Thursday, 23 June 2022
Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis (in progress)
Monday, 24 May 2021
Cognitive Biases for Scientists (in progress)
“It is by logic that we prove, but by intuition that we discover.”
― Henri Poincaré
And when intuition is at play, congnitive biases follow. Hence the necessity to guard oneself from being fooled by one's own mind. Because, as Feynman said, "you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.".
Before we dive into a list of cognitive biases, it is important to note that there does not exist an exhaustive list of cogitive biases, in the same way as there does not exist an exhaustive list of nutritients required for a human being. Scientists know about a certain number of nutrients, but they might not know about many other ones. Moreover, we as human beings are not static machines. We are evolving. We do not have a strict list of prescriptions of nutrients. The body dynamically reacts to chemicals that it is exposed to, and this reaction also evolves through time.
What I am trying to say that, be watchful for cognitive lapses that perhaps nobody has heard of. How will you do that. Stay intellectually honest. Don't fool your own self.
Tuesday, 18 May 2021
Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete ?
The Podolsk's argument
Consider a pair of particles, A and B, having entangled positions and momentum, separated by a distance. We can hence determine either the position or momentum of B by measuring the corresponding quantity of A. But note that in doing so, we could NOT have disturbed B whatsoever, because of special relativity.
Since the value of position or momentum of B can be determined without disturbing it, a concept of reality can be associated with these physical quantities. But quantum mechanics denies to attribute a definite position AND momentum to the particles prior to their measurement, and also claims that both these quantities do not coexist to arbitrary precision. Hence Quantum mechanics must be incomplete.
Bohr's reply to The Podolsk's argument
Position and momentum are complementary quantities, and determining one destroys anything that can be said about the other. That is, these measurements are NOT non disturbing. Measuring the position of A DOES disturb B. There is a nonlocal influence in a way that no superluminal signaling is still valid.
Einstein's argument
The choice of measuring the position OR momentum of A collapses the wavefunction of B. But locality demands that such influence should not be possible. Hence, wavefunction is not true description of the 'real' state of the system, because it is not possible to influence the 'real' state of a system nonlocally.
My take
By measuring one of the EPR pair, we do end up disturbing the other particle. Nonlocal influences exist in quantum mechanics. These influences are such that a useful superluminal signal cannot be sent. Hence, measuring position of A instantaneously disturbs the state of B (in A's rest frame) in the same manner as measuring the position of B would disturb the state of B. Hence the reality claim based on non disturbance is invalid.
Einstein is wrong because when choice of measurement on particle A steers particle B's state, such superluminal influence does not transfer any information. Hence special relativity is not violated.
Einstein believed that the real state of a particle cannot be influenced by choices made at a distance. Hence wavefunction cannot be in one-to-one correspondence with the real states.
If by real state he meant all the information that can be extracted from the system, then this cannot indeed be influenced by the choices made at a distance. BUT, wavefunction gives a probabilistic description of a system, and hence can be disturbed from a distance without revealing superluminal information.
The superluminal signals are censored, inaccessible.
Monday, 12 April 2021
C* algebra
algebra is a vector space
over a field
with a multiplication. The multiplication must be distributive and, for every
and
must satisfy
f(xy)=(fx)y=x(fy).
Note- by multiplication defined on teh evector space, we mean multiplication of two vectors to yield a number (or a vector maybe, depending on the case).
Examples of algebras include the algebra of real numbers, vectors and matrices, tensors, complex numbers, and quaternions.
Saturday, 19 December 2020
PC hacks
For people who find the sound only in left earphone irritating, you can try the following- On Android, go to setting, accessibility, mono audio. Exact path may vary depending on Android version, but it is there in recent ones. On ipados 13, go to setting, accessibility, audio/visual, mono audio
Ubuntu on windows
GNU plot on windows
Generate pdf thumbnail
Install genuine adobe acrobat reader. Go to edit, preferences, general, thumbnail. Also, go to control panel, set 'view by' on upper right side to large icons, find file explorer options, go to view, then set show thumbnail, and not icon. apply. If the files don't load, open acrobat, open file, go to pdf files and do large icon view. Thumbnails will generate. IF THE THUMBNAILS ARE WRONG, CLEAR CACHE. Search for disk cleanup, choose c drive, and clean only the thumbnail caches.Download youtube videos
Speed up a youtube video by an amount larger than 2x.
Most economical export method from goodnotes
If you make it editable, for pure notes, the file size becomes 10 times! Using blank background actually increases the file size.
gmail mail bulk delete code.
Your Gmail occupies space. If you want to free up space in bulk, search the following on gmail.
Size:5m
Saturday, 15 August 2020
Summary: 'What is Life' by Schrodinger
Ch1: The classical Physicist's Approach to the subject
Why are organisms so large as compared to atoms?
