Sorry. Maybe more specific situations may explain where my disbelief comes from. Please help me out with this and explain flaws in thinking if I have them.
I'm not sure I understand you. Do you mean snow on the inside? I'm actually not clear if you still talk about...
I thought about this pretty hard, can windows frost over in space? I'm pretty sure they don't or can't after giving it a bit of thought. This is just a curiosity of mine.
So first I believe the correct question that we're trying to answer is:
Can a window get colder than interior air faster...
Not the best response someone can give, but so the reason the plank length exists as a term is because this is the distance that which light travels in the plank time. Below this distance, quantum uncertainty takes over and essentially means that all your measurements are meaningless...
What does the picture of the black hole actually imply?
I had some begruding idea that this may be sensationaism. Maybe the picture is just too cool for everyone. Is this the reason that it's just blown up everywhere?
Thanks I did look at it.
But anyway no, I didn't understand if it would answer my question. I was unclear if he understood my question properly. I hadn't understood if the page considered my question.
Additionally of course this doesn't explain what the issue with my triangular orbit.
Apparently 3-star systems aren't really 'doable' as in two stars, with one in-between- but nested binaries are possible.
So is it 'possible' for 3 stars to maintain at least a somewhat stable triangular configuration?
Ok but it seems like you just said eigenstates are solutions. YOu said that any linear operator has its eigenstates so those eigenstates are simply "solutions" corresponding to specific quantum numbers right?
What is an eigenstate in relation to the Schodinger equation?
We've been working with this stuff but I don't exactly understand what that is.
I know of linear algebra eigenstates or eigenfunctions but I don't know if they are directly related.
In Quantum Mech. we learned about classical uncertainty, and then Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which comes from it.
The way it is in the book is, the preceding chapter talks about how the superposition of lots of waves ∑ gives you these groups, and things like group velocity comes from...
I have a red mystery box which contains a 20, 50, 100, and 200,000 ohm resistor (one of each and ONLY one.)
There are three terminals on the box you can plug a voltmeter into... testing A-B I got 60k, testing A-C I got 140k, and testing B-C I get 120k ohms. So this is a bit...
I know the rules to experimental uncertainties with addition and subtraction, but what about division?
For instance here
The light bulb was measured to have 1.27 ±.05V by the DMM in parallel. Using the DMM in series, its current drawn was .202 ±1A. As a result its resistance was approximately...
I would appreciate some help explaining some things about evo-devo.
The way it's presented in class makes no sense at all.
I have desperately tried wikipedia but it just did NOT help in explaining anything.
Would appreciate some elucidation on my questions from the great physics forums...
Given an nxn matrix, if a b exists so Ax=b has no solutions, can A be one-to-one?
I understand that as a linear transformation, you need things such as (to be one-to-one as a linear trans)
1. n pivots
2. Only the trivial solution exists to Ax=0
Letting c(t) =(t2,t,3) for 0<t<1 (Really it's a smaller than or equal to sign)
1. Find the length of the path
2. Find the average y coordinate along the path
What we're given in the book: (These equations are not necessarily relevant)
Oops I just realized that I forgot that the X I was solving for had to be 4x1. Somehow I didn't totally grasp that.
But whatever the case, maybe this is my question.
Forget everything above..
How do I set this up if I need to solve for b?
Given a matrix A, and needing to find all x in R4...
That's what I used, RREF. With MATLAB, actually.
But the bottom row is all zeroes once you set it up with the zero column. As well as the rightmost column since you have to solve for the zero vector, which is kind of an unusual matrix. So there's no third equation. I mean you can make one, but...
Oh, I think I understand. So it seems trivial, although I didn't completely understand your last sentence.
But basically that if the original set of four were linearly independent, since v4 already had a 0 with it there's absolutely no different removing it.
Any subset of lin indep vectors are...