darklight03/StackMIAsub huggingface dataset:
I have some confusion over the ER=EPR conjecture. In what way does entanglement in the laboratory lead to black holes? I must not be reading the literature correctly. Perhaps it should read " It's possible to entangle particles near an Einstein-Rosen Bridge in a way to effectively show ER=EPR by appropriate measurements. Perhaps some confusion on my part on what the target of the conjecture is so I can image what sort of measurement would be used. It's difficult for me to think of physics without a measurement.
Here is an example from Murphy's grammar textbook: You are in a restaurant. You and your friend are looking at the menu. Maybe your friend has decided what to have. You ask her/him. You: What ...? The correct answer is "What are you going to have?" My question is: the decision is being made at the moment of speaking, so shouldn't it be "What WILL you have?"
So everybody says the gravitational field has no curl, and is not comparable to a liquid swirling around a drain. Observationally, of course, there are many examples of vector fields (which I think are gravitational fields) which look like they have some curl. A pair of stars, for example, one being slowly devoured by the other. The path of the swirling gas seems to trace out a field with a lot of curl in it. Just as if you were to pour dye into water that is swirling around a drain. How do you reconcile the observed vector field with the gravitational field which is not supposed to have curl? Is there some way to work them into a single model?
I am looking for a book (or article, or notes...) explaining details about the link between integral points on varieties defined as complement of certain divisors and integral solutions to the equation(s) defining the divisor itself. Namely, if I have a projective space defined over a number field and a divisor defined on it by a polynomial, I can define integral points on the complement of such divisor (quasi-S-integral points, following Serre). I know I could do (and I have done) the work by myself, but I am pretty sure that an expert review could give me examples, insights and references I am missing. Thanks!
It's common to say that a pregnant woman is expecting, but is it acceptable to say that her husband is expecting? I ask because my male teacher's wife is expecting in a week. In case you didn't know, to be expecting means (for a pregnant woman, at least) that one will be giving birth soon, but it could generalize to males as meaning "will have a new child soon."
I was reading about function and I came across this text, If A and B have same number of elements and particularly if A = B then we only need to prove one of either onto or everywhere defined to prove that it is a bijection. Now I don't get this point. I will be thankful if someone can elaborate this with an example. Thanks in advance.
I have found out that using the verb be in passive constructions such as: I had my house be burned down is incorrect, therefore it should be I had my house burned down. But is it possible instead of be to use get? E.g. The wire is passed through the pliers in a specific way to avoid having it get bent. The rope had its surface wear. The rope had its surface get worn. The rope had its surface worn. The first two sound very odd to me, but just for clarification could you please point out the errors and which ones are correct? Or is using get, be it in -ing or the to infinitive, in any situation along with have incorrect?
Serre's Duality Theorem is well known and well studied and, as far as I know, there is a "big" algebraic proof for the general case, which is now kind of standard, and can be found in Hartshorne and other references done pretty much in the same way. On the other hand, there is an analytical proof for the small case of complex algebraic curves (compact Riemann surfaces), which makes use of differential forms, meromorphic functions, residue Theorem and so on. Since the curve case looks special, I was wondering if anyone knows of the existence of a more simple algebraic proof of Serre's Duality Theorem and can give me references. Thank you very much in advance.
In layman's terms, how do you determine the resistivity constant of a non-ohmic material having measured voltage and current? I understand that non-ohmic materials don't follow Ohm's Law, but will this still be able to be used to determine the resistance? Otherwise how can I determine an initial resistivity in order to use R=[rho]l/A to figure out the resistivity? Is there a different formula for this circumstance, or will I need to collect more data? (Yeah, even I know it's a totally dumb question)
Suppose there's a box with one face cold, and the opposite face hot. So when the air molecules hit the cooler face, it will transfer its momentum and energy to the wall, bouncing back with less momentum. And when molecules hit the hotter face, it will bounce back faster. And the hotter side will be hit more frequently by air molecules. So will the box feel any force due to the temperature difference?
If I place two positive charges of different magnitudes on the x-axis (one at the origin, one at the some position x), as the two charges repel each other are the forces that they impart on each other the same? Why? Edit: I'm working on a problem that has that situation, and the problem asks for me to find the position of one of the charges if the other one is at a given position. Why can't I just set the two forces equal to each other and use that to find the position of the other charge?
I have to do an experiment about light. I preferred to measure the speed of light by the experiment of Michelson and Morley. When you do the experiment, it will result in an interference pattern by changing the distance of one of the mirrors. I know they had the intention to measure the speed of light relative to the ether and the earth. But how could they derive the speed of light with the resulted interference pattern?
