insane_alien

go to wikipedia, search, 'quantum computers' look to the references section. they haven't built quantum computers past 12 or so qubits.

yes, and as they exist now quantum computers would be about as useful as a block of cheese in this scenario. 1/ the OP does not have access to them, an analogy would be petawatt lasers, yes they exist but not very many people will be able to waltz up to the guys and get some free time with it. 2/ They(quantum computers since you like making up bits where there is even a shred of vagueness) are not powerful enough to run a simulation like this within the life span of the device. they are the quantum equivalent of a couple of transistors wired together. yes, they can perform a few small functions but are ultimately just proof of concept devices. 3/ utterly irrelevant to the OP. Pulling this thread back on topic, you might want to google Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) for this. and its going to require a fair bit of processing power.

you mean that^? at no point did i say that quantum computers did not exist. i just said that shadow wouldn't be able to lay his hands on one. its not as if you can get 10 for a penny at the corner store now is it?

i know we have quantum computers, well, a handful at anyrate, but they are nowhere near powerful enough to run anything like this sort of simulation and they aren't generally found outside quantum computing research labs. stop putting words in other peoples mouths. EDIT: anyway, this is besides the point, the computational fluid dynamics required to model this would pretty much just cover the navier stokes equations and a fusion model, nothing to require quantum computers.

oh ffs tom, i'm talking about what we can actually do with computers as they exist NOW. and i seriously doubt that shadow is likely to get hold of a quantum computer much less know what to do with one. i never said the simulation would be very accurate but its the best we can do. now you're just argueing for argueings sake.

what? no, no it wouldn't. have you ever done any computational modelling?

no but the use of 'only a theory' is proof. its 'only a theory' in the sense that gravity is 'only a theory' seriously, what is the problem with providing references? the only people who never provide references tend to be those that only think they know a lot.

conclusive proof you are not a scientist. yet you used it as a reference also, and it was in reference to the same article. can't have it both ways tom.

should be possible using a FEM (finite element method) Program, of course, there will be resolution issues as computing power and likely your time will be limiting factors.

should be possible using a FEM (finite element method) Program, of course, there will be resolution issues as computing power and likely your time will be limiting factors.

you would have to ask a physicist about that, i only have a rudimentary knowledge of it and thats probably way oversimplified. my understanding that the higgs boson would explain why particles have mass(which the current model fails to explain IIRC)

if we knew exactly what was going to happen then we wouldn't need to have spent all that money building it. what happens will be this: we turn it on and start colliding while collecting an unprecedented amount of data and analysing it, this will take a lot of time but once we have have done a large amount of analysis, 1/ we find the higgs boson, learn how gravity works and can discard several theories that say it shouldn't be there and keep the ones that do. 2/ we don't find the higgs boson and can discard the theories that say it should be there and we learn something new 3/ we find something unexpected and we learn something new and have to have a good think about it for a while. whatever happens, the field of quantum mechanics will make some rather large leaps.

infarctions don't get retracted, you just need to wait until it expires. this is to point out people who repeatedly breach the rules they agreed to follow on registering with us. get enough infarction points and you get banned. as i recall from when i signed up this is all explained in the forum rules link

yes of course you need to get the right amounts. if a recipe calls for a half cup of flour and you only put in a pinch its not going to work. likewise if an alloy requires 2.4% Zn and you only put enough in to make it 0.24% Zn then you do not have the alloy you set out to make.

DO NOT DO THIS! especially not if you are standing close enough to pour the water in by hand. if you are this close you will have a large number of third degree burns all over you.

after having my 21st yesterday my current lifes ambition is to get rid of this hangover.

we actually went and tried that, einstein was right. it was digital clocks too. we've also done it with satellites and subatomic particles. the evidence is overwhelming,

what load of bull excrement. the south atlantic anomaly isn't dangerous to anyone. even if you are on a plane travelling through it you won't recieve anywhere near a dangerous dose of radiation. the increase would be on the order of living in a building made of granite (like the houses found in aberdeen) rather than brick.

graphite tends not to be very good at it because it will conduct fine in one direction but not very well in another, this is due to the lattice structure of the graphite. also, its sound absorbing properties would not be very good i would imagine.

Well, whether you like it or not, a lot of it does come down to 'you just don't want to look stupid' or probably more accurately 'you just don't want to say something that will mess up your chances'. As for physiological causes it probably has a lot to do with the cocktail of chemicals and hormones your body dumps into your brain when you see someone attractive, whether you are extroverted or introverted this will happen. the only real solution is to push through and spark up a conversation, after that it gets easier to talk, well in most cases. for instance with me, i can easily talk to someone i find attractive but i can't for the life of me bring up going out on a date for the first time. usually takes a whole hour of working myself up for it, possibly with ordering a friend to punch me in the face if i don't ask her by a certain time that day. amazing what an external incentive can do. the thing you should NOT do is resort to alcohol to get some dutch courage, that way lies embarassment and rejection.

well the method is right but the actually number crunching went horribly horribly wrong somewhere. post your complete working so we can find out where.

there are two ways of doing this 1/ you can do a differential force balance by considering the geometry of the object and the respective depths(this is only practical for simple shapes as it can get very complicated very quickly) 2/ you work out the mass of water displaced by the object. the weight of this displaced water will be equal to the buoyancy force.

i never said anything about wavelength. what the hell are you on about.

oh ffs, you must be misinterpreting that deliberately. you know damn well that what was meant was 'photons can have different energies'.

you said a photon was the smallest unit of energy, not that it was variable. as it is variable it is not always the smallest. and as it is variable, it is possible to split a photon into two(or more) photons of lesser energy, the sum of which would be the energy of the origional photon.