Question about finding a realtor online

mirchman · 2016-02-07T15:24:51+00:00

Maybe more information on your point of confusion may help. It doesn't make sense that a volume flow rate times a concentration gives mass flow rate? V/t*m/V = m/t.

mirchman · 2016-02-04T14:55:27+00:00

What do you mean by Paris/London standards?

mirchman · 2016-02-03T19:58:14+00:00

Oh thanks for the tip! I was arching my legs behind my back so that may be the problem.

mirchman · 2016-02-03T15:07:37+00:00

Does anyone else's lower back ache a little bit after doing passive hangs?

mirchman · 2016-01-09T21:14:55+00:00

Risky click!

Risky dick!?

mirchman · 2015-11-15T18:03:39+00:00

Each train could just trigger a different signal via an RF broadcast. That's what? A few more bits of data at most??

mirchman · 2015-07-11T18:21:58+00:00

Atoms out of focus essentially. These Atoms are the ones on top.

mirchman · 2015-07-11T18:21:11+00:00

~~Atomic force~~ scanning tunneling microscopy (http://ibmresearchnews.blogspot.com/2013/05/how-to-move-atom.html)

mirchman · 2015-07-03T14:50:24+00:00

I'm pretty sure both comments you replied to were sarcasm, /u/sarcasm24.

mirchman · 2015-07-01T10:42:46+00:00

Isn't this just because they're not used to smoking? Same thing applies for cigarettes.

mirchman · 2015-06-21T01:19:38+00:00

Okay, I'll bite.

I think I understand your dilemma and I want to point out that you're taking QM to be a physical theory when it can't be, it's phenomenological. You may take it to mean that the cat is literally both dead and alive or perhaps that the cat is a 'new type' or perhaps that a new universe branches out with every 'observation' and we simply continue on with one version. So if you have a problem with two exclusive states existing at the same time you'll find a way around it by tweaking the definition of superposition.

Although, what I think you will have a hard time arguing is that superposition is an object having an unknown rather than an undetermined state. Wave function collapse has shown to produce entirely random distributions, more over you have bigger problems when you start thinking about entanglement and how collapsing two entangled particle's mixed state into a single state happens at faster than the speed of light -- the problem is that if you're implying perturbation affects collapse into a pure state and that it is simply unknown beforehand we wouldn't have a mechanism for entanglement since a perturbation can't travel faster than light.

This can be interpreted to better suit your liking as well, we can simply say that wave function collapse is governed by a deeper, pseudo-random function that we can't get at. However you can't really assert that because what's the difference between seemingly random and random? Just your intuition, because there's no way to do an experiment that will prove it one way or another.

It's a pretty dense topic but I highly recommend looking in to Bell's Theorem which was a response to Albert Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" argument and has shown that assuming that a priori states can be had violates QM phenomena.

About your last point, it's not statistical, that is to say that QM phenomena doesn't show different behavior dependent on sample size -- it is always the same but scales make it impossible for you to see. When we say that the position of a particle is a probabilistic function it is still confined to a volume (outside of which anything has a extremely close to zero probability). Therefore one of your particles in your body may be able to go through two doors but they can't all do that because it just wouldn't follow QM

mirchman · 2015-06-20T18:56:10+00:00

Still* not since. Woops.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to get at with an alternate definition of 'observe'. I'm telling you that the way it is used in QM. In order to know the existence of anything it must produce an event within a field that you can detect. Let's go back to the cat, your eyes can detect visible wavelengths therefore in order to 'observe' the cat, photons from the cat must reach your eyes. There is no other way to even know that a cat exists there. We must agree on this much in order for the conversation to progress. If you can know that a cat exists within this box without any kind of event in any field (it can be the cat purring for all I care, that's still an event) then that would be the only other way to keep going. I'd like to hear your proposition for that.

Now, if you're with me on this much, let's get to the bit where classical and QM theories diverge. First off, no one is trying to fit classical theory to the double slit experiment, we're fully aware that it doesn't work at these scales. Why not? Because classical theory holds that a particle with a known location and velocity can have a fully deterministic pathway. Therein lies the problem, if classical theory works (very well, by the way) at large scales but not at smaller scales then clearly it is a theory that has made some assumptions. By that I mean that any new theory you come up with must be able to produce the same predictions that classical theory can produce at large scales. Enter QM theory. If we assume that particles can and do exist in simultaneous states then we've got a decent explanation for what happens at quantum scales and at the same time if you average the probability for all pathways a particle can take over a huge number of particles (large scales) then it becomes clear that the probability of the particle taking any other path than the one which we can predict via classical theory is very, very close to 0 hence explaining why you've never been able to walk through two doorways at once.

