Robert Prechter,Deflationist

A FREE 20-Page Interview with Robert Prechter
20 Questions with the World's Leading -- Perhaps Only True -- Deflationist, Robert Prechter
Editor's Note: The following Q&A was adapted from an hour-long conversation between Robert Prechter and Jim Puplava, originally recorded on June 19 for Puplava's Financial Sense Newshour. Visit www.financialsense.com to listen to the audio version of this interview.

Jim Puplava: Stocks roared from the March lows of last year, and now we've seen a nice correction since the April high. Is it just an interim correction as the bulls would argue, or does something worse lie ahead? Joining us on the program is Bob Prechter, author and head of Elliott Wave International. Bob, I want to pick up from last September. Since then we've had several quarters of positive economic growth. Asset classes rose substantially, CPI turned positive, gold has hit a new record, oil is close to $80 a barrel. I guess a lot of our listeners would like to know, have these events altered your views on deflation?

Robert Prechter: No, because we forecasted these events, and we forecasted them at the bottom in March and April of 2009. On February 23 in the Elliott Wave Theorist, I said that we were almost at the bottom; that ideally the S&P should get down in the 600s before turning up; and that the Dow was going to rally from that low up to about 10,000. We put that target out a few days after the low. The main thing we said at the time was that it was going to be only a partial retracement, in other words a bear market rally. By the end of it, we said people would be bullish on the economy, there would be positive economic numbers, investors would think we have made the turn, the Fed would take credit for having saved the financial system, and there would be optimism across the board. All of this has happened. And going into April 2010, few people in the fundamentalist or technical camp were looking for a downturn.

The final thing I said was that Obama's popularity would rise into that peak, and on that one I was wrong. His ratings couldn't even bounce during that period, which I found very surprising. But both Obama and George Bush’s popularity trends followed the real value of stocks, not the inflated dollar price of the stock market, which I find interesting.

As far as inflation and deflation go, we had deflation during the down cycle in 2008. Commodities fell hard, the stock market fell hard and real estate fell hard. But the recovery that we were looking for in the first quarter of 2009 was expected to be a reflationary, and it was. You saw a decline in credit spreads. You saw a rise from the lows in commodity prices and stock prices. All of that is perfectly normal. These are just waves ebbing and flowing. But the long-term trend is still down, and as this cycle matures we are going to see more and more evidence of deflation.

Get Up to Speed With Robert Prechter's Latest Perspective. Read the full report titled "Deadly Bearish Big Picture" (Prechter's two-part, 20-page, April-May 2010 Theorists) plus his latest June issue with a thorough, new interview on inflation vs. deflation. It was so insightful and easy to digest that Bob now shares it with his own readers, please click here to learn how to get risk-free access now.

JP: During this time, we've seen private sector credit contract while at the same time government credit expanded, which offset private sector contraction. But overall, credit has grown within the U.S. economy. In your opinion, can government, fiscal and monetary policies combined offset your deflationary scenario?

RP: First of all, I don't think credit has increased in the economy. M3 has got a negative rate of change right now. That means lending is really drying up. The Fed has monetized about 1.4 trillion dollars worth of IOUs. I think that, behind the scenes, about that amount of IOUs is slowly disappearing and losing value. Certainly mortgages are losing value even though they're still marked at the original value. I think true values are falling substantially.

Let's look at a couple of other indicators; and remember, these readings are despite the fact that we have been in a reflationary environment for the past 13-14 months: We've had the dollar rally against other currencies. None of the inflationists predicted that one. We've had a very weak recovery in the CRB commodity index. The high was 474 in 2008, it fell down to 200 in early 2009, and it's sitting in the mid-200s right now. It's still down 50 percent from two years ago, and that's despite massive bailout schemes by the federal government and massive monetization by the Fed.

If the inflationists’ arguments were correct, we should be in a hyperinflationary mode right now, with commodities flying, stocks flying and the money supply zooming. And none of that is going on. When you look at the rates of change in the Producer Price Index and Consumer Price Index of the last couple of years, they've been basically at zero. They went negative and now they're positive, but they're basically oscillating around zero. That's not runaway inflation. And even though gold just made another new high, it's by a very small amount for the past six months. Meanwhile the XAU index of gold stocks has made several lower peaks since 2008. It hasn't even taken out the 2008 high. Neither has platinum, and neither has silver. In an inflationary environment—certainly in a