physica

WAIT A SEC....... popcorn your statements are always inconsistent. They never seem to address what the person is actually saying. You always seem to have limited if any knowledge on the subject you talk about and you fail to learn from your mistakes (negative 100 rep)....... are you using your program to formulate your posts? There are some major bugs in it, you need to work on it.

I don't really understand this post. You have a dialog but what does it represent? Did you simply type it yourself? Did you program a computer to give standard responses to certain inputs? Did you actually program a computer to process the input and give more varied responses? Did you program a computer to actually process the input and formulae original responses? Do the responses vary depending on what's said previously? You have given this story on how thoughtful you were when you were a kid and shown no interest on the actual process of the program or how it was formed. I don't know your motives but what this post tells the reader is that there is a person who wants to imply to strangers on the internet that he is a genius and has been every since he was a child, nothing more. However, I'm not surprised. This is the same person who started a thread on imaginary time but refused to look into imaginary numbers even though imaginary time was plotted against real time in the exact same fashion as the imaginary component of a number is plotted against the real number. This may just be a result of your writing style but your posts are all image no substance. This is why you have a negative rep.

Amazing thank you. Had to give a 1+ as it clarified what was going on. God I love this forum, pity some people don't appreciate it.

thanks swansont, the currency view really helped. As for the the initial Hamiltonian i've sent a picture via private message to studiot. For some reason after the first initial post I can never submit pictures.

Dear all I’m studying quantum mechanics for my third year. I’m finding ladder operators a real struggle. Attached is a solution to an exercise. I understand that these operators cannot be swapped round, as they will have different results. However, I’m finding the solution hard to follow. I don’t see how or why the Hamiltonian operator comes into the right hand side and how or why it turns into a energy function. The other thing that’s confusing me is why the lowering operator is pulled out at the start of the solution then slotted back in. I would ask my lecturer but my year starts in October. I’ve nearly finished 2 textbooks back to back, would like the majority of my last year taken up on revision and project work. Many thanks

The main reason why I sat back after a while is that you continue to go off on tangents. This is fine once you've mastered the material. In my experience very clever people have been accused of going off on tangents because the other person can't see the connection however, you have to stick with one concept and see it all the way through in order to master the material. I haven't seen you do this once. I'm going to say it again. You need to let the maths guide you on what's going on. This is why physics is such a great science. Human intuition is terrible. Once you've learn't vector addition and the dot product of vectors you will be able to apply them and the maths will tell you where a force needs to be in order for an object to move or stay still. Use the framework I've given you earlier on in this thread, it will prevent you going round in circles and losing focus. Another rule is not to add things like density to a problem if you can't solve the initial problem. This will just make it harder. It wil not clarify anything. Also have the humility to realise that the world is bigger than your brain. If these laws didn't work engineering as we know is wouldn't work.

40 years. wow you could have learnt a lot of maths in that time. Come up with measurable predictions and done experiments in general working towards proving your work. part-time physics degree and masters would have only taken up 8 years. Adding a phd to that part-time would have taken 14 years. In fact I'm shocked that a person has spent so long "working" on physics and hasn't actually learnt the maths. You must have actively avoided a lot of learning or spent about 2 hours a year working on your theory. I hope for your sake that you haven't spent too much time on your theories. Physics without maths is very limiting. Can you even name me one successful physics contributor in the last 100 years who didn't use maths.

