/sci/ - Science & Math

Can we take <span class="math">P(\omega_n) = E_n = nh\omega[/spoiler] for the OP equation?

>>2213154
dude. its been shown plenty of times.
and introductory book too QM usually has examples.
(look at the x,y,z spin components in the cat book for instance)

here is a question:

my textbooks states that the equilibrium constant K
never changes. fair enough. then it states that K depends on temperature.
so which is correct? if K(T), then why doesnt it change?
So if you want to move the equilibrium constant of a reaction, the only thing you can do is change the temperature? Changing anything else will only change the number of products and reactants, but not their ratio?

also, if changing the concentration / volume of something so that the concentration quotient Q is different from K, is it correct to say that the reaction will happen in the direction that makes Q=K?
I hope so or I am fucked.

>>2169763
>>2170991
>>2171085
We are at this point well aware of the fact that in the game Portal, moving surfaces disrupt portals. Now, stfu and gtfo.

We're discussing science here.

>>2169920
>then you would be crushed by yourself... pretty much, you now exist in a space of nothing, nearly a singularity if you will
You mean free space? The void, the empty space, etc.

Externally, you'd vanish as a closed spacetime loop was created. Internally, you'd exist as a 3D projection from a 2D mobius-like surface contained in a zero dimensional space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Spacetime_intervals

Familiar with Hawking radiation? Imagine the "time" before the big bang is "outside" the visible universe. If our universe is a blackbody, it must radiate. If our universe exists beyond a singularity of another universe, our universe is the "inside" of a blackhole in that universe.

Take the universe "before and outside" and Invert it.

>>2103372
Thanks for the discussion. I'm going to get some sleep. If this thread's still here when I get back, we will continue to discuss everything and nothing.

/sci/,
What do I need to completely formally describe the empty space?
I think I need a basis, a metric, and a field. I think the basis will be the empty set.

>>2011952
As for the FTL question? Yes! We can. Recall that even Aquanaut admitted nanomaterials which change the index of refraction. He was concerned that we didn't have visible cloaks yet, but what he neglects is the fact that we have the cloaks in the first place. It's a matter of brute-force at worst to develop visual cloaks, but I have a different concern.

Let's talk about the Casimir effect. The Casimir effect arises from changing the refraction index of medium so as to adjust the speed of light in the Casimir vacuum.

It is suggested by http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.0553 and http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0107091

If we can bend light around an object so as to render it invisible to a class of observers, we can bend spacetime around an object so as to render it invisible to a class of interactions.

The demonstration of cloaking implies the demonstration of warping space-time.

>>2008673
You assume that the speed up is due to FTL communication. It is not. The speed up is due to the fact that the computer computes the superposition of the quantum bits in one time step.

The best description I heard was that it's like going into a library to ask for a book. The librarian goes off to search for the book and returns after examining a number of books in a likely area.

In a quantum computer, it's the same scenario except the librarian makes as many copies of itself as there are possible ways to search for the requested book given the available information.

This reduces the relative complexity of any algorithm that exploits the quantum parallelization speed up. Factoring problems, search, sort, and merge algorithms, and DFTs benefiting the most. DFTs become Quantum Fourier Transformations generalizing the notion of a DFT.

That's just what we've come up with using Boolean logic and traditional mathematical approaches.