/sci/ - Science & Math

Just ate out a girl and went for the Schrödinger equation.
Regarding the time derivative, I naturally decided to use Newton's dot notation <span class="math">\dot\psi[/spoiler]. Removing the tongue from the clit for a moment turned out to be appreciated and led to new ideas.
Thanks Newton!

Josef is coding small scripts for me on demand.
Like as a challenge.
Cool guy.
Don't talk shit.
Also, happy new year.

>>5223879
yes, you can always introduce new quantifier which rain over a subset <span class="math">S={x:\chi_S(x)}[/spoiler] of a domain <span class="math">D[/spoiler], given by a characteristic function <span class="math">\chi_S[/spoiler] (yes/no function/predicate specifying the subset) in the following way:

<span class="math">\forall_S x(P(x)):=\forall_D x(\chi_S(x)\rightarrow P(x))[/spoiler]

>>5000494
I've used Mathematica with packages, and I also implemented simple Christophel symbol calculations myself. Works just fine.

http://mathematica.stackexchange.com/
(the mathematica board is very active, you're welcome)

This seems like the basic coupled problem for a solid state physics course.


This seems related

http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/qm2/modules/m5-6/periodic.htm

but I'm not sure.

Otherwise, maybe you find something of relevant in this infinite list of books

http://www.preterhuman.net/texts/science_and_technology/physics/

I can't be bothered with this, i.e. such nonlinear dispersion relations, right now (even if I'd love to understand graphen), but I guess the main idea is to writed down a next neightbor hamiltonian, then the matrix of equations of motions and diagonalize.

gl

the serge lang book is supposed to be the classic and good intro.
I only read it for 70 pages, but I also usually don't need it.
There is a relatively short but german book called "Algebra" by ...I don't know, you're probably not german anyway.

For example, every sequence defined by a linear recurrence with constant coefficients has a closed-form solution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrence_relation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-form_solution

>>4368490
The part I ponder about is the role of different energy scales.
To take a step back, can you explain the renormalization using block spins in the Ising model, which has that well defined scaling law/critical exponent.
How do you stip off finite values in that system?

Also, but that might be far fetched, do you know something about renormalizaton of turbulence effcts (in connection to dissipation, e.g. in fluid systems)

I'm actually forcing myself reading a book on (first order) logic just to write an intelligent program (literally).

Cool animation. I can't really agree with the comclusion or all the reasoning made by the the two figures, but I really apprechiate the artists effort and I also like the style.

If you're intersted in the philosophy discussed, you might wanna start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

>>4094106
That's usually one clean way to do it. But you don't have or want to use lagrangians to introduce connection in a fibre bundle. Therefore the Peskin Schröder way taken here is conceptially fruitful, I'd say. By calculating in terms of A_{mu} we are of course using components (as physicists do), which, I agree, isn't as nice looking as a pertubation of the lagrangian or action.

Raleted to the non-mechanical view, and especially to the guy how posted here
>>4094110
I could recommend this blog post by Terence Tao

http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2008/09/27/what-is-a-gauge/

The beginning is easy, at least.

Other than that I'd say research some Cartan Geometry <3

>>4094122
>not naming your fields

>>4090002
Y U FullSimplify everything >.<

^^

>>4059425
>nah, theres loads of old couples who stay happily married until they die.
Mhm, I actually don't know one. Do you know examples of married stay forever together couples without kids?

>>4059417
the "kill emotions" plan will not work, of course. I mean seriously.
On the other hand I wouldn't say that the typical "asshole" person is a bad person. A player can have that mentality and be a nice person anyway. I mean you can't be liked by everybody and these people are just as liked as you are.

Also what does Kähler add to the picture? The need for a complex structure restrcticts the spaces, imho, but how does, for example, the metric it influence the cohomology? Does the metric play any role? I actually don't know if the space and the dual space are identified without metric, but it's probably possible in any case. And what is P? This is why I guessed projective spaces/bundles added to X, but "Kähler de Rham" doesn't expain this for me.

Oh boy, here we go.

Yes you're right. The naive answer would be 1/2, since there seem to be "only 2 cases left", but the right answer is >1/2 because the box with two gold coins was more likely to be chosen.
Such questions are controversial however, since you can't reproduce them properly. That is you can't actually do the experiment (if you try one time), because you can't be sure to not draw a silver coin the first time.
Whatever, the basian logic still says >1/2 and this is the right one from this perspective.

Highly related:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox

Interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_Beauty_problem

>>4012369
>what else the system contains
I don't understand.

>>3998073
by the no-\sigma-limit?
You haven't answered what you study or in what semester. Physics in 3rd year?

I come to /sci/ mostly because of little computations I can plug into Mathematica. And I troll a lot too.

I'm not 100% what you are asking here. If you just take GR then you certainly can imagine a system of far away particles which come closer and after a time stick together and form a black hole. "later" in this scenario, you'll only see the black hole.