We have to think about other areas apart from manufacturing and agriculture. Healthcare has boomed. Because diagnostics can be achieved with less skilled personnel due to more accurate biomarkers and scanning equipment loads of technician jobs in biophysics, radiology and community services has increased. We now focus on preventative medicine. I work in emergency medicine and a fairly uneducated technician can diagnose a heart attack fairly easily if they follow guidelines, take the bloods that get printed out when you type in chest pain on the computer and read what the computer says about the ecg reading. Neurology doctors needed to examine a patient and offer a limited range of treatments if they thought a patient had a stroke, now a paramedic can follow procedure and the patient gets rushed for a head scan, has this reduced the task for neurology doctors? no, now we can tell what type of stroke it is so they come down to infuse IV thromolysis drug if it's ischemic. Police has also become more diverse with different technicians playing a role. In-fact whole internet squads have been formed for internet evidence. What technology does is encourage industry to educate the poor. As machines generally waste less materials and are cheaper to run production. Corporations will not just sit there and stagnate. Their own greed will encourage them to innovate at a fast rate. They will see the financial benefit to educate their workers more and invest in more research and development. If not they will fall to those who do. Samsung needs electrical engineers. They recently set up an electrical engineering academies in South Africa, Kenya and Nigeria with the need to produce 10,000 electronics engineers as it is cheaper to educate and train natives than continue to ship in educated westerners for the ever increasing technology. As we've seen in the increasing prevalence of cars a new industry will develop. You will get people who will make their money from salvaging old mechanical machines and repairing them, you will get second hand machine dealers. Machines give independent small start up companies more of a chance to deliver services. Family businesses are no longer invisible thanks to the internet. I can buy a light spectroscopy kit for $50 and my desktop pc is strong enough to run it, I can test for compounds in water. Something like this 10 years ago would have cost 10s of thousands. Here is a great clip from an article: "At least since Karl Marx, people have been predicting that technology would create mass unemployment. However, these predictions were consistently wrong because they ignored the offsetting benefits of automation. For example, during the 19thcentury, machines took over tasks performed by weavers, eliminating 98 percent of the labor needed to weave a yard of cloth. But this mechanization also brought a benefit: It sharply reduced the price of cloth, so people consumed much more. Greater demand for cloth meant that the number of textile jobs quadrupled despite the automation. Something similar is happening in quite a few occupations today. Because ATMs perform many teller transactions, fewer tellers are needed to operate a bank branch. But because it costs less to operate a branch office, banks dramatically increased the number of branches in order to reach a bigger market. More bank branches means more tellers, despite fewer tellers per branch. Although ATM technology did not eliminate bank tellers, it did change the way tellers work and the skills they require. They now perform relatively fewer simple transactions in favor of complex ones, and they provide the personal service that is an important part of “relationship banking.” When technology eliminates some tasks involved in a job, it makes remaining, related tasks more valuable. Sometimes this greater value can create job growth." http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/03/how-technology-creates-jobs-for-less-educated-workers/ Everywhere I look technology is a liberator. Anyone with internet access can look at educational material that only a few of the elite would see when attending university 70 years ago. Blaming loss of jobs due to technology runs along the same lines as blaming immigrants for loss of jobs. These claims are rarely backed up by any evidence and are usually shouted by people who have their own insecurities to deal with. I believe that we live in the most exciting time that this world has offered yet.

gave you a plus one for this as you've stuck with it and got somewhere. The G and the red normal force and red frictional force are correct. Now the axis is tilted so normal force points in the positive y direction and the friction is in the negative x direction. Now applying Newton's second law give me the magnitude of the forces. Do not resolve them in vector form yet. Because you haven't resolved them in vector form do not worry if they don't add up to zero. Newton's second law force=(mass)(acceleration) acceleration= gravity so weight= ? normal force= (weight in the projection of the weight perpendicular to the surface the block is acting on) friction= (mew)(normal force)

You're getting there. Add up the vectors. What your force diagram is saying is that the block can only move up the slope as the friction is pointing up the slope. Both normal and frictional vectors are correct. however, you have to rethink the weight vector. We know that the weight vector will push the block down the slope under certain angles of the slope. Therefore the weight has to oppose the friction (and in some cases over power it) and also oppose the normal force in-turn keep it on the slope.

This is where maths starts to lead us. We know that blocks can stay stationary on a slope, this is one possible parameter for the model. This means that the sum of force vectors will equate to zero. I'm having to repeat myself but draw the block with the weight force vector and the friction force vector. After you've done this you will see that there has to be another vector in order for all the vectors to equate to zero. This is called the normal force and is a result of Newton's third law. The most irritating thing about this is that I've drawn a force diagram of a block on a slope earlier on this thread and sent it too you via private message.

