisector - what am I missing?
I have been told that galaxies will never stop rotating because conservation of angular momentum But, there are planets inside of it can travel through dense nebulae and bodies of gas that would cause friction (and probably brake their travel speed through the Galaxy). Wouldn't that brake the galaxy's rotation? Also, gravitational waves can be emitted by rotating massive objects that have uneven mass distributions by so called quadrupoles or higher poles in their angular momentum. Also, in this study (https://www.space.com/dark-matter-slows-milky-way-rotation) they showed evidence that the galaxy rotational speed is decreasing due to dark matter. Then, would galaxies (and all their contents: nebulae, stars, planets...) ever stop rotating? Or they would only decrease their velocity but it would stabilize at some point?
I want to write a formula and put on its right side the description of its variables. Here I just screenshoted the two parts and put them side to side with figure environment but I want to write some "code" that puts it like that but not with screenshots or pictures or anything like that. Is it possible ? And if yes, how can I do that ?
I'm reading a textbook that gives both a "weak" and "strong" formulation of optimal control (first is a control function, second is the whole space, filtration, Brownian motion, and function etc). The textbook has a theorem about existence of optimal controls for the weak formulation and makes explicit that the strong formulation is not equivalent to a classical control problem. However, no existence theorem is present for the strong formulation.
Let us consider a metal clamp which is placed rigidy and is placed parallel eto the ground. Now on the both ends the plates of a capacitor are kept such that they are parallel to the ground. A dielectric is kept in between and slowly released from the clamp. Also a battery is connected to the circuit so as to always keep the voltage constant. So the question is that we had to prove that the dielectric executes periodic motion. My approach We can find the change in capacitance and hence change in work done by the battery. But i am confused so as to how a restoring force could act? I s it due to the battery?
If you have a square two-dimensional grid, that are lots of ways it could be triangulated -- for an individual square one could add an edge from upper-right to lower-left, or from lower-right to upper-left. For an ensemble of squares, a choice of extra-edge direction for each square, so lots of choices. I can think of a couple of reasons to triangulate a grid, to perform a linear interpolation on simplicies, and I read that algorithms for finding sinks and sources generally assume a triangular mesh. For these (and possibly for other) applications, are there better choices of square-grid triangulations? Pointers to the literature on this would be much appreciated.
I was studying duality maps in my Advanced Stat. Mech. class and it was told that all self-dual points need not correspond to critical point. I understand that critical points are points where analyticity of the partition function breaks down. If this point is unique then it can be given by the duality relationship between the constants which appear in the theory. But what happens if this point is not unique?
The system I am trying to model is essentially moving water interacts with ferrofluid. The ferrofluid is in a box that contains air and ferrofluid, such that the setup is buoyant. The ferrofluid chamber has outlets so that it can interact with water. Here's an example image of the system: I need confirmation in these aspects: That the right choice here is to model it like two phase flow not single phase or mixing model. That it can be modelled by either level set method or moving mesh method without compromises in results. If I do not want the fluids to mix, is there a way to still maintain pressure balance between them? Would a semi-permeable membrane work here? If not, is there any other way?
I have been having this doubt when applying the Divergence of a Electrical Potential evaluated in a point, and then doing the Divergence to get the Electric Field in that point. But is this valid? or I have to do the Divergence first and then evaluate? Because when I do the first thing I get the correct result, but the process of which I get the solution is triggering me a little
Is it possible to use punctuation marks such as commas, periods, and question marks just before colons or semi-colons? The error appears when accessing some URLs, e.g.: List items ... Can I set additional parameters for the following tasks?: List items ... I occasionally come up with such sentences due to perhaps my mother tongue (Japanese). However, I realised that such usages can't find anywhere so it might not be natural usage for native speakers. Any natural alternative ways to write it?
It is well known that a convex function is minimised over a convex set, if and only if there is a subgradient which is inwards normal to the set at that point. i.e the negative subgradient (direction of steepest decrease) points directly out of the set. Is there a corresponding rule for maximising a convex function? i.e is beig maximised at a point equivalent to having a subgradient that is normal outwardsto the set at that point. i.e the direction of steepest increase points directly out of the set.
A neutron is udd, then an u-anti-u starts to exist close to the neutron. Then the one d and u change places forming an uud (proton) and anti-ud which decays to an electron and electron-antineutrino. Now it is my reasoning that since this process exists the process can be sidestepped so that a udd decays directly to a uud and electron and electron-antineutrino. Is this true?
I wonder how would we go about to calculate centripetal/centrifugal acceleration for relativistic objects moving at near the speed of light , do we use the original acceleration = force/mass, or input gamma factor for it to be , Acceleration = (gamma) force / mass , Acceleration = Force / (gamma) mass Which one is valid ? If both aren't is there a particular way and/or equation to calculate centripetal and centrifugal acceleration for relativistic objects ? How ?
Is there a package or option that starts alternating row colors from within a table, so that no matter how many manually-colored rows are inserted, the alternating can be started again with the same color each time? (In a single table, I want to manually color a few "heading" rows, each followed by an undetermined number of alternating gray/white rows -- always starting with gray.)
