/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4548903
Goldstein is typically used for Grad Classica Mehcnics courses, not undergrad.

>>4392468
>quantum physics

It is too broad a subject. Narrow your question more.

>>3144668
This is actually a well known scientific hypothesis. There are plenty of cosmologist looking for signs that the universe has the kinda structure you are talking about. The mathematics involved is called "topology". As to date there really is little (if no) evidence supporting that kinda structure to our universe.

There are tons of simulation programs you can download to see how a particular topology would present itself (if it existed). The one I like the best is "Curved spaces".

http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~weeks/CurvedSpaces/index.html

It is free....enjoy!

Anything else?

hey /sci/, how would you define what makes a person normal? How do you determine if someone has a mental illness or not?

>>2966566
It isn't. However, it really isn't information travel either (in the strictest sense).

Dumbed Down:

Say you have a blue marble and a red marble. And you place each in one hand. You tell someone to pick a hand. He finds its the blue marble, and logically assumes that the other hand has to be the red marble (which it is).

That is pretty much entanglement. You present a "unifying concept", like each hand has a differnt marble. Then measurment of one 'hand' allows for you to know infomation about the other hand, without actually measuring. The only additional part is that you can actually choose the color of one of the marbles, hence changing the color of the marble in the other marble as well.

"That is the spooky action at a distance"

Taking physis questions (if they arent too fucking retarded).

Any takers?

>>2541668
The "thought" experiment actually demonstrates that Quantum mechaincal behavior usually cannot be applied to macroscopic objects (like cats). Technically, the act of observation is the act of interaction. Rocks, particles, air, etc, could all be "observers".

>>2264886
I would say the definition of observables is more important then superposition. Only becuase you actually use superposition in regular mechanics as well.

By the time you take QM you should already be familar with superposition (it isn't just a QM idea). The whole idea on non-commuting oberavbles, and actually using linear algebra in physics (not just matrx algebra) is first introduced in QM.

Superposition in QM tells you that things can actually exist in mutiple states at once. Observables tells you that the properties you "normally" attribute to somthing, may not actually exist in nature. Ie, position and mometum actually don't exist in nature. They only come into being once an object is interacted with properly.

Phyics guy is back, and willing to answer problems relating to physics "concepts" (no number crunching)

>>1610944
Ohh ic, and that is a good point. I will try an clarify.

So "math" is just a means to an ends. Humans use it to try and describe shit, similar to lanuage or art or most fucking things.

If your question is is the universe "knows" or "reconginzes" math, the answer is no. Math is just somthing that humnas use to try and help humans, nothing more, it is just as "pure" as language or art. In that it is not pure at all. At least from the perspective of the universe.

ACTUALLY WTF is your question?

>>1136108
If anyone has higher res of either of these please post.

lol u atheists make me laff

"god does not play dice"
-albert eisenhower on gambling

>>1008649
if you let go of locality and do global hidden varible thoeries, then we get determinism back. So in that regard Einstien was right.

where can i take an informal class in calculus, physics, etc?

is khanacademy the best site?

>>938185

>"intelligent puller"?

No,

1) I am dumbing everything down alot, wells is just a very bad dumbed down analogy for the kids here, to help them understand (no offense kids)

2) You are correct, the "force" seems to be pulling towards the center of a massive object.

Aka we are being pulled into the planet. You dont need modern physics or GR to explain this. This is actually explained by classical field thoery and its applications to Grav. Specifically Gausses law from gravity.

It you Integerate/sum over all bodies and the classcial force bewteen all bodies (say on earth), calcualte every single force. And flux denisties etc. Then Gausses law for gravity gives the results that in total, just about everything will "see" only one force, a force pulling it to the center of the earth. So yeah, your intellegent puller idea is bullshit (no needed).

Nice try though troll, 2/10.