Thursday, 21 May 2020
Solution to the game 'Among us'
Solution to the game 'Among us'
Tuesday, 3 September 2019
python notes
Basics
variables and assignment
- Integer: stores integer values, 1, -12 etc. "x=1".
- Float: stores floating values like 1.0, 1.2e-12 etc. "x=-12.56","x=float(1)".
- Complex: stores complex numbers. "x=1e12 + 12.65j","x=complex(1.5)".
- string: stores text in form of string of letters. "x="this is a string of words"".
Input and output statements
- print(x),print("the value of x is",x," and the value of y is",y)
- x=input("the value of x is:")
Monday, 19 August 2019
Open Quantum system
Probability Theory
- $\Omega , \emptyset \in A$.
- For all $A_1 ,A_2 \in A$, $A_1 \cap A_2 , A_1 \cup A_2 \in A$.
- For some mysterious reason, if $A_1,A_2,... \in A$, where the $A_n$'s are countably many, then $\cup_{n=1} ^\infty A_n \in A$. Why doesn't this automatically follow from the second condition?
Random variable
Stochastic process
Markov process
Chapman-Kolgorov equation
Stationary and homogeneous stochastic processes
Thursday, 18 July 2019
Latex notes
Latex notes
- The write notation for dagger is \dagger and not \dag. Check for instance, $\dagger$ and $\dag$ (This error is intended for illustration).
- Curly bracket, if intended to be visible, should be denoted by \{ and \}. For example, $\} \{$.
- Three dots $\cdots$ \cdots
Random Math notes
Random Math notes
- Trace of any operator $A$ is preserved under unitary change of basis $U$ because in the new basis, $A' = U^{\dagger}AU$ and $Tr\{AB\}=Tr\{BA\}$ implies $Tr\{A'\}=Tr\{A\}$.
- Note that $e^{A+B}=e^A . e^ B$ only if A and B commute. If they don't commute, the RHS will have terms of the type $C_{n,r} A^{n-r}B^r$ while the similar terms on LHS will be of the form $A^{n-r}B^r + A^{n-r-1}BAB^{r-1} + \cdots + B^{r}A^{n-r}$. If the terms don't commute, then these similar terms on LHS and RHS are not really equivalent. If they commute, then they are equal.
Monday, 15 July 2019
How to solve Pyramid solitaire (work in progress)
How to solve Pyramid solitaire (work in progress)
- Make a list of A, 2, 3,... , Q and note how many of these cards are there in the pyramid.
- If there are x A's and y Q's in the pyramid, then there has to be at least $z=x+y-4$ links between A and Q within the pyramid, which means that at least z number of pairs of A and Q must annihilate themselves within the pyramid itself. This restriction for all the other pairs puts an upper limit to the score in the solitaire as well as reducing the possible solution space to be scanned.
- Note that it is possible for a pyramid to compulsorily have no links within if sum of each of its pairs is 4 and there are also 4 kings in the pack, which will add up to 28. Also note that if there are less than 4 kings, then at least one compulsory interlink exists.
Thursday, 23 May 2019
Deriving electromagnetism from relativity and electrostatics.
Part 1: Liénard–Wiechert potential
Part 2: The actual Proof
What we are going to prove is, if we assume that for a stationary source, electrostatic force is as given by coulomb's law, then a Lorentz transformation of this force from frame O to O' is equivalent to the force arising from electromagnetic fields generated when solving the same result using the LW potential.
$$\implies \mathbf{E'}=\varphi _x \hat{i} + \gamma \varphi _y \hat{j}$$
Also, $$\mathbf{B'}=-v \gamma \varphi _y \hat{k}$$
$$\mathbf {F'}=q \left( \mathbf{E'} + \mathbf {B'}(u_y \prime \hat{i} - u_x \prime \hat{j}) \right)$$
Note that $u_y \prime$ and $u_x \prime$ are the velocity components of the second charge placed at origin, as seen in the O' frame.
Now in the frame O, $F=\varphi _x \hat{i} + \varphi _y \hat{j}= F_x \hat{i}+F_y \hat{j}$.
Let $ F'=F'_{x'} \hat{i}+ F'_y \hat{j}$.
Then $$F'_{x'}=F_x - \frac {F_y v u_y}{1- v u_x}$$.
Also, $$F'_y= \gamma F_y + v \gamma F_y \left( \frac {u_x -v}{1- v u_x} \right)$$
$$\implies F'_y= \frac {F_y}{\gamma (1-v u_x)}$$
This is the force that you would get when you apply Lorentz transformation from frame O to O'.
Concluding points
- The LW potentials are completely part of classical electromagnetism. But it can be noted that classical electromagnetism is not consistent under Galilean transformation. The correct transformation that preserves invariance of experimental results between inertial frames is that given by Lorentz transformation, which was discovered before Einstein's result.
