timo

LHC is not built to bring evidence about conditions before the big bang. It is in fact not constructed to explore the big bang, either (consider that rumor a very successful marketing gag). LHC findings might help understanding the conditions after the Big Bang better, though. For example, it is better to predict which particles were created in which stage after the Big Bang at which rate if you know which particles actually do exist . The main goal is understanding particle physics at energy scales around 100 GeV to maybe 1 TeV better and find new particles (in the proton mode) - irrespective of a possible "real-world" applications.

Perhaps the 9% figure comes from a lottery participant. Or "all income" is different from income. I don't get the numbers.EDIT: Oh wait, I get it: The average income under $13000 is about $7000.

That is a pretty strong statement. I don't think that "baryonic" is what you meant in this context -> there's a lot of leptonic matter arriving at the detector. Dark matter (candidate particles) would also not be completely unexpected.

Would you see a problem with describing electromagnetism via the electromagnetic field if the electromagnetic field was the description for electromagnetism? Think of the photons being a description for the electromagnetic field.

You should elaborate more on this part: There is only one equation, the 2 m/s does not seem to appear anywhere, your symbols are not explained properly, and you did not say what you did here. TeX-Version of your equation would probably be [math] \frac 12 m_1 v_1^2 + \frac 12 m_2 v_1^2 = \frac 12 m_1v_2^2 + \frac 12 m_2v_2^2[/math], btw.

By default, Dev-C++ is C++, not C. You can write C in C++ but in this case, I'll assume you also have the extended possibilities of C++, for example vectors which you can consider arrays of variable size. I cannot really estimate the exact problem you have but maybe this helps: // add support for C++ vector. #include <vector> ... // define vectors for stored previous coordinates. std::vector<int> i_coordinates(0), j_coordinates(0); ... // test if the coordinates (i,j) have already been stored as being used. for (size_t idx=0; idx<i_coordinates.size(); ++idx) if (i==i_coordinates[idx] && j==j_coordinates[idx]) { // do whatever you want to do if the coordinates have already been used. } ... // if a target is hit at coordinates (i,j) change some table text and store coordinates. if ( whatever_your_condition_for_hitting_a_ship) { this_table_text[i][j] = new_entry; // store coordinates and mark as already-used. i_coordinates.push_back(i); j_coordinates.push_back(j); }

You are probably not asking for someone to do your homework. You probably do not want comments on the style of your code snippet (because if you are worried about getting something finished at all then style is not your main problem). You did not say what exactly you need help with.

Four would be 100, or [math]a_2=1, a_{n \neq 2}=0[/math]. The [math]a_n[/math] are not the binomial coefficients, the number of entries in each row are. That is because the binomial coefficients [math] \left( \begin{array}{c} N \\ k \end{array} \right)[/math] Tell you how many possible combinations there are to distribute k equal elements on N places (in your case ones on the available digits).

I don't understand what you are asking. Any (natural) number x can be written as [math]x = a_0 2^0 + a_1 2^1 + a_2 2^2 + a_3 2^3 + \dots = \sum_n a_n 2^n[/math]. If you demand that exactly one of the [math]a_n[/math] is one and the others are zero then it is obvious that the resulting x is a power of two. Iow: notice that there is another half to the half-sentence you quoted which contains important information. I can probably see a pattern in every result coming out of rolling two dice if I want to. You would probably not agree that this pattern I see is an interesting find. But if you find the pattern you see interesting (I don't think I fully understand what you are saying), brute-force your arrangement on a computer to however far you get there. If you still think you see a pattern, then things might become interesting.

Funnily enough you just answered the question Swansont was refering to: If something might be true or might as well just not be true then it certainly doesn't have to be true.

The number of elements in each row is according to the binomial coefficients. The 2nd row shows powers of two due to construction: It contains all values [math]\sum_n a_n 2^n[/math] for which exactly one [math]a_n[/math] is one and the others are zero. I must admit that I do not find it particularly interesting that you see an approximate pattern in the distribution of the primes. I think you could see an approximate prime pattern in any random arrangement of the numbers from 1 to 15.

They are a standard feature of forum software (though the forums might as well just all use the same software) that assigns "user titles" to members based on whatever parameters, usually the number of post. In the case of this forum, the titles were chosen somewhat scientifically, starting from leptons and quarks (small elementary particles) over mesons and baryons (structures consisting of two or three quarks) to larger and more familiar things like atoms, molecules, dunnowhat. Administrators and moderators can set a title of their choice at will, so "Mr. Wizard" is not an automatic user title but Cap'n Refsmat's delusion of possessing magic powers or a reminder that he can make people disappear. I'll clean up the banana skins lying around in my office, now. @Michel: I am pretty sure they are simply a measure of the number of posts; no other variable involved (the user names existed long before the reputation system).

The wave function of the 3D infinite square well potential factorizes into three factors each solving the 1D problem (note that this is a reminder, I assume you to know that), i.e f(x,y,z) = fx(x)*fy(y)*fz(z). Each of the functions fx, fy and fz have to solve the 1D problem. The lowest energy state for this 1D seems to be labeled n=1 in your problem; there is no n=0 solution (if there was then the lowest state would be |000>/|000>). You can also think of it in a less abstract manner and in terms of the square of the wave function: The wave function needs to have a zero value on all of the six walls of the potential, not only at those parallel to one of the spacial directions. EDIT: In short: |100>, |010>, |001> are not solutions for the single particle.