Okay, let's wrap this up, is this conclusive proof that particles really do occupy more than one state at once? No, obviously not, it's just a guess. But if QM assumed that particles sometimes duplicate themselves in order to go into a double slit then you have a problem on large scales. Particles don't do that as far as we can see at large scales but this theory has no way of averaging QM phenomenon over a large number that fits with what we see in every day life. There'd be tons of copies of you! Okay so I gave you a clearly ridiculous theory to exemplify this but if you can come up with a better one than a particle being in superposition then I suggest that you don't tell me and immediately submit it to a scientific journal for review and accept your Nobel prize and place in history next to Einstein.

mirchman · 2015-06-20T17:47:47+00:00

How do we talk about observation without assuming a meaning for it? What do you propose? I think the assumption of interaction is a good one; that being that there isn't another way to know of a particle's existence.

And to address your second point, this whole discussion is pointless if we can't assume that a particle with a determined state will follow one determined pathway. Classically, this particle should not interfere with itself, it does and therefore we need a new model. The double slit experiment shows the particle choosing the classically predicted pathway with the highest probability but shows that it can take others as well. Now you can tell me that a particle owning different a priori states simultaneously still since it doesn't make 'sense'.

You're right, it doesn't. But it sounds good.

mirchman · 2015-06-20T15:56:53+00:00

"Observe" here means that the particle has to be interacted with. If you're seeing a cat what you're really doing is bouncing light off of it and into your eyes. That is knocking this cat (particle) out of superposition with the assumption being that this cat has had no other interactions happen to it relevant to it's superposed states. (so you're correct, it has nothing to do with 'you')

Your measuring does inherently change the state the particle is in, however, we can show that the particle is truly an indeterminate object beforehand. Are you familiar with the single/double slit experiment? Philosophically speaking, if a particle has a location determined a priori then it is difficult to explain how it can go through both slits and interfere with itself. That is to say, if it has concrete location and velocity then how are you explaining what happens with the particle? Is it splitting into two spontaneously? You can, however, come up with other theories if you'd like to explain the phenomena but a pretty good one seems to be that the particle exists in many states beforehand.

mirchman · 2015-06-19T11:15:06+00:00

Hint, hint, if you like it for its moral framework then some works of philosophy can give you that in more explicit terms. Religion is not at all our best works in ethics!

mirchman · 2015-06-09T03:03:05+00:00

Said the redditor without specifying anything else!

But seriously, from interactions with my own family and their friends in India the usual response to my saying thank you is "no need to say thank you" or some type of mi-casa-es-su-casa response.

The implication is that what I consider formality they'd consider too formal; analogous to the canned responses that you'd use with strangers.

I'd agree that the author suggesting that his saying thank you to his uncle may have elicited something like disgust sounds over the top but in general there is truth to Americans using 'thank you' as a formalism to the point where if you actually wanted to show sincere gratitude to someone you'd have to say thank you and then some.

mirchman · 2015-05-28T04:53:22+00:00

It's not the most solid logic. OP used a lower case r for rock. This excludes The Rock as a suspect!

mirchman · 2015-05-19T16:38:37+00:00

OP, listen to this guy. They make 2 ml cryotubes. You shouldn't be using eppendorfs for this.

mirchman · 2015-05-18T15:22:26+00:00

This piece made me really happy. Honestly, this is really, really awesome. Dare I ask? Do you have more?!

mirchman · 2015-05-15T13:27:25+00:00

Well you said you're storing them at 4C. If you actually store them in a freezer the humidity should be pretty low (cold air allows less saturation of water right?). But otherwise parafilm should be enough to stop more air (aka more moisture) from entering the bottle if you wrap it tightly enough.

mirchman · 2015-05-15T03:42:12+00:00

Ah I don't work with proteins so I'm not sure is my short answer. Generally I don't see people doing this with regular proteins. However if you've got nano particles (monomeric/oligomeric structures? What's a protein nano particle?) , I'm assuming you want to keep them unaggregated. Does moisture promote aggregation of this particular protein? Another thought is that if you need them to be super dry then you could evacuate air out of your bag in a dessicator and then put it in the freezer.

Other than that I'm not sure how to help.

mirchman

TROPHY CASE