If I call my mother when I am done shopping in the morning, I might tell her "I am coming home" if she is at home, but "I am going home" if she is not. That afternoon at home, discussing the day's events with my father, I could say "I had already planned to come home after shopping," or "I had already planned to go home after shopping." Which is preferred, and why?
A pattern that begins a word is generally denoted as "prefix", one that ends a word is generally denoted as "suffix". Is there a word that indicates a pattern that surrounds a word. For instance (hello), is there a word that indicates the parentheses? So if I have several patterns i.e.: "hello" (hello) {hello} [hello] etc. What word do I use for the surrounding pattern?
I am not a native speaker of English and I am now reading a Sci-Fi book called Dune. I am unable to grasp all the sentences but I do get the overall meaning of paragraphs. But this sentence is completely puzzling me. One of the slave-concubines permitted my father under the Bene Gesserit-Guild agreement could not, of course,bear a Royal Successor, but the intrigues were constant and oppressive in their similarity. Here are my doubts: The "could not" refers to the agreement or the permission by the slave-concubine? The "intrigues" refer the details of the permission or the agreement? Could someone please help. I really enjoy the book and would love to understand it better.
A person repents to God. Then God responds to their prayer and (v) their repentance. What verb goes here? What is the correct collocation? The only examples I can find on the internet are : 'I was earnestly begging of God to give me repentance.' and 'Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.' However, the meanings of these sentences are unclear. Does 'give/grant repentance mean that they were given the chance to repent? That's not the meaning I'm looking for.
I've just lost a word I use frequently whenever talking about the reasons for punishments. The word should (I think) fill the blank: Punishments, such as jail time, __ people from doing crime. The word is related to stopping, hindrance, incentive, restrict, etc. In this usage, it should also imply that it stops people from committing crime because they don't want to go to jail. Jail also stops people from committing crimes because they can't leave jail. It should fit both of these simultaneously. I hope this isn't too far of a stretch.
I'm using TextMaker. This is my first time using bibtex. I tried a simple example found in forums where I created a .bib file and ofcourse a .tex file. Problem occurred when I tried to run my bib file. It says "Log File not found!". My .tex file runs fine. I know this is not supposed to be that complicated. As I just want to create a simple bibliography using bibtex.
I have seen some similar questions but I admit I'm a newbie when it comes to cgi and general server setup and need some direction. I have a personal domain hosted on yahoo.com that I would like to install LaTeX on. I would like it so that it works in the following (or similar) way. Typing <img src="www.mysite.com/latex.cgi?{my formula}"> will create a rendered gif that I may post on other websites, mainly forums without LaTeX support where I like to help others. Only basic packages are required for my uses (at least for now), things such as Tikz are not needed. So is this very difficult to do?
In many religious calendars, the day goes from sunset to sunset. When translating to the civil calendar, you can divide that day into two parts: from sunset to midnight (A), and from midnight to the following sunset (B). For terminology, "eve" works well for part A. Is there a term for part B? The closest I've found are "day", "morning" and "morrow". Is there another term that could be used?
Do you think that the following sentence structure is correct? "Attach any material you need included". I meant to say "Attach any material that you need to include". I agree it may not be formal but I don't think it is wrong or difficult to understand. Do you think that the sentence is wrong? If yes, where do you think the problem is? Could anyone help me with this?
I'm trying to understand the symmetry content of the conductivity matrix: one information is, presence of time-reversal symmetry causes the off-diagonal terms to vanish. When this is broken (e.g. in Hall effect) off-diagonal terms become finite. (A side question is, why is the conductivity matrix always anti-symmetric?!) Apart from that, does it contain any information about the spin of the charge carriers. My guess would be it should not, as one computes conductivity using classical theory. If I take a spin-orbit coupled (SOC) system (where inversion symmetry is broken), will the SOC information be present in the conductivity matrix? If it is, then how? What other symmetries in the system are relevant for the conductivity matrix?
I have heard that in America, and likely elsewhere as well, we are beginning to be more gratuitous with our use of extreme words when not entirely accurate, such as the words "awesome", "always", "never", "crazy", etc. Is there a word or phrase to name this phenomenon? What are the implications of this behavior with respect to our use of language and its effect on our lives?
In the photocurrent experiment, if the intensity of light is kept constant, but the frequency is slightly increased, what's the effect on the saturation current? I think saturation current should decrease because the number of photons should decrease. But, all my reference books say that the saturation current depends only on intensity, and since it is constant, hence there will be no change. Can you please tell me which reasoning is correct? And why? EDIT: Another confusing factor is the energy of electrons. If the electrons have more energy due to the increased frequency then I would take less time to get to the anode and that should increase the current. Now, which factor is more dominant? And how do i know that?