You have it!!!! so the weight acting vertically down but if you alter the axis so the x direction is parallel to the slope it simplifies the model and all you have to worry about is motion in the x-axis but we will cross that bridge when we come to it. Now we know that blocks can stand still on slopes. draw the two force vectors on the diagram. You will have weight pushing down and friction pushing up to the left. in order for the block to stay still the vectors will add up to zero so what direction is the last force vector pointing and what is it called? forget pivot points as there is no torque. just focus on those three vectors.

relative, it is good that you're starting to get somewhere. There is 3 forces but velocity isn't one. Friction is correct, there are two other forces acting on the block. Think about this for a little while. The force keeping the block on the slope, is it always at a right angle to the slop or does it depend on the angle? Everyday experience tells us that a slope at 90 degrees would not result in the block staying on the slope. So there must be some relationship between the direction of the force keeping the block on the slope and the angle of the slope. Next step, list the three forces and draw a correct force diagram with it. The three forces are: 1. friction 2. ?...... 3. ?...... Keep going you're on the right path

You struggle to create the most simple models, your maths wouldn't get you through 1st year undergraduate physics and you struggle with newtons laws (you still seem to fail to understand normal reaction forces). But you're 99% sure you've broken the laws of thermodynamics and can produce a model that will create energy from nothing. I'm sorry, I have tried to encourage you when you started asking about models, I've even sketched out a simple for you and given you a step by step process of creating a model but I have to say, this is sheer delusion that has been born from a complete lack of understanding of physics.

I feel the same way. I have given a step by step program on how to create a mathematical model and multiple people including me have given him easy mathematical models to try and produce. As a result he has failed to gasp the most basic mathematical models and not followed a single one though. When it gets too hard instead of sticking with it he attempts a more complex mathematical model. I give up. Relative good luck. I think it's great that you want to learn but in my opinion you need to really buckle down and learn the basics instead of running round in circles chasing momentarily what seems vaguely interesting.

I have sent the diagram to imarfaal. I hoped relative you take a similar approach to modelling the cylinder

if you click on it it will blow up to a bigger size, for the benefit of others helping you on this post it on this thread as for some reason I can't. I appologise in advance I've noticed that I make a slight mistake in equation 5 but it is changed in the next line and the result is still correct.

If you look I have clearly defined the R vector as friction. it even says below the diagram R=friction

For some reason I can't attach pictures, look at the diagram I sent you via personal message relative

If you want to do this try the block sliding on an inclined plane model. It's simple and you can physically test it at home. As for the rest of your last post it is complete gibberish. Do not waste anymore time on space and darkness equating to zero. This is just maths. You do not have to understand modelling for this.

luckily I've just come back from a summer school completely devoted to mathematical modelling (final year physics student). What they told us is that a model follows 5 key steps: specify a purpose create the model do the maths interpret the results of the maths evaluate (do experiment) If the experiment doesn't agree with your maths then revise the model. Mathematical modelling is not as easy as it sounds and loads of practice of the subject needs to be done in order to get a feel for mathematical modelling. The problem is that many people teaching themselves want to get stuck into the really interesting subjects that are counter intuitive and need mathematical modelling experience to tell you where you went wrong as opposed to everyday life experience. If we want to get a feel for modelling we have to start simple. A square mass sliding on a inclined plane is a good exercise: Specify a purpose find out the friction coefficient between the plane and the square mass Create the model This can be done by a simple force diagram. Summing up all the forces as vectors and equaling them to zero will mean that the mass isn't moving (make sure you define the axis in the way to make it easiest for your model). If you know how to properly define all the forces you will realise that some will depend on the angle of the inclined plane. Do the maths Simple algebraic manipulation of your model should give you a value of the friction coefficient based on a trigonometric function to the angle of the inclined plane (note that mass of the block isn't needed in this model but you should be able to mathematically prove why). Your units should also make sense. interpret results This is where we ask the question, what is the maths telling us about reality? For this model it's nothing profound. it's practically useful and because of it's practicality it's good for people to try in order to practice their modelling skills. This model tells us that if we can measure the maximum angle before the square mass starts to slip we can work out the friction coefficient. Evaluate This is where you do the experiment to obtain the reading After this you repeat the cycle. You want to make sure that the reading you got was accurate and that your model was correct so you repeat the cycle with a slightly different purpose, different maths that incorporates the friction coefficient making some other measurement the subject and then evaluate. This is the scientific process. I urge you to try this process because this model is easy to evaluate at home. If you are not experienced you will go round in circles and expose your own shortcomings which is essential. The more abstract concepts like energy distribution, quantum mechanics and relativity are reserved for people who have proved themselves to be very good at this process. This is because it is more abstract and divorced from everyday experience. I urge you to try this simple model. It is good fun and gives you a hands on feeling for the scientific method and modelling and increase your creativity with maths. You can private message me if you get stuck and need help or set up another thread in the homework help problem.

