A Bayesian State Space Formulation of Dynamic

First of all, the graph and relative frequencies have to be taken with a pinch of salt. They are from a decidedly non-scientific survey done in 2011. The full report can be found here. There were only 33 respondents, and it was taken at one conference where the sample could well have been slanted by invitation list, location and organiser.*Here is another poll,** taken in the 1990s by Max Tegmark, which could be compared to the above to show the variation that you can get (note that de Broglie-Bohm gets some supporters on this one, while QBism had not even been formulated at this point):And we still see a divergence of very different-looking approaches.One way of looking at how this could happen is to take the so-called “bare formalism” of QM, and set off from there. These are the most important rules of the bare formalism:States are represented by rays in a Hilbert space, observables by Hermitian operatorsStates evolve unitarily according to the time-dependent Schrödinger equationOn measurement of some observable, we obtain one of the eigenvalues of the associated Hermitian operator with a probability given by the norm squaredWhile many physicists are happy to just use these rules to “shut up and calculate”, there are others who want to relate this to some ontology (i.e., a story of what exists) and associated dynamics of these objects.Here are a few alternative attitudes one could take to this bare formalism:We will follow the given rules as directly as we can. They draw a clear distinction between measurement and non-measurement, so we will reflect this as straightforwardly as possible, separating a classical from a quantum world, with the measurement rule kicking in where the two interact. This also allows us to preserve existing classical physics, while giving the quantum room to develop in its own sphere → CopenhagenWe can find similar mathematics to those used in the bare formalism scattered across classical physics, and there we know the right physical interpretations. Let’s follow those clues. There are Hilbert spaces in classical physics, where they are used to categorise wave behaviour. There are state-spaces that can trace the probabilistic behaviour of ensembles of particles, and exhibit collapse when we measure their precise states. Given these analogies, the most straightforward way to interpret the bare formalism is with an ontology of waves and particles, which we shall work through → de Broglie-BohmWe’ll solve the whole thing with dynamical rules. The first rule of the bare formalism is fine, it sets up the state space, then the second rule puts in some simple dynamics, and if we are smart enough, we can fill out the third rule by imposing a final dynamical rule for how wave states collapse on an observable basis. Since this only seems to happen for large objects, this rule probably involves gravity or mass. We will work one out → Objective collapse/modified dynamicsWhat if we take the first two rules seriously? Can we derive the appearance of the third rule, and also the entire classical world as an emergent entity, without requiring any further assumptions at all? We will continue this line of thought wherever it takes us → Many Worlds/EverettThe third rule is downright suspicious. It looks like it just reflects an observer learning a certain amount of information about a quantum state. So, we treat the Hilbert space state not as representing an objective state in physics, but as a book-keeping device for a personal and subjective state of knowledge. Again, we’ll continue this line wherever it takes us → Quantum BayesianismThere are obviously other lines we can take too. And they end up taking us to still more distinct interpretations.Note again that all these come from the same three rules in the “bare formalism”. Yet the different approaches take you off into different ontologies and dynamics, and the descriptions of them don’t sound at all alike.Why are some interpretations more popular than others? Because people find some of the arguments more reasonable and compelling than others. There is no empirical way to tell them apart, for they all can be expressed with the same formalism.This is a striking illustration of the flexibility of mathematics as a tool to investigate the physical world. And it also illustrates one reason why physicists get antsy about describing their theories in non-mathematical terms. They know how much variety, vagueness and apparently contradictory verbal description can be attached to the very same clear, unambiguous and predictive mathematics.[*] For example, de Broglie-Bohm having no adherents at all looks a bit off. And the score for Quantum Bayesianism may have been skewed by the fact that its founder, Chris Fuchs, was one of the respondents! Though it’s notable that Copenhagen did best even without having Niels Bohr show up.[**] Tegmark’s poll was even less scientific. It was a show of hands, and he couldn’t help noticing that some people voted more than once. https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9...

I would use After Effects or Premier pro.Take your 4:3 clip and add it to a sequence that has the same settings for everything except the aspect ratio, which should be set to 16:9. If the clip interpretation settings are correct when you add it to the sequence it should sit in the middle of the frame with black on either side.Create a second video layer and duplicate the clip into the new layer, making sure you don't shift the timing of the clip.Open the scaling settings for the lower clip. This will be in the transform controls. Uncheck the 'constrain aspect' option, so you can scale the width separately from the height. Scale the x value until the clip is stretched to the edge of the 16:9 frame.You should now have a streched version of your clip undeneath the original version of your clip.Add the blur effect to the stretched layer and adjust it to taste.This should only take a few seconds to setup once you are familair with the process. I'm sure there are automated solutions out there too but this is how I would do it.