I couldn't help but wonder every time I saw such a noun phrase. I've seen both forms used equally often, so I guess both of them can be used interchangeably. But do I guess right? Some examples: Here is a frequently used compound nouns list. Here is a frequently used compound noun list. I usually rephrase them into something like this. Here is a reference list of compound nouns.
I think I understand both the centrepedal effect and Einsteins curved space time. However I am confused about which best describes the motion of a planet ( or other orbiting body ). Simply put, does the earth experience any centrepedal effect or does it just follow the geodesic line and therefore not experience any centrepedal forces. Can someone please explain or let me know that science has yet to answer this question.
So I have to write a report paper for a course and I would like to prove that the q-Gaussian is the distribution which arises once one maximizes the Tsallis entropy. But I face difficulties in proving it. Actually I am quite new to the field of Statistical Mechanics and not really familiar with the methods of going through a proof like that. Could it be possible that someone providess a reference which provides the proof or show me how to actually maximize a distribution, so that I am able to start at least from that? Thank you!
Every word I say is true; this I promise you. I think the pronoun 'this' is the direct object of the verb 'promise' and 'this' should be be placed after 'you', but it is placed at the beginning of the sentence. Because this sentence is on a web page about English grammar at http://grammar.yourdictionary.com , I believe this is not grammatically wrong. Is this an exception? Then, how can it?
Is it theoretically possible for an object or particle to change to the opposite direction without making a complete stop first? Lets say I have a fictional hammer swing setup like this: I fire an electron to the hammer and the hammer smashes it back, is it possible for the electron (or any other particle or body) to change direction without slowing down and making a complete stop? If not, which law defines that? Note: the question isn't about the hammer part but that was just the first thing that came up in my mind.
I have recently been reading about Quantum Electrodynamics which I found very interesting, but even more confusing. I understand photons mediate the electromagnetic force and interactions between charges can be described by virtual photon exchange. And that in Quantum Mechanics particles paths can be evaluated by sum over all paths... An electron travelling from one point to another will take all paths, emitting and reabsorbing virtual photons. Does the electrons take all paths including those that involve faster than light velocities? Is this question null, Does it mean anything to ask about properties of virtual particles? Do I have the wrong idea about what virtual particles are?
Lets consider the following: The book doesn't explain, "What's the wisdom behind education?" Changing this to an indirect question becomes the following: The book doesn't explain what the wisdom behind education is. Now, I found many instances on Google where structures like this weren't really converted to indirect questions. For example: The book doesn't explain what's the wisdom behind education. "[She] doesn't say what's really on her mind." Edit: And consider the following: What's the logic behind it. (a) I wonder what's the logic behind it vs. (b)I wonder what the logic behind it is. (a) sounds better but why? And are these constructions acceptable?
I vaguely remember seeing something like a "picture" of various groups a while back. It was as if the elements of the group were each associated with a point and many points had segments connecting them, but not all were connected. Does anyone know what I am talking about? If so, would you care to take the time to explain the basics (or point me to a resource, if you think google won't help)? Thanks.
Is it possible for a black hole to be ejected from a galaxy after an encounter with the central supermassive black hole? What would be the impact of the passage of the hyperV-BH through the galaxy? Is it observable? Have we observed any hypervelocity black holes? What experimental techniques do we need to be sure (how should current methods to discover gravitational lensing be modified)? Please note that arXiv papers and articles out there mostly talk about hypervelocity stars.
I'm thinking of writing a paper on a new way of deriving the conservation of energy from symmetry principles and the Galilean transformations, but I'm not sure where to publish. Taking a look at AJP, it tends to be there for teachers at universities writing papers on how best to teach a certain topic, and to clear up misunderstandings. On the other hand, my paper certainly isn't to do with cutting edge physics, but merely another approach to something that is understood in other ways, and therefore not worthy of being published in Physics review, say. So where should I publish? More generally, how are the papers physicists publish mainly categorised, and which main journals publish papers in these areas?
Hmmm... You can definitely drop down the voltage, and ideal capacitors don't dissipate any power. So it seems, at first glance, that you could use a capacitor divider as a lossless voltage step-down device for AC. So you could use a cheaper variable cap divider as a replacement for a Variac? And it would be continuously variable, too, whereas the Variac is only variable in discrete windings. There has to be something wrong with this. What am I not thinking of?
I am stuck in this problem for a while, and the main idea will be important for some exercises, so I really want to know how to find an example like this I need an example of an proper ideal, let's say M, of C[x,y] (the ring of the complex polynomials in x and y) such that the quotient C[x,y]/M do not admit a homomorphism f(x,y) -> f(a, b) (for a, b complex numbers) from C[x,y]/M -> C.
