/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6537597

Just because you fail to understand Schrodinger's argument, there is no need to call it laughable.

"If you see a group of engineers going into the gym shower together, RUN." - E. Schrödinger

>anyone other than round-specs schrodinger

"Yes I'm a girl and I like physics, look at my tattoo, silly boys don't hit on me please! <3"

Pig disgusting.

When solving a differential equation using a series solution,

I got two answers.

sum(n=0..infinity) ((4^n)(x^2n))/(2n)! and
sum(n=0..infinity) ((4^n)(x^2n+1))/(2n+1)!

How an what do these sums express in terms of sinh(x) and cosh(x)?

The first one should be cosh(2x)
and the second one should be 1/2sin(2x)

BUT I HAVE NO IDEA WHY

>>5382290

Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.

The plurality that we perceive is only an appearance; it is not real.

Consider a many-faceted crystal which, while showing hundreds of little pictures of what is in reality a single existent object, does not really multiply that object...

>>5372712

>Color perception is a physical process

[citation needed]

>>5353774

Artificial consciousness.

A better question :

Do qualia induced ice-lava FTL neutrinos disprove free will?

Qualia are not physical.

>>5264293

>doesn't mention Schrödinger

>qualia
>physicalism

Pick one.

Schrödinger, for his personal philosophy and his ground-breaking work.

>>5241801

People hate string theory because:

1)Young theoretical physicists are pressured into going into it because it whores all of the funding for theoretical physics.

2)String theory makes excuses, not predictions (postdictions).

3)No experimental data has been gathered that (uniquely) supports string theory.

4)Even Susskind said that we will probably never be able to experimentally prove if string theory is right or not.

>qualia
>physicalism

Pick one.

(I)My body functions as a pure mechanism
according to the Laws of Nature.
(II) Yet I know,by incontrovertible direct experience, that I am directing its motions, of which I foresee the effects, that may be fateful and all-important, in which case I feel and take full responsibility for them.

I)My body functions as a pure mechanism according to the Laws of Nature.

II)Yet I know, by incontrovertible direct experience, that I am directing its motions, of which I foresee the effects, that may be fateful and all-important, in which case I feel and take full responsibility for them.

>>5075727

>implying any physicist has got shit on Schrodinger.

Just look at those facial aesthetics.

"If you see a group of engineers going into the gym shower together, RUN." - E. Schrodinger

People need to see this!

>>4666956

And how does drawing it from negative to positive infinity on the y-axis differ from drawing the sine function from negative to positive infinity on the x-axis? Why can we do one but not the other?

Do we have a logical answer to the question, or some dumb cop-out like "we restrict the domain because Scroatdinger sed so" when he "derived the function" in 1455?"

Pic related, it's Q from Star Trek.

"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it."

-Erwin Schrödinger on Quantum Mechanics

>massively good physicist
>one of the fathers of quantum physics
>nobel prize
cant get any better?
>openly has two wives

I challenge you to beat that, /sci/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CORDIC