This is something I have noticed on a fairly regular basis, and this is a recent example, where the questioner starts by saying "I'm working on" and ends up asking "How do we...?" Can someone help me with this circuitry? I am not an electrical engineer. I'm working on a brain/organoid computer interface system . . . How do we connect the cyclone . . . Is it some cultural thing? Is there a mechanism to it, like that if others are included they feel more inclined to help?
I'm writing math notes, and I would like to use the symbol for the letter T that appears in this picture (seen in a TeX.StackExchange post): click The symbol I want is in the line "Calligraphic: UPRIGHT: euler (Euler script)". How can I load it? Note that I'm not interested in changing all symbols in my document. I just want to use that T perhaps once in the entire document.
Elliptic Integrals and Jacobean Elliptic functions I know it is easy to determine u =F(x,k) where F is elliptic integral of the first kind knowing both x and k. I know it is also possible to determine x = sn(u,k) where sn is the Jacobean Elliptic function knowing only both u and k. Is there a function to determine the modulus k only knowing u and x?
Fox's Trapezoidal Conjecture asserts that the coefficients of the Alexander polynomial of an alternating knot alternate and the sequence of their absolute values forms a trapezoidal shape. The same is true for the Jones polynomial for some alternating knots that I checked. However, since I didn't find an analogous conjecture for the Jones polynomial, I expect that it is not true for some known knot. Which one? Was there proposed perhaps some more narrow version above conjecture for the Jones polynomial of alternating knots? (Either with stricter assumptions or with relaxed conclusions.)
What word describes someone who is extremely carefree to the point of risking their lives. The person is not even bad or annoying; in fact, they are vibrant & outgoing. Except they don't extremely carefree to the point of risking their lives. I was thinking of "extremely carefree" or even "unhinged". For example, That girl who got stabbed at the club was______; She was outgoing but extremely carefree to a scary point.
Here is the situation. Let's say I have have a mass of a given liquid and I heat it to create a gas. The gas has a lower density than air, so it will move higher and higer in the atmosphere. Then, I recondensate this gas into liquid. Suppose both process are ideal, so the energy I put in the system to cause evaporation is the same energy released by the system from the condensation. We now have the same liquid as before, but since it moved up in the atmosphere, it now has a muche bigger gravitationnal potential energy than it previously had. Of course, the energy is conserved, so this additionnal potential energy must come from somewhere, but where?
I am writing an application in which I complain that every time I point out to the cooks or their supervisor that the meal is not up to the mark,and actually show them how it is, they say that no body else complains, only I complain. However, whenever I ask my colleagues about this, they tell me that what I am saying is valid, and they also point it out all the time. So this is a habit of this staff to gaslight women employees like this. We have put up with this for years. Therefore, I'll really appreciate if someone can help in this. I need a synonym of gas-lighting which conveys the intent properly.
There is no scenario where we can use Coulomb's law. There is no static charge. Even if we consider the local charge density to be constant for a system of charges, the individual charges are still moving, and as we know they are not quite the same. Moving charges show different effects. Even if we think about putting a frame with the particle so that we can consider the charged particle as static that also does not help because there is no single frame for a system of charge Also we want to measure the effect in our lab frame. So, how is Coulomb's law still relevant?
Often you have to adjust the table of contents manually. With very large documents, it is then very time-consuming to compile the entire document each time just to be able to look at small adjustments to the table of contents. Is there any way to tell LaTeX to compile only the toc and not the document? Or maybe you can copy the toc file of the actual document, rename it to the jobname of a small test file and then let it compile, sort of without the associated document?
Say we have a hot cup of coffee that is giving off steam. It is releasing heat into the environment through radiation and conduction. The steam is from certain particles reaching a high enough kinetic energy as to escape the attractive, intermolecular forces that bind them intrinsically. If we physically inhaled steam, thereby increasing the rate of heat loss through steam, would it effectively cool the coffee?
In steady state condition of a conductor under normal temperature, we find that the derivative of drift velocity is zero by setting electric field equal to zero, and one concludes that current density is proportional to the electric field. But in case of superconductor, why don't we have such a steady state condition like thing or in other words, why cant we have a unique solution by setting electric field equal to zero, as in two fluid model of superconductor, one finds that the derivative of current density of super electron is proportional to electric field and not the current density.
Why are there two interior regions in this diagram? There seems to be two inner horizons, and two wormhole regions. Where do the two such regions comes from? What determines which reason someone falls into? Could a composite body fall into "both regions" with part of it going into one region and part into the other. The diagram seems to indicate that if you're precise enough you can fall almost directly from the Black hole to the white hole while spending an arbitrarily small amount of time in either of the Wormhole regions.
I would like to consider the sound incident to a water filled pipe wall. I think the pipe wall is typically considered as a rigid wall boundary, it means all the incident wave is reflected. Is this assumption is correct in real world? I think if the sound inside the pipe is large, we can hear the sound from outside the pipe. In practical, what kind of boundary condition should be assumed for the pipe wall?
Using thesisdown to write my Masterthesis I was wondering about the default indentations of the package: If you check the pictures below, all the pages (of the default 'knitted' thesisdown rmd-files) have different indentations (holds also for the toc). On a first glance my guess was that pages with a heading have a certain indentation, whereas the following pages don't have any indentation. This theory also holds for the toc. But imo it doesn't hold for the first picture. So I ask myself: is this indentation behaviour intended or is it an 'unwanted' side-effect? And is there a way to unify the indentations for all pages?