- Hence magnetism is nothing more than relativistic effects on Force acting on a moving body as viewed from a frame of reference other than the one in which the object is stationary. It should be noted that this should apply for other forces of nature as well. For example gravito-magnetism is as real an effect.
- What I did in this post was what was historically done in the reverse order. Relativity was deduced to make electromagnetism consistent. I, instead, assumed SR and derived EM as a consequence. It should be noted though that SR is more fundamental than EM.
Saturday, 18 May 2019
Axioms of Set theory
Following are the 9 axioms of Set Theory.
- Axiom of extensionality: Two sets are equal (are the same set) if they have the same elements.
- Axiom of regularity (also called the Axiom of foundation): If element of a set X is another set Y, then X and Y are disjoint. This means Y cannot contain any elements that X contains, including Y itself. Hence, this prevents Y from containing itself.
- Axiom schema of specification (also called the axiom schema of separation or of restricted comprehension): In order to avoid paradoxes, if you are building a set X by describing some property of its elements, then you need to specify another set Y from where you need to pick the elements of X in question. (Note: Wikipedia says that this restriction is necessary to avoid Russell's paradox, but I do not see how, since the Paradox can be solved simply by applying the axiom of Regularity- Set that contains itself does not exist in the first place. Russell's paradox questions the existence of set of all sets that do not contain themselves.)
- Axiom of pairing: If x and y are sets, then there exists a set which contains x and y as elements.
- Axiom of union: The union over the elements of a set exists
- Axiom schema of replacement: When a function f acts on a set X, the image or the range of X is also a set.
- Axiom of infinity: There exist a set of infinite size.
- Axiom of power set: Power set exists for every set.
- Axiom of choice: Given a set X that contains other non empty sets $Y_1, Y_2, Y_3$ etc. within it. Then there exists a function f from X to $Y_1 \cup Y_2 \cup Y_3 \cup...$ such that $f(Y_n) \in Y_n$.
Proof of Godel's incompleteness Theorem
First Incompleteness theorem:
- Uniquely number every theorem in a system of mathematics. We can do this by assigning 10 symbols like $0$,$1$,$\subset$ (short for ‘if . . . then . . .’) etc a number between 1 to 10. Also, we can assign numerical variables, sentential variables and predicate variables to first, second and third powers of prime numbers greater or equal to 11, respectively. Note that the use of prime number ensures that all these variables get assigned a unique number, because otherwise $11^2$ is nothing but 121. Another way of doing it could have been assigning 11, 12 and 13 with variable of each type sequentially, and so on.
- Now that each letter of the language has a unique numerical representation, we assign a number to a formula by raising the nth prime to the power of the numerical value of the nth symbol, and taking product of all such numbers. Strings of formulas separated by comma is also a formula.
- The fact that a formula with Godel number x is the proof of a Godel number z hints towards a mathematical property that these two numbers share in the general case. This mathematical property depends upon the syntax as well as the rule of inference of the proof system. Let us denote the fact that the numbers x and z share this specific property by the formula $ Dem(x,z)$. This formula might not be true for a given value of x and z. Note that here, $Dem$ is a predicate variable.
- Next, let $sub(m,13,m)$ denote the Godel number of the formula that you get when you replace in the formula with Godel number m, each occurrence of the variable with Godel number 13 (here y) the number m.
- Now, note the meaning of $\sim \exists x Dem(x,sub(n,13,n))$ where n is Godel number of the statement $\sim \exists x Dem(x,sub(y,13,y))$. Note that $sub(n,13,n)$ is just the Godel number of the first formula. Hence, the first formula states that it cannot be proven within the system. (Although seen at mathematical level, the first formula just claims that a number does not have a given mathematical property. It is only when interpreted at metamathematical level that we infer a second layer of meaning to this statement- that it is claiming that it cannot be proven within the system). Now, if this statement is false, then it can be proven. A system of mathematics that can prove even false results is inconsistent. Hence, it must be true, and hence cannot be proven.
- Note that $\sim \exists x Dem(x,sub(n,13,n))$ expresses a property that no number possesses. Hence, it represents a new axiom of mathematics.
- If there are finitely many rules of inference, then Godel's theorem holds. If there are infinitely many of them, then we get another Godel like situation, where instead of infinite axioms, there infinite rules of inference.
But the question is, is there an equivalent formulation of logic where there are only axioms but no rule of inference? I don't think so.Rules of inference are necessary to get from one axiom to another. They can be encompassed by a property that Godel numbers possess, as given by $Dem(x,z)$. Hence the rules of inference link numbers based on some property. Godel statement of a system of axioms is a statement that numbers don't possess a certain property. - How does the choice of syntax affect the numerical relations as in $Dem(x,z)$? There should be some invariance regarding some general properties of these relations, independent of the choice of syntax.
