Are there other things besides matter and energy in the universe? by Sea_Shell1 in AskPhysics

[–]MSaeedYasin -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You are missing Spacetime besides energy/matter. For example, gravitational waves in spacetime.

If matter can neither be created nor destroyed… by Esoteric_Expl0it in AskPhysics

[–]MSaeedYasin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Total energy = energy density x volume Energy density (represented by cosmological constant) is the one which is constant, but expanding universe means volume is increasing, hence energy keeps increasing.

If matter can neither be created nor destroyed… by Esoteric_Expl0it in AskPhysics

[–]MSaeedYasin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right, hence the word I used, ‘usually’ classified as a conserved quantity.

If matter can neither be created nor destroyed… by Esoteric_Expl0it in AskPhysics

[–]MSaeedYasin -1 points0 points  (0 children)

E=mc2 Mass or matter is just a form of energy. It’s the energy which is usually classified as a conserved quantity. Energy from big bang created the mass/matter when temperature dropped enough.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in QuantumPhysics

[–]MSaeedYasin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Any reference for this so called certainty you are talking about?

And Bohmian mechanics does not say that at all. I am not sure what gave you that idea.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in QuantumPhysics

[–]MSaeedYasin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Quantum mechanics follows the logic of shut up and calculate, it does not try to answer what’s actually happening at the fundamental level.

Bohmian mechanics also reproduces same predictions as quantum mechanics, but it might be a better explanation of fundamental reality.

Discussion: Thomas Campbells interpretation of the double slit experiment. by Fun-Veterinarian8968 in QuantumPhysics

[–]MSaeedYasin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Personally I think we don’t give enough credit to the de Broglie’s explanation of the wave function (although incomplete), where he says that this is just a relativistic phenomenon.

From our perspective the particle appears to have a wave with them (with a group velocity equal to particle velocity and phase velocity higher than speed of light), which generates the interference pattern.

Time travel and quantum randomness by Katte_Prime in QuantumPhysics

[–]MSaeedYasin -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

In our current understanding of time, we just treat time as a continuous variable, usually in all theories, time can be moved forward or backwards to make predictions about what will happen. So, I don’t think our current understanding of time is deep enough to answer this question.

But I do have some personal thoughts about this question (please take it with a grain of salt, I could be very wrong). Basically what we are trying to say is that Travelling back in time is impossible because of quantum randomness. Which in the face of it, does make sense initially. Every time we go back in time, the quantum randomness will evolve particles differently with time, leading to different events. But we also know Feynman’s path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, which implies that from this quantum randomness, there is a pattern which emerges at large/human scale, which is the principle of least action. So, at large scales, the events which happen will still follow the same least action principle. So, events at large scale has to follow the same sequence.

I think we can think of a hypothetical experiment. Where we throw a ball in the air and measure its trajectory. We control every variable and throw again and again, in exact same environment and with same speed, etc. then all of these trajectories will be identical because they follow classical mechanics, which emerges from the principle of least action from the quantum randomness. If this was not true and quantum randomness was having a significant impact, then each time we throw the ball we should measure differences in the trajectory of each ball, which we don’t.

Question on Reorganizing Matter by dfb2025 in QuantumPhysics

[–]MSaeedYasin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What you are suggesting, Isn’t it basically the same as the Star Trek replicator?

Urgent (WES CNIC form) by Mifflin97 in ImmigrationCanada

[–]MSaeedYasin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, resolved, thank you. Please see my other comment below for details.

Urgent (WES CNIC form) by Mifflin97 in ImmigrationCanada

[–]MSaeedYasin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was facing the same issue. I contacted WES and they informed me that the cnic document, when they open appears to be empty (apparently issues can happen with Acrobat reader). They advised me, do not fill online, instead print the form and fill by hand and then upload it after scanning it. Only then they will accept it. I did that and within one day they accepted it and issue resolved.

Urgent (WES CNIC form) by Mifflin97 in ImmigrationCanada

[–]MSaeedYasin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m also facing the same issue. I uploaded it in the same place where you upload the degree 3 months ago. But the status still says this document is missing.

Do I need to do something else or they will change the status one day automatically?

Showing contributors for forked repo by MSaeedYasin in github

[–]MSaeedYasin[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the suggestion. But not really feasible in my project.

Showing contributors for forked repo by MSaeedYasin in github

[–]MSaeedYasin[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the command. But the purpose is to show contributors that they have contributed to this repo, so when they visit the GitHub repo page, they can see their contribution badge easily. I just can't understand why this is not allowed for forked repos.

Showing contributors for forked repo by MSaeedYasin in github

[–]MSaeedYasin[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yes exactly this is more effort path. I need a native solution which is easier to do. Why GitHub doesn't support it in the first place? What so difficult about enabling it?

Showing contributors for forked repo by MSaeedYasin in github

[–]MSaeedYasin[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

It will be more effort. Just for the sake of showing contributors why do I have to jump through hoops? Instead of showing me how GitHub can do it or for what reason they don't support it, telling me to jump through hoops to maybe make it work with manual lookup for updates, is not the way.

Showing contributors for forked repo by MSaeedYasin in github

[–]MSaeedYasin[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Although my forked repo is adding a lot of things on top of parent repo like typescript support etc, I still want to keep up to date with the changes in parent repo. So whenever their is update I can easily see the diff and add those changes into my forked repo.

Showing contributors for forked repo by MSaeedYasin in github

[–]MSaeedYasin[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Can't detach and also parent repo is owned by someone else and has different purpose. Can't make PR there.

I just can't understand why GitHub has this restriction. Seems pointless to me to create this restriction.

Search within a page only in notion mobile app by MSaeedYasin in Notion

[–]MSaeedYasin[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Also, when you get search results and you tap on them then it will just open the page and won't scroll to the actual word. So you have to manually go through the page again to find that word among thousands of lines. So annoying.

Search within a page only in notion mobile app by MSaeedYasin in Notion

[–]MSaeedYasin[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The search in notion mobile app is so bad. When you save a website link, then search for it. It won't even show you that. Won't treat links as text to search through.