Jain Super Mart
Asked 17th Oct, 2022
How can we calculate the dimensionality of some new investigated discrete space?
How can we calculate the number of dimensions in a discrete space if we only have a complete scheme of all its points and possible transitions between them (or data about the adjacency of points)? Such a scheme can be very confusing and far from the clear two- or three-dimensional space we know. We can observe it, but it is stochastic and there are no regularities, fractals or the like in its organization. We only have access to an array of points and transitions between them.
Such computations can be resource-intensive, so I am especially looking for algorithms that can quickly approximate the dimensionality of the space based on the available data about the points of the space and their adjacencies.
I would be glad if you could help me navigate in dimensions of spaces in my computer model :-)
All Answers (3)
Applications are made with some set of conditions only, you may design or can think your own different algorithm as per need but a perfect answer or any such applications with random choices do not exist. In short from design point of view question is false or not asked as per needs.
Thank you for your answer! Did I understand correctly that my question is too general and therefore cannot have a universal answer - an algorithm for all possible cases?
Can I then ask another question: do you know any approaches (algorithms) to calculating dimensionality for discrete space, or can we talk about calculating dimensionality only for linear continuous space?
Anil Kumar Jain The description of discrete spaces is found in physical works, e.g. "Discrete spacetime, quantum walks and relativistic wave equations" by Leonard Mlodinow and Todd A. Brun, https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.03910. But I have not seen any attempt to quantify the dimensionality of such spaces. This is exactly what I am looking for.
Similar questions and discussions
Are there books and articles on the role of generalization in physics?
- Robert Shour
Similarly, are there books and articles on examples of generalization in physics?
Error while running fqha.x in quantum espresso?
- K. S. S. V. Prasad Reddy
Good morning everyone,
While running fqha.x executable, the output is printed with "File containing the dos". I need phonon DOS to run fqha.x. here, I considered the phonon DOS file, which is created as one of the outputs while running matdyn.x executable. Please, let me know where am i doing wrong.
Real and rational number fields in physics: equality or only modeling (R~Q)
- Alexey Orlovsky
Dear colleagues, at the suggestion of Ed Gerk, we have long and quite fruitfully discussed what the R~Q ratio means for computational physics and for physics in general. And everything would be fine, only here is the final conclusion that sets of capacity greater than Aleph Zero must be completely excluded from the mathematical apparatus of physics - in my opinion, an obvious inflection. The sign ~ , as you know, does not mean equality, especially not identity (unconditional equality), but only equivalence, that is, mutual modeling under certain limiting assumptions. Doing physics, believing that R~Q⇒R≡Q. is about the same as going out into the open ocean not on a 300-meter cruise ship, but on its 3-meter model. Yes, both of these ships float, both have an engine, both are steered. But on a model, you won’t get enough sleep in a comfortable cabin, you won’t eat a delicious lunch in a restaurant, and you’ll sit on a model only on horseback, like on a motorcycle. And what will the first ocean wave do to you ...
To suggest how R can be transformed into Q, see also (just in the given consequence):
Research Proposal CONTINUOUS MODELS IN QUANTUM CONSCIOUSNESS: AMBIGUITY OF DEF...
How do we justify the use of Noether’s theorem applied to local gauge transformations of the Klein-Gordon equation?
- L.D. Edmonds
The topic considered here is the Klein-Gordon equation governing some scalar field amplitude, with the field amplitude defined by the property of being a solution of this equation. The original Klein-Gordan equation does not contain any gauge potentials, but a modified version of the equation (also called the Klein-Gordon equation in some books for reasons that I do not understand) does contain a gauge potential. This gauge potential is often represented in the literature by the symbol Ai (a four-component vector). Textbooks show that if a suitable transformation is applied to the field amplitude to produce a transformed field amplitude, and another suitable transformation is applied to the gauge potential to produce a transformed gauge potential, the Lagrangian is the same function of the transformed quantities as it is of the original quantities. With these transformations collectively called a gauge transformation we say that the Lagrangian is invariant under a gauge transformation. This statement has the appearance of being justification for the use of Noether’s theorem to derive a conservation law. However, it seems to me that this appearance is an illusion. If the field amplitude and gauge potential are both transformed, then they are both treated the same way as each other in Noether’s theorem. In particular, the theorem requires both to be solutions of their respective Lagrange equations. The Lagrange equation for the field amplitude is the Klein-Gordon equation (the version that includes the gauge potential). The textbook that I am studying does not discuss this but I worked out the Lagrange equations for the gauge potential and determined that the solution is not in general zero (zero is needed to make the Klein-Gordon equation with gauge potential reduce to the original equation). The field amplitude is required in textbooks to be a solution to its Lagrange equation (the Klein-Gordon equation). However, the textbook that I am studying has not explained to me that the gauge potential is required to be a solution of its Lagrange equations. If this requirement is not imposed, I don’t see how any conclusions can be reached via Noether’s theorem. Is there a way to justify the use of Noether’s theorem without requiring the gauge potential to satisfy its Lagrange equation? Or, is the gauge potential required to satisfy that equation without my textbook telling me about that?
