Ahhh not quite. The non-commutativity should enter in this case because the linear operators projecting onto the relevant subspaces here, are sensitive to interchange of order when used onto a state.xXGeckoXx said:
Science Q&A: Ask questions, and answer them answered by the community.
- Thread starter xXGeckoXx
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm not giving a professional answer here, but this is an area of interest for me and I have listened to quite a bit of stuff about it. Quite a few people seem to think that science can indeed explain happiness and suffering, and can show us how to reduce suffering and increase happiness very easily, if you set out with a definition of happiness and suffering, as they are man made concepts to begin with, we can't have science give us definite answers from nothing, but it can give us definite answers if we start out with assumptions and stick to them.Marik2 said:
I found this to be really interesting and a good listen, you might like it if you are interested in this sort of stuff:
(hopefully you can tolerate a small bit of religion bashing, the rest of it is really interesting
)Also, moar threads like this, interesting threads that have people explaining rather than bickering are a really nice change. That and science is awesome.
Ooh Sam Harris and a long presentationMidgeamoo said:I'm not giving a professional answer here, but this is an area of interest for me and I have listened to quite a bit of stuff about it. Quite a few people seem to think that science can indeed explain happiness and suffering, and can show us how to reduce suffering and increase happiness very easily, if you set out with a definition of happiness and suffering, as they are man made concepts to begin with, we can't have science give us definite answers from nothing, but it can give us definite answers if we start out with assumptions and stick to them.Marik2 said:
I found this to be really interesting and a good listen, you might like it if you are interested in this sort of stuff:
(hopefully you can tolerate a small bit of religion bashing, the rest of it is really interesting
Also, moar threads like this, interesting threads that have people explaining rather than bickering are a really nice change. That and science is awesome.
Will check it out when I have the time. I'm always thinking that science might be able to "take over" the roles of politics, religion, philosophy and pretty much every aspect of life if it is done right.
It just seems that way considering how powerful science is becoming...but every time I talk abotu this, people get sorta mad
All right, I'll try to be curt with this. One thing I've always wondered was if there was an easy(ish) equation that would tell me the angle of the sun based on the following variables: axial tilt, latitude, and rotational speed. I've spent a long time trying to find this one, and hopefully this thread can help. Feel free to ask if you're confused. It took me a while to grasp what I'm looking for exactly.
Edit: Nevermind! I found it! It's called the Sunrise Equation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_equation
Edit: Nevermind! I found it! It's called the Sunrise Equation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_equation
http://andrewspooner.com/blog/2012/real-life-wipeout-quantum-levitation-superconducting-magnetic-levitation-maglev/Doclector said:
This is technology currently used for trains though it is not practical at the moment, high temperature superconductors might make this kind of technology feasible in the future. Hover boards could use fans and would work like a hover craft. Or they could use magnets but they would need in place infrastructure to work (I i like a train track but for hover boards).
How babby formed ?
How babby formed ?
How gurl get pragnent ?
I'm kidding ofcourse.
Is there someone a bit more specialised in neurology ? Because I study biomedical science, so I know how it all works. I just don't understand how all these chemical reactions form "conciousness". I can explain a lot just buy the mechanical process, so I know the processes that happen when you "smell" something. But what leads you to experience that smell? What makes me experience the smell in the way that I do ? So yeah, anyone knows a bit more about that (if I make sense)?
How babby formed ?
How gurl get pragnent ?
I'm kidding ofcourse.
Is there someone a bit more specialised in neurology ? Because I study biomedical science, so I know how it all works. I just don't understand how all these chemical reactions form "conciousness". I can explain a lot just buy the mechanical process, so I know the processes that happen when you "smell" something. But what leads you to experience that smell? What makes me experience the smell in the way that I do ? So yeah, anyone knows a bit more about that (if I make sense)?