The problem isn't just with islam, it's religion generally. In the past there has been many people killed in the name of christianity and other religions. in this day and age the majority of christian countries have democracy, free speech and free trade where as the muslim countries usually don't. You could argue that this is because christianity is more forgiving but development of a country is much more complex than one variable. Europe's democracy was a mixture of civil war and scientific revolutions. Haley's commet prediction shattered mysticism and showed europeans that not everything was down to the gods. the problem now is that we are forced due to political correctness to relentlessly respect religion in turn forcing a double standard on society. When Obama said that he was against gay marriage he was asked why. His response was that he was a christian, as a result people didn't question him further. He pushed is opinion on law that affects peoples' lives and made a judgement on peoples' actions and didn't have to justify it as he waved the flag of religion. If he was non-religious he would have to give reasons as to why gay marriage was wrong. This double standard goes right through all the way to the most extreme cases. If a person kills a group of people because aliens gave him signs to do it society would classify him as mentally ill. However, if someone kills a group of people in the name of religion (even though there has been no proof that god exists) we tread on eggshells and ask questions on if they misinterpreted something. We spend money of strategies on engaging with them and trying to find middle ground. Both cases the person is killing others because of something despite the fact that no evidence exists. Any religion that takes hold in a country where the majority are not educated and are not familiar with the scientific method will do horrible things as the few at the top of the religion have too much power. This is augmented by the west's relentless respect for religion even though it wouldn't give the same respect to people outside the religion bracket with the same reasoning. You will find extreme christians who get support in countries where the majority of people are not educated like in sections of Africa and India. Below is a wikipedia link of christian terrorism. Which ever religion has the most access to uneducated masses has the biggest capability of terrorism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism In Uganda the Lord's Resistance Army (a christian terrorist group) committed mass slaughters, used child soldiers, were a big fan of torture and rape and this was in 2005.

A prime example of what swansont is saying is heart attacks. Over the last 20 years the way we treat heart attacks has improved drastically with PCI meaning that most people survive their heart attacks. The link below is a study showing that after PCI there was a 33% decline in cardiac deaths and a 57% increase in non-cardiac deaths. They also show that: "The increase in noncardiac mortality was primarily attributable to cancer and chronic diseases (P<0.001)." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24515993 The one thing that I have to constantly remind my patients and students is that they will die of something. If the general life expectancy is increasing do not worry about how people are dying as this is most probably because another area of medicine has improved. As a member of the public you should worry if cancer rates soar and the general life expectancy is decreasing.

Basically summing up what's been said, yes statistical mechanics works. This concept was formulated in 1906. If you're interested in reading up on it the schrodinger equation maps the probability of a particle in quantum. Considering the amount of particles in a quantum system the number is very statistically significant giving a very accurate prediction based on probability.

It's very poorly written. You haven't concreted any points. The biggest problem is that you have no maths. I can't see anything that I can take home and think about let alone discuss.