Why focus on thermodynamics？
- Tang Suye
The original manuscript of this article is to answer some questions asked by Zhihu users, here added the second half of the content into the original manuscript, one for sharing, and the other to keep some views written casually, so as not to be lost, it may be useful in the future.
To talk about this problem under the topic of physics is because thermodynamics describes collective behavior and involves all levels. As far as the current situation of thermodynamics is concerned, classical thermodynamics + chemical thermodynamics seems more systematic, but it is not complete.
In comparison, thermodynamics is not as exquisite and rigorous as other theoretical systems of physics, the physical images of many concepts such as entropy, enthalpy and other thermodynamic potentials now are still unclear, and the mathematical transformations, from the perspective of physical meaning, cannot plainly shown what physical contents are transformed, the physical images of many derivatives, differentials, and equations are unclear, for instance, those derivatives, differentials cannot even distinguish between energy transfer and energy conversion.
The way classical thermodynamics is thought is also different from other systems of physics, the "subdivision" of the internal energy is not in place. We all know that the internal energy is the sum of different forms of energy within a given system, since there have different forms, then it should be classified, no, that's a pile. The description method is to see how much comes out through the heat transfer path, how much can come out through the work path, and calculate a total changes, the unique definitions are the parts that can be released in the form of work, called the thermodynamic potentials, when the path changed, one don't know whether they still are.
There is no even a basic classification of the internal energy, how to discuss the conversion between different forms of energy?
For example, a spontaneous chemical reaction, G decreases, S increases, but from the perspective of energy conversion, the answer by a professor of chemistry may not be as good as a liberal arts student who have studied a little in high school and forget most of it, the latter will most likely say that it is chemical energy converted into heat energy, although the terms are not professional, but the meaning of energy conversion is clear. The professors of chemistry know that G decreased, but they don't know what this decreased G turns into, there is no a complete narrative about energy conversion.
In the entire thermodynamic theoretical system, you can hardly find such a sensation, such as delicate, rigorous, physical image clarity, similar to that in the other theoretical systems of physics, and the appeasement philosophy is all over the place.
Statistical physics cannot independently establish equations for the relationships between thermodynamic state functions, relies on thermodynamics in the theoretical system, which also inherited the problems from thermodynamic theory. Statistical physics itself also brings more problems, for instance, statistical physics cannot explain such a process, an ideal gas does work to compress a spring, the internal energy of the ideal gas is converted into the elastic potential energy of the spring. If such simple, realistic problem cannot be explained, what are the use your statistical ensemble, phase spaces, the Poincaré recurrence theorem, mathematical transformations?
The thermodynamic direction maybe currently the last big chance in theoretical physics that can be verified or falsified, because it doesn't face the difficulties in other directions: you can write some dizzying mathematical equations, but maybe a century from now you don't know whether it's right or wrong.
Thermodynamics is the most grand theoretical system in the entire scientific system, a scientific system on natural evolution, although it is not yet complete, and has not yet risen to the level of fundamental theory, which provides a grand narrative of natural evolution, running through all levels.
Newton laws, Maxwell equations, Schrödinger equation, Hamiltonian dynamics, etc., for thermodynamics, that is only one law: the first law of thermodynamics, the law reveals the conservation of energy and conversion relationships of collective behavior at all levels and in all processes, the direction of change that the second law of thermodynamics described now has not been found in the dynamics of physics, will there be? there are some clues but not certain, because there is no corresponding theoretical framework.
The popular view of physicists on the conflict between time inversion symmetry of the fundamental process of dynamics and the second law is all wrong, the errors are: 1, confused the relationship between the fundamental laws, the theme that those dynamical equations discussed is the relation of conservation of energy, which correspond to the first law of thermodynamics, and the time inversion for the first law of thermodynamics is also symmetrical. 2, The symmetry of an equation and the symmetry of a phenomenon are two different concepts, the time inversion symmetry of the energy conservation equation only shows that energy conserve in past, present, and future, it does not explain whether the phenomenon itself is symmetrical in time inversion, the problem that the fundamental dynamic processes themselves are reversible or irreversible cannot be discussed by the equation of conservation of energy.
Have you noticed? in department of chemistry, one have to face the problem of time inversion asymmetry every day, and they also have dynamics, the chemical dynamics of time inversion asymmetry.