Nope.

Usually, if there is not button allowing you to do so you can ask someone with administrative rights. In the case of sfn, anyone with a blue or red user name (or equivalently with the user title "moderator" or "admin") should be able to at least move the thread to a non-public subsection of the forum.

1) A photon will not transform into something else when the energy is increased. A photon plus something else (say an atomic nucleus) can in principle transform into something else (in this case the same atomic nucleus plus an electron plus a positron, the process is called "pair production"). I dunno what you father could have meant with a high-energy photon resembling matter. 2) I don't like this "both, a particle and a wave" stuff, but let's assume that statement was ok: A graviton and a photon both fall into this category. So do electrons and neutrinos. Two objects falling into the same category certainly is necessary for them to be considered the same. But not any two objects falling into the same category must be considered the same objects (a bus is not the same as a plane even though both fall into the "transporting passengers" category). A graviton is not considered a photon in theory; the mere existence of gravitons hasn't even been confirmed in practice. A "higher form of light" sounds a bit too spiritual for me, anyways.

I think it's rather obvious that mary meant "(... ) mod 2^32", not " ... mod 32".

The term is "Wiener process", not "Weiner process". I find the question interesting but sadly do not have (any!) time to think about it. There is a math statement that is called "central limit theorem", iirc. I am not sure if that really helps but it is what spontaneously comes to my mind.

Unless you have some special preferences I think any lecture notes of a university course are just fine. First hit googling for "qft lecture script" gives this script of a QFT course, for example.

Doesn't cheating imply lying to someone or abusing someone's trust? I don't see how that would be the case in any single-player game.

I find it hard to believe that you are asked about the politics of global warming in a science exam. Assuming "science student" means at university then you are either completely misunderstanding scientific education and the skills tested in an exam (understanding the major scientific theories) or you are simply bullshitting us. If you are still in school then things might be a bit different, but the fact that you are not always asked about your personal opinion but perhaps also about your understanding of the mainstream view still applies - with the additional constraint that I (and probably many of your teachers) believe that you are free to have your opinion but that there's no reason why your opinion should matter. Read your 2nd post in this thread, take a little distance, and then reconsider if someone writing this should really try to argue about global warming scientifically. To be fair, the statements of your 2nd posts were asked for by IA. So my rant about it only applies if that also was your actual way to refute global warming in a science exam. I certainly do not want to attack people for their personal viewpoints/feeling as long as they inhumane or something like that. So: No offense meant, but if that is your way to disagree with global warming then my advice is to leave it out of a science exam/environment and just take the exams as testing your understanding of mainstream belief.

I also treat time as a dimension in classical physics. So I don't quite see the striking difference considering the question of determinism.

Perhaps you can just assume that one mole of ATP delivers that-much energy and that additional thermodynamical contributions of the ATP (say pressure or entropy of unused vs. used) can be neglected. That's just a blind guess of mine, though. I am, sadly, not familiar with the physics of transport through a membrane.

Do you know that or do you assume that? A solid is not simply a collection of ordered effectively-free atoms but a higher-level structure with new features (example keywords: conductance band, valence band, Mössbauer effect, phonons, your signature ). If you shoot a photon on an electron at rest the final state is unique. If you believe that neither the initial state of a reaction nor the Hamiltonian contain (hidden) random variables then it is quite obvious from the Schrödinger equation that the evolution of an in-state through an interaction region into an out-state must be strictly deterministic. There is no probability for an interaction to occur or not on this level. Probabilities come into play when you want to measure properties of the out-state. Since you are not measuring "between the interactions" (assuming that notion made sense which I doubt) your picture of a random absorption every that-many atoms and free vacuum propagation between these interactions breaks down - and it is not obvious to me that you can pull it out of the equations again if you do the math properly.

I'm glad to see that I am not the only person on earth that seems to consider this "photons get absorbed and re-emitted by the atoms but travel at c between them" an internet myth. John already mentioned problems with this assumption. Let's put a number on a related problem: Let the average distance between two atoms be 0.2 nm. Let the wavelength of your photon be 500 nm => you "vacuum" within one wavelength contains roughly 2500 atoms. The fact that electron density is not tied to the location of the nuclei just makes the assumption of a vacuum even worse. Actually, Mr. Sceptic already mentioned my main problem with the statement: To add to this statement and formulate my problem: How is quantization of the field supposed to change that? Wouldn't a natural quantization of the EM field in a medium be to ... well, quantize the given field in a medium? Photons in particle physics are defined as quanta of non-interacting vacuum solutions of the EM field. I find quantizing the classical solutions in material much more natural than assuming a vacuum, quantizing the classical vacuum solutions, and then trying to correct for the fact that you're not in a vacuum (however you'd actually do this correction). That said I am not an optics guy or even QM or solid state physics expert so perhaps in practice the vacuum approach actually is the way to go - but I do not see any good reasons for that, particularly not in the simple form it is typically presented. Sorry for being off-topic considering the original question, but perhaps some split of the thread is in order, anyways.