Tag: mathematics

🔖 H-theorem in quantum physics by G. B. Lesovik, et al.

🔖 H-theorem in quantum physics by G. B. Lesovik, et al.

Abstract

Remarkable progress of quantum information theory (QIT) allowed to formulate mathematical theorems for conditions that data-transmitting or data-processing occurs with a non-negative entropy gain. However, relation of these results formulated in terms of entropy gain in quantum channels to temporal evolution of real physical systems is not thoroughly understood. Here we build on the mathematical formalism provided by QIT to formulate the quantum H-theorem in terms of physical observables. We discuss the manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics in quantum physics and uncover special situations where the second law can be violated. We further demonstrate that the typical evolution of energy-isolated quantum systems occurs with non-diminishing entropy. [1]

Footnotes

[1]
G. B. Lesovik, A. V. Lebedev, I. A. Sadovskyy, M. V. Suslov, and V. M. Vinokur, “H-theorem in quantum physics,” Scientific Reports, vol. 6. Springer Nature, p. 32815, 12-Sep-2016 [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep32815

🔖 H-theorem in quantum physics by G. B. Lesovik, et al. was originally published on Chris Aldrich

Advertisement

Warren Weaver Bot!

Warren Weaver Bot!
Someone has built a Warren Weaver Bot! by WeaverbotWeaverbot(Twitter)

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

How can you not follow this twitter account?!

Now I’m waiting for a Shannon bot and a Weiner bot. Maybe a John McCarthy bot would be apropos too?!

    Syndicated to:

Warren Weaver Bot! was originally published on Chris Aldrich | Boffo Socko

NIMBioS Tutorial: Evolutionary Quantitative Genetics 2016

NIMBioS Tutorial: Evolutionary Quantitative Genetics 2016 by NIMBioS (nimbios.org)

This tutorial will review the basics of theory in the field of evolutionary quantitative genetics and its connections to evolution observed at various time scales. Quantitative genetics deals with the inheritance of measurements of traits that are affected by many genes. Quantitative genetic theory for natural populations was developed considerably in the period from 1970 to 1990 and up to the present, and it has been applied to a wide range of phenomena including the evolution of differences between the sexes, sexual preferences, life history traits, plasticity of traits, as well as the evolution of body size and other morphological measurements. Textbooks have not kept pace with these developments, and currently few universities offer courses in this subject aimed at evolutionary biologists. There is a need for evolutionary biologists to understand this field because of the ability to collect large amounts of data by computer, the development of statistical methods for changes of traits on evolutionary trees and for changes in a single species through time, and the realization that quantitative characters will not soon be fully explained by genomics. This tutorial aims to fill this need by reviewing basic aspects of theory and illustrating how that theory can be tested with data, both from single species and with multiple-species phylogenies. Participants will learn to use R, an open-source statistical programming language, to build and test evolutionary models. The intended participants for this tutorial are graduate students, postdocs, and junior faculty members in evolutionary biology.

    Syndicated to:

NIMBioS Tutorial: Evolutionary Quantitative Genetics 2016 was originally published on Chris Aldrich | Boffo Socko

Disconnected, Fragmented, or United? A Trans-disciplinary Review of Network Science

Applied Network Science

Abstract

During decades the study of networks has been divided between the efforts of social scientists and natural scientists, two groups of scholars who often do not see eye to eye. In this review I present an effort to mutually translate the work conducted by scholars from both of these academic fronts hoping to continue to unify what has become a diverging body of literature. I argue that social and natural scientists fail to see eye to eye because they have diverging academic goals. Social scientists focus on explaining how context specific social and economic mechanisms drive the structure of networks and on how networks shape social and economic outcomes. By contrast, natural scientists focus primarily on modeling network characteristics that are independent of context, since their focus is to identify universal characteristics of systems instead of context specific mechanisms. In the following pages I discuss the differences between both of these literatures by summarizing the parallel theories advanced to explain link formation and the applications used by scholars in each field to justify their approach to network science. I conclude by providing an outlook on how these literatures can be further unified.

Disconnected, Fragmented, or United? A Trans-disciplinary Review of Network Science was originally published on Chris Aldrich

Weekly Recap: Interesting Articles 7/24-7/31 2016

Went on vacation or fell asleep at the internet wheel this week? Here’s some of the interesting stuff you missed.

Science & Math

Publishing

Indieweb, Internet, Identity, Blogging, Social Media

General

Weekly Recap: Interesting Articles 7/24-7/31 2016 was originally published on Chris Aldrich