I've been wondering if there is a word to express that something was current at the time of its creation. It (in bold) should plug-in into a sentence similar to: The results are based on an analyses that deal with the then-current methods. As far as I can tell, both "contemporary" and "current" refer to now, whereas I would like to express something was "current" in the past.
I am looking for a textbook in control theory (for a friend) that covers topics such as Pontryagin's maximum principle. My friend is not a mathematician by trade, but holds a degree in applied mathematics (and is thus not math-shy, but prefers to skip detailed discussions on regularity and prefers intuition). Recent aspects of control theory (e.g., viscosity solutions) need not be present. (I apologize for all the parameters)
What would you call someone who does things knowing specifically that his/her actions will cause pain and/or conflict or completes an action just to get someone in trouble or hurt them? For example, in Private Peaceful there are two people that are in love, but the Colonel goes out of his way to tell the father of the girl that the boy is a thief and would be bad for their reputation. What is a word that would describe him?
In the phrase "My dog wiggles it's butt" there seems to be a division of opinion as to whether the use of the apostrophe is grammatically correct. I suggest that as the dog in question is the owner of the butt in question and that said dog is an animate object replaced by the use of the word it then the apostrophe is a correct. Just as we use the apostrophe to show possession in the phrase "Mary's head."
To negate a participle phrase we use not at the beginning of it, as in "Not having heard the news, he had no idea what was going on." Can we also use the negative particle in some other porition in the sentence without it making any change in the meaning of the sentence? As in "Having not heard the news, he had no idea what was going on." Is it entirely wrong or is it used in spoken English by native speakers (even as a common mistake among native speakers of English)?
So I've been correcting an architectural piece translated into English, wherein a sentence befuddles me: ...A wooden table... marked the location of a previous bench. What the author tried to say is that a wooden table is now located where once stood a bench. This usage of previous simply doesn't feel right to me. Any advice? PS, what about location in that sentence? For me, if a noun has to be used, locality seems to work better in the sense of "the fact or condition of having a location or position in space" of the word. Or am I over-scrutinizing things here?
I would like to express that I fundamentally upgraded something in a concise way. That is, I did not create that something, but it is almost as if I completely redesigned it and made much better. The word would be used in the following way: I fundamentally upgraded the manufacturing process to allow for considerably higher modularity and efficiency. 'Improve' or any of its synonyms are too weak, whereas 'fundamentally upgrade' seems too clumsy to me. I guess 'revamp' is pretty close but it seems to me that this word might be too informal or not be appropriate in the given context. Do you see any alternatives?
Currently using BibDesk with TeXShop (for mac). The apalike bibliography style is pretty much perfect for how I like (and more importantly my advisor likes) to do my references. The only problem is that the citation that comes up in the text [Author, Year] is repeated before each entry in my reference list at the end of the document. Is there a way to remove this so I may just have the Author, Year, Title etc. as normal just without this extra square bracketed part at the beginning? Here's what it looks like: Many thanks for any contribution you may be able to give in advance!
If there is a mechanical device which is controlled by electronics, these electronics can be hidden inside the device itself or hang outside it and connected to it by wires. Is there a word which indicates the second option, without writing a lengthy sentence? Example: instead of: "... a device with a controller connected to it by wires" something like: "... a device with a controller _ wires". (in wires? on wires? by wires?) "on wires" would seem to be the logical choice to me, but I couldn't find a single relevant phrase on Google.
Not too long ago, someone began to discuss the thinking and motivation behind the Lagrangian and its formalism for the Newtonian framework and an intuitive understanding of such formalism. Somehow, it ended in the case that the Lagrangian can be understood in terms of conservation of information (largely) without having to rely on other laws. Is this line of argument correct? And, more importantly, would this mean that unitarity is a stronger statement than conservation of energy?
I would like to hack a new BibTeX style file based on plain.bst, in which I make it possible to display the value of a location field in the inproceedings entry type. I have started as follows: I have added location to the list of defined fields in the ENTRY block. In FUNCTION{inproceedings}, I have simply inserted the line location output right after where it prints the booktitle. This works! However, now I would like simply to enclose the value of location in parentheses. I have tried defining a FUNCTION{format.location}, but I don't understand the BibTeX language well enough to get this right. Any suggestions for the function? And how do I call it in FUNCTION{inproceedings}?
I just don't get the concept behind why a lens or a mirror forms a reproduction of the object at present. Is it to do with the object blocking parts of the light source? I just don't understand why an image of that object is produced. The question is essentially trying to understand what causes the image to be produced from the object, in the first place.