On the problem of irreversibility, those seemingly delicate, rigorous, time-inverse symmetrical physical systems are completely powerless, statistical physics is somewhat useful, such as explaining the diffusion phenomenon, calculating the number of collisions, its effective range has been limited by its theoretical postulates, the postulate of an equal probability determines that it is only valid for describing the processes tending to an equal probability distributions. In the framework of statistical physics, there is only one driving force of "change", tending to an equal probability distributions, the question is, the driving forces of "changes" in the real world around us are not only this one.
The second law of thermodynamics indicates that there are two different "dynamics": the physics of time inversion symmetry shows people a world without evolution, and the chemical dynamics of time inversion asymmetry shows us the different situations, whether the latter has universal sense at other levels is still unknown. From astrophysics to macroscopic, at least to the elementary particles level, all observed and confirmed results without exception strongly support the existence for the dynamics which are time inversion asymmetry, will it point to a final ending?
Let's take a look at the different thermodynamics?
The articles linked below show a new theoretical framework for thermodynamics that is different from what you can see in textbooks and other articles, and it also provides a new starting point for the study of a series of major problems.
Will there be another Einstein in the next 100/200 years?
- Philippos Afxentiou
Einstein was a revolutionary scientist, possibly for the first time in the several hundred years that transpired following Sir Isaac Newton's discovery of, and ability to express in mathematical terms, the gravitational laws of motion.
Today's theoretical physics research has stalled. Most leading theorists lack the combination of traits that made these great
** ability to express new effective representations of physical systems
** physical intuition-based postulation of principles
** deep knowledge of issues without distortions
** imagination and conceptual power
What is missing in mathematics and theoretical physics?
- Ismail Abbas
What is missing is an exact definition of probability that would contain time as a dimensionless quantity woven into a 3D geometric physical space.
It should be mentioned that the current definition of probability as the relative frequency of successful trials is primitive and contains no time.
On the other hand, the quantum mechanical definition of the probability density as,
which introduces time via the system's destination time and not from its start time is of limited usefulness and leads to unnecessary complications.
It's just a sarcastic definition.
It should be mentioned that a preliminary definition of the probability function of space and time proposed in the Cairo technique led to revolutionary solutions of time-dependent partial differential equations, integration and differentiation, special functions such as the Gamma function, etc. without the use of mathematics.
Can infinitesimals be eliminated from mathematics? (II) (CLOSED)
- Ed Gerck
Our answer is YES. A new question (at https://www.researchgate.net/post/If_RQ_what_are_the_consequences/1) has been answered affirmatively, confirming the YES answer in this question, with wider evidence in +12 areas.
This question continued the same question from 3 years ago, with the same name, considering new published evidence and results. The previous text of the question maybe useful and is available here:
We now can provably include DDF  -- the differentiation of discontinuous functions. This is not shaky, but advances knowledge. The quantum principle of Niels Bohr in physics, "all states at once", meets mathematics and quantum computing.
Without infinitesimals or epsilon-deltas, DDF is possible, allowing quantum computing  between discrete states, and a faster FFT . The Problem of Closure was made clear in .
Although Weyl training was on these mythical aspects, the infinitesimal transformation and Lie algebra , he saw an application of groups in the many-electron atom, which must have a finite number of equations. The discrete Weyl-Heisenberg group comes from these discrete observations, and do not use infinitesimal transformations at all, with finite dimensional representations. Similarly, this is the same as someone trained in infinitesimal calculus, traditional, starts to use rational numbers in calculus, with DDF . The similar previous training applies in both fields, from a "continuous" field to a discrete, quantum field. In that sense, R~Q*; the results are the same formulas -- but now, absolutely accurate.
New results have been made public [1-3], confirming the advantages of the YES answer, since this question was first asked 3 years ago. All computation is revealed to be exact in modular arithmetic, there is NO concept of approximation, no "environmental noise" when using it.
As a consequence of the facts in , no one can formalize the field of non-standard analysis in the use of infinitesimals in a consistent and complete way, or Cauchy epsilon-deltas, against , although these may have been claimed and chalk spilled.
Some branches of mathematics will have to change. New results are promised in quantum mechanics and quantum computing.
This question is closed, affirming the YES answer.
Preprint FT = FFT
Preprint The quantum set Q*
Modern algebraic concepts are shown to be compatible with models in physics. These abstract ideas are then used to frame a definition of an abstract physics; the definition is then used to analyse the greater part of « ordinary » physics and to throw light on various theories and methods of finding natural laws. In all, nine examples of the abstrac...
The analytical physical modeling of undoped electrolyte gated organic field effect transistors (EGOFETs) in the Helmholtz approximation is presented. A compact analytical model for the current–voltage (I–V) characteristics, which includes the effects of the access series resistance, has been derived and validated by means of 2D finite element numer...