Let's not forget that the original name for 'science' (as a field of academic study) was 'natural philosophy', and owing to the literal translation of 'philosophy' as 'love of wisdom' (or close enough to it), there is cause enough to say that they're already interchangeable.Marik2 said:
Also, it depends on which branch of philosophy you want to talk about. Those that do not concern morals and rationalisation of conscious thought (e.g. metaphysics etc.) can be approached from a scientific perspective. Broadly, what can and cannot exist or occur as a derivation of base concepts of observations by humans, stripped away of all their functionality down to core common factors that define less the object or act, and more the concept of that object or action which is held distinct from its 'ideal'. Of course, this is open to conjecture, but it's the sort of BS I love waxing lyrical about, even if I don't really conform to a specific school of thought.
Besides, there are subjects enough that combine philosophy and science (hell, the philosophy of science is a major branch of philosophy as it is without needing the philosophy of mathematics) that any semblance of mutual exclusivity between the two is rendered rather moot.
Mmm, yeah. Science was known as Natural Philosophy until the Empirical Method changed things quite a bit. Aristotle couldn't just say human males have more teeth than females. He had to prove it.
Question(s): How do quantum computers work? What advantages do quantum computers have over conventional computers because of how they work?
Question(s): How do quantum computers work? What advantages do quantum computers have over conventional computers because of how they work?
GoGo Gadget Physics!Matthew94 said:
The point of origin of the Big Bang (the Singularity) doesn't emit the background microwave radiation. It is emitted by the whole universe and is detected at the same intensity in all directions, hence has no distinct source. Hence it is not "past us" as it is emitted all around us. The radiation is microwaves (electromagnetic radiation, like visible light but much longer, same type of radiation used to heat food!), which corresponds to a background temperature of 2.7K (about -270 degree Celsius). We're not cooked because it's low intensity.
TL;DR: all mass emits electromagnetic radiation that averages out to microwaves. This is the background radiation. The Singularity (point of the Big Bang) does not emit this.
Snipped as this is a more concise and complete answer, and you asked for someone to expand.xXGeckoXx said:
Feel free to snip/PM me if you need help with a physics related question, there's a fair chance I'll be able to contribute something useful.
Standard computers operate in binary (1 and 0) and are based on transistors and controlling the flow of electrons. Quantum computers operate by trapping and controlling the quantum state of individual particles, meaning the particles can exist in a state of 1, 0 or a mix of the two. Each trapped particle is called a qubit, and in a system with n qubits, you can have 2^n states of existence simultaneously, whereas a classical computer is in one of these 2^n states, meaning that larger calculations can be done more easily.Terratina. said:
(Source: own knowledge and Wiki.)
Short answer: nobody knows. Conciousness is one of those things we just haven't really unlocked yet.RustlessPotato said:
Side note, High five for a fellow biomed student
I think it's worth remembering with questions like this how theoretical the world of physics remains.Matthew94 said:
To give example, I believe it was Keppler who created a working model of the universe which postulated the earth at the center of the universe. That is to say he postulated a model which explained and seemed to correctly predict the behavior of the planets and stars and still contained the faulty assumption that the earth was at the center of everything. It should go without saying, however, that just because his theory explained and correctly predicted observed phenomenon, doesn't mean it was right. In fact we now know it to be demonstrably wrong.
We understand now that the earth is not at the center of the universe, but instead rotates around the sun, which is itself caught in rotation. This newer theory is much simpler than Keppler's, but it was able to be simpler only through the removal of a faulty assumption.
Later developments like Einstein's theory of relativity similarly rocked our understanding of the universe, and from all appearances it would seem that quantum physics shall do the same. We are at a period in human history during which our fellow beings stare over the edge, just about ready to peer through the veiled abyss at things we might come to find ourselves happier not knowing.
I guess my point then is to keep in mind that just because the answers our physicists provide us would seem to correctly explain and predict the behavior of the observable doesn't mean we should take them for fact. We are coming to find that the universe is a much stranger place than any of us had imagined and it might be just a little too arrogant of us to assume we are now free of faulty assumptions.
As for my question... the other day my little brother attempted to explain to me how we know that nothing can be accelerated to the speed of light, and I suppose I just found it rather curious. He said it has something to do with how the faster an object moves, the more force is exerted against its further acceleration as friction. I wasn't really sure I understood why enough energy could never be accessed to overcome acceleration at a certain point though. Perhaps someone is capable of explaining this to me?