Write a letter to the FAA, if you are launching the satellite in your backyard that is. And you cant just use paperwork to get a satellite in space, dammit! Think about how MANY PEOPLE will think that its a spy satellite. Yea, you will have to deal with publicity. It is almost CERTAIN that SOMEONE from SOME space agency is going to notice. Its not like you can write an email to NASA saying "Sorry bout that, it was me". Who is going to believe you? So yea, a shit ton of paperwork if you are going to launch it on your own, not so much if you can convince a space agency to launch your CubeSat into space.

I'm a 24 year old Indian. I suffered major clinical depression for two years and I'm still recovering. I tried so many things which made me feel good when I was depressed. Though they make you feel good for just a couple of hours but it's all worth it when you are in such a mess. At first when it started, I wasn't able to control my thoughts. I was going back in the past. I was breaking down at every moment. I used to break down while taking a shower. I used to break down while eating my lunch or dinner. I used to break down as soon as I used to wake up in the morning. I was losing weight. I wasn't focus on my sleep. My legs ached. I lost interest in everything that I once used to do. I was not able to focus on my job. Here is what I suggest you should do to help your friend beat depression and gain themselves back:Make them do what they couldn't do until now. Make them do what they have always dreamed of doing. Make them do that they could not when they held themselves back due to some absurd reasons. I assume that you know about the dreams and aspiration and ambitions of your friend very well.I can tell you what I did: I survived on instant gratification. Every day I did something which made me felt good. I cooked. Not the recipes that I knew. New Recipes. New Stuff. And it was good. My friends ate it and they complimented me. They went mad. They wanted more of it. And often. This made me feel good. Always.I danced. I just past out of college two years back. I should admit that I was academically more inclined and did not do too much fun stuff which other people do in their college. When I went to the office new year party, I danced like Hell. Everybody was like....looking. When it ended, everybody said they are willing to learn dance from me. I danced so well. Even my friends from college said that they never knew I dance so well. Frankly, I never knew that too.I started writing a blog. A personal blog, kind of like a diary. I was writing everything that I used to feel. Every thing that I intend to do in future. It was like talking to someone. Telling them what it is all that you feel. And trust me, it feels good to write your thoughts. Take them out.I learnt Photography. I took some tutorials on the internet to learn photography. And it was one of the things that I always wanted to learn about.I watched movies. The ones which are really good but I never saw them. It felt amazing to see some good movies.I talked to my close friends often. I have three close friends. Very close friends. Just like my family. They know everything. They know my passwords too.I changed my hair style often during this period. I used to see a new "me" in the mirror and it gave a feeling that everything will be alright.I changed my wardrobe. I used to wear dark and professional colors. Grey, Brown and stuff like that. When you're depressed, these colors make you more depressed. I changed my entire wardrobe. I went for white shirts. Colorful T-shirts. Yellow, Turquoise Blue, Green. I changed it all entirely. And trust me, it breathes new life in you. You will feel good.I traveled to a few places where I felt peace. The air was fresh. Water was cold. Music was refreshing. I met myself.I have currently quit my job. My job was another reason why I was depressed. It was a depressing job. I did not like it at all. I'm single and currently living off my savings. I don't know what I will do. I have applied for few job offers. Currently, I'm studying Psychology. A field I always wanted to know more about. I am also looking for somebody to teach me piano.What I will suggest is: Go out there. Make them do anything, anything however weird that might be for other people, make them do it for themselves. Motivate them. Talk to them often. Listen to them patiently. Comfort them. Tell them funny stories.Don't wait for things to get normal. Don't wait for them to get out of depression. Make them do things and they will take them out of their depression. I hope your friend will defeat depression and will emerge victorious.

Is it possible to assign IDs on the radio buttons as soon as the page loads ?

Somewhere on that form should be a blank for routing number and account number. Those are available from your check and/or your bank statements. If you can't find them, call the bank and ask or go by their office for help with the form.  As long as those numbers are entered correctly, any error you make in spelling, location or naming should not influence the eventual deposit into your proper account.