I don't know, maybe this might help in any way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E2%80%93Hawking_singularity_theorems

I'm not sure what you mean by stream function. The fact that you're suggesting a term u*x in \Phi makes me thing you mean a scalar function such that v=grad(\Phi). Is that so? and how did you get the function? Integrate the components respectively via mathematica? In any case, notice that your \Phi only contains Q together with the first term in your first pic. In the second pic you corrected this, it seems. Also, notice that in Mathematica, you can write \Pi and \Phi via "esc p esc" and "esc Ph esc" and so one. you should use this. Also Mathematica knows Grad, Div, Curl etc. Search for it in the help and I'd suggest you copy

DeclarePackage["VectorAnalysis`", {"start","VectorAnalysis","Div", "Grad", "Curl"}]

in your init.m file on your computer.

My naive integrations of the vector fields (if you're really interested in grad and not some curl variant, as wikipedias "stream function" article suggests) gives another term that your arctan, but no too different. different powers of y though. show me your complete (Mathematica) derivation.

>>3978820
>I assumed E is always a 1-form.
Since we are talking hypotetical stuff here, the meaning of E is pretty much undefined. If you consider a Yang-Mills theory in arbitrary dimensions, then F is certainly the relevant object and it makes sense to define E via i_{∂_t}F and so it will be a 1-form. Then the components will be D. The remaining components, i.e. the B-Field can't be D:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hodge_star#Dimensions_and_algebra
For 2-Forms, E and B will only have equal number of components if D=4.
>I don't see where the field strengh tensor should pick up additional degrees of freedom.
Even if the components of B will go quadratically in D, the "degrees of freedom" will certainly go with D, since they dont depend on the number of components, but on A.
>Is U(1) only valid for 3+1D?
Unrelated. Why should the bundle be affected by the dimension of the base space?

k, I solved the general problem, i.e. I can produce arbitrary long solutions with one line of code. Example:

a=3694996538828703790315942547190898328670611222221868918057591349235569\
5971522571646382588322181456441019585843510318042615314146631217880578\
9840198391326265901348880609849727273167283902556161975231705883342461\
4110624578113471433477414065204276476051958392724360121375347428160810\
9610799675286345296697944223826534125470485443242615501813543293275215\
3398531344837093897912562035402799365033165842170929306561998614179008\
4817371035232284193164664750961765319938749613323756414116179852816709\
7965001124537430678047052893150982557580582109901968532046915496376296\
3331655240316872613927692765989815443171326074154448182062707077170579\
1793880797612731198347898161209406891053964252788450350095861297680783\
4403182954574734767995730434744774287734131632023487477115531187494404\
1524420341166557860122893242320963175914705504662337649206070583113275\
2172006935125353697771020037391024831798625453782914699806493796102159\
8330949948793788613543832424070832321389668501250664310477448685263740\
7034846662419652223833308129016593797428555733454425236451047243650374\
8084060257932187242057783528102547188258157394898244734036970065615698\
2735858867434193854404387033374859523602400250965978001536549853499119\
3431366495704644118763104954118300131967919301536807171031370224726288\
2797753913388817467080809067874648294635290928951594003093613742323239\
3719803371339479467902044595806581593904506472193856425783348133813042\
5082810158762285336052544843611109278435882533085869251532845143559293\
4140985826809487386800501537143261630842587723144567214476152928898290\
3882585189805719415676217218393604608377384973148492116351998110474829\
0770923011803355777469636240840913614273924961757767628323859543613082\
8045113477394580926866095569819096758137217445982430157609241605909420\
94136634531505884139335133042625626714638867345965056

>>3948127
well, OP is asking
>Does that mean that there should be a great universal measurement of truth?
I guess if there is such a measurement, then you can answer the question if there is somthing which is really true.

>>3881207
The Gell-Mann talk wasn't too good. The guy is >9000 years old and hat problems with power point and stuff. Also, somewhat wrong audience. Biologists mainly. He was talking about generalized entropies in a non-biology-friendly style.

But maybe this makes you a little jelly:
Last semester, I made out with a cute blonde, leaning the door of Boltzmanns office. (I'm from vienna btw., we still have professors who made their doctors supervised by Schrödinger)

I don't think polynomials are the way to go here..

-152804. + 684587. x - 1.15654*10^6 x^2 + 1.04413*10^6 x^3 -
580144. x^4 + 213048. x^5 - 53596.2 x^6 + 9334.78 x^7 -
1107.04 x^8 + 83.7446 x^9 - 3.21354 x^10 - 0.0227597 x^11 +
0.00643525 x^12 - 0.0000227827 x^13 - 0.0000117267 x^14 -
8.00023*10^-8 x^15 + 1.97693*10^-8 x^16 + 6.25029*10^-10 x^17 -
1.7082*10^-11 x^18 - 1.71052*10^-12 x^19 - 3.44445*10^-14 x^20 +
1.6515*10^-15 x^21 + 1.35133*10^-16 x^22 + 3.33608*10^-18 x^23 -
8.09411*10^-20 x^24 - 1.01125*10^-20 x^25 - 3.79335*10^-22 x^26 -
1.84856*10^-24 x^27 + 5.88784*10^-25 x^28 + 3.56077*10^-26 x^29 +
8.88215*10^-28 x^30 - 1.61968*10^-29 x^31 - 2.52185*10^-30 x^32 -
1.0662*10^-31 x^33 - 9.63131*10^-34 x^34 + 1.4795*10^-34 x^35 +
8.66418*10^-36 x^36 + 9.20515*10^-38 x^37 - 1.15471*10^-38 x^38 -
3.65626*10^-40 x^39 + 1.24362*10^-41 x^40