totaleclipseofthebank


June 12, 2012, 11:32:53 PM 

Physics grad from top 5 US university, will answer any college level physics/engineering/math/chemistry question that I can.
There's gotta be a few of you who are not done with exams yet!





Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.

dree12
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1232


June 12, 2012, 11:34:29 PM 

Which university?





deepceleron


June 13, 2012, 12:47:55 AM 

I'll have a go, given our joy at distributed GPU number squashing here.
Subject: MultiCSF spin and space symmetryadapted trial waveforms using combinations of determinants.
Of the different methods that are currently in use in trialing the best wavefunction of the form:
ψ = Σ_{I}C_{I}Φ_{I}
where Φ_{I} is a spin and space adapted configuration state function made of determinants of the form  Φ_{I1} Φ_{I2}.. Φ_{IN} 
which method (such as MCSCF, CI, MPPT, couple cluster..) is most adaptable and will realize the most gains using distributed computing to determining the CI coefficients and the LCAOMO coefficients (describing the Φ_{Ik}. Since all these methods require transforming AObased electron integrals to mobased integrals, are there any optimizations that can be done in a distributed method on par and beyond the array transformations that simplify the twoelectron integral list transformations with computer time proportional to N^{8} down to an N^{5} time scale?
Also, explain gravity. Elaborate on your answer.




totaleclipseofthebank


June 13, 2012, 01:07:18 AM 

I am not that familiar with the specific algorithms in computational quantum state optimization, but I would imagine that the most efficient distributed method would depend on the symmetry of the Hamiltonian in which you are optimizing.
Is this for a college class? I want to take that class!




deepceleron


June 13, 2012, 01:19:54 AM 

I am not that familiar with the specific algorithms in computational quantum state optimization, but I would imagine that the most efficient distributed method would depend on the symmetry of the Hamiltonian in which you are optimizing.
Is this for a college class? I want to take that class!
Quantum mechanics, from the back of the book that nobody gets to.




notme
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1526


June 13, 2012, 01:29:31 AM 

Also, explain gravity. Elaborate on your answer.
This. I asked a physicist on these forums this before and all I got was a bunch of trolling about how I was an idiot.




totaleclipseofthebank


June 13, 2012, 01:54:03 AM 

Also, explain gravity. Elaborate on your answer.
This. I asked a physicist on these forums this before and all I got was a bunch of trolling about how I was an idiot. I'm not sure what you mean by "explaining gravity", since we still do not really know how it arises. We have excellent models for it (read: general relativity), but it's origin is still one of the big unknowns out there.




totaleclipseofthebank


June 13, 2012, 02:13:12 AM 

I am not that familiar with the specific algorithms in computational quantum state optimization, but I would imagine that the most efficient distributed method would depend on the symmetry of the Hamiltonian in which you are optimizing.
Is this for a college class? I want to take that class!
Quantum mechanics, from the back of the book that nobody gets to. I did some reading and it looks like the multiconfigurational selfconsistent field method suffers from poor convergence, which could be mitigated in a distributed network by each node crunching through the CSF space in parallel, with each node starting from equally spaced (in kspace) reference configuration state functions. The node that reaches the lowest nonpathological energy state wins. No block reward though




notme
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1526


June 13, 2012, 02:29:34 AM 

Also, explain gravity. Elaborate on your answer.
This. I asked a physicist on these forums this before and all I got was a bunch of trolling about how I was an idiot. I'm not sure what you mean by "explaining gravity", since we still do not really know how it arises. We have excellent models for it (read: general relativity), but it's origin is still one of the big unknowns out there. Thank you. That's what I believed to be true, but I've been ridiculed on several occasions by people who don't think past "duh, it's gravity". We don't know how it arises, but we can observe and predict its effects.




totaleclipseofthebank


June 13, 2012, 02:34:58 AM 

Also, explain gravity. Elaborate on your answer.
This. I asked a physicist on these forums this before and all I got was a bunch of trolling about how I was an idiot. I'm not sure what you mean by "explaining gravity", since we still do not really know how it arises. We have excellent models for it (read: general relativity), but it's origin is still one of the big unknowns out there. Thank you. That's what I believed to be true, but I've been ridiculed on several occasions by people who don't think past "duh, it's gravity". We don't know how it arises, but we can observe and predict its effects. Its actually crazy when you think about it. There are parts of our model for gravity that don't quite add up. For example, the stars in galaxies are moving too fast to be held in by what is our model of gravity, requiring the postulation of dark matter but dark matter has never actually been observed and we have no idea what it could be only that it has gravitational mass.




notme
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1526


June 13, 2012, 02:50:08 AM 

Also, explain gravity. Elaborate on your answer.
This. I asked a physicist on these forums this before and all I got was a bunch of trolling about how I was an idiot. I'm not sure what you mean by "explaining gravity", since we still do not really know how it arises. We have excellent models for it (read: general relativity), but it's origin is still one of the big unknowns out there. Thank you. That's what I believed to be true, but I've been ridiculed on several occasions by people who don't think past "duh, it's gravity". We don't know how it arises, but we can observe and predict its effects. Its actually crazy when you think about it. There are parts of our model for gravity that don't quite add up. For example, the stars in galaxies are moving too fast to be held in by what is our model of gravity, requiring the postulation of dark matter but dark matter has never actually been observed and we have no idea what it could be only that it has gravitational mass. I have a theory that gravity isn't constant given mass, but I don't know enough physics to be taken seriously by anyone.




dree12
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1232


June 13, 2012, 02:53:52 AM 

Also, explain gravity. Elaborate on your answer.
This. I asked a physicist on these forums this before and all I got was a bunch of trolling about how I was an idiot. I'm not sure what you mean by "explaining gravity", since we still do not really know how it arises. We have excellent models for it (read: general relativity), but it's origin is still one of the big unknowns out there. Thank you. That's what I believed to be true, but I've been ridiculed on several occasions by people who don't think past "duh, it's gravity". We don't know how it arises, but we can observe and predict its effects. Its actually crazy when you think about it. There are parts of our model for gravity that don't quite add up. For example, the stars in galaxies are moving too fast to be held in by what is our model of gravity, requiring the postulation of dark matter but dark matter has never actually been observed and we have no idea what it could be only that it has gravitational mass. I have a theory that gravity isn't constant given mass, but I don't know enough physics to be taken seriously by anyone. Math Nerd
Honestly, this is enough to at least be coherent with your theory. Physics is math in the real world, so it's unlikely the theory would "work", but still, explain anyways. I'd be very interested in reading this massindependent factor.




deepceleron


June 13, 2012, 03:09:40 AM 

I have a theory that gravity isn't constant given mass, but I don't know enough physics to be taken seriously by anyone.
I don't know that you will find any observable examples of this hypothesis. Mass can be measured not only by gravity and inertia, but also by energy. Take, for example, the fusion reaction of hydrogen into helium. The particles combine and loose a minute amount of mass, which is released as energy. We can measure the energy release and the corresponding difference in the mass of the new particle through any experiment we can conjure. To assert that something has a given mass but a differing gravity force than that expected would mean that we must obtain a different result from some other method of measurement of a particle's mass, which we don't. It is solely the realm of philosophy to ponder why mass creates gravity or if there is a graviton particle that communicates the attractive force between masses. Since we live in this universe and it's rules, we cannot observe things that have no postulated method of being observed, hence why physicists start to turn into wacky metaphysical philosophers after too much education.




totaleclipseofthebank


June 13, 2012, 03:20:45 AM 

hence why physicists start to turn into wacky metaphysical philosophers after too much education. haha, or bitcoin traders!




notme
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1526


June 13, 2012, 03:23:02 AM 

Honestly, this is enough to at least be coherent with your theory. Physics is math in the real world, so it's unlikely the theory would "work", but still, explain anyways. I'd be very interested in reading this massindependent factor.
It's related to the "law of attraction" and how certain people seem to have what can only be referred to as "gravity". They grab the attention of young children and calm the minds of adults merely by their presence. Probably too much hocuspocus for a real physicist. I have no idea how this would translate to a mechanism for gravity or celestial motion though. As you can probably tell, I have very little physics education . And no, I didn't bring this up in the situations where I was ridiculed, but you seem like an open minded individual who will at worst politely dismiss me. Obviously, mass is the strongest factor in gravitational forces, but perhaps there's another factor that can create gravity without mass. Or perhaps people who don't have "gravity" simply have some sort of repelling force that counteracts their inherent gravity given by their mass. As you can probably tell, this is something I haven't thought through much and even if I tried, I don't know enough physics for thinking it thorough to be fruitful. Or perhaps my theory lies more in the realm of psychology and is just bastardizing the term "gravity". However, I have heard several mystics claim that the force of gravity is lessening in our universe, but we don't notice since it is happening evenly throughout the universe. I don't know how they would know this or what the mechanism is, but I find it interesting to ponder. If it were true, how could we know? And now that I've thoroughly proved my ignorance, please continue with real math/physics discussion .




notme
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1526


June 13, 2012, 03:23:54 AM 

Since we live in this universe and it's rules, we cannot observe things that have no postulated method of being observed, hence why physicists start to turn into wacky metaphysical philosophers after too much education.
Or people who try to think about physics without enough education .




cbeast
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


June 13, 2012, 03:28:12 AM 

Fucking Magnets, How Do They Work?

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.



totaleclipseofthebank


June 13, 2012, 03:38:39 AM 

Since we live in this universe and it's rules, we cannot observe things that have no postulated method of being observed, hence why physicists start to turn into wacky metaphysical philosophers after too much education.
Or people who try to think about physics without enough education . I think you might enjoy this video, and the many others on Khan's website. They are super accessible if you are interested in learning more. http://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/v/introductiontogravity




notme
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1526


June 13, 2012, 06:23:38 AM 

Thanks... One thing that's always bugged me: why does the gravity equation use radius squared when electric field calculations use radius cubed? I was taught the cubed was because it spread out in three dimensions, but doesn't gravity also spread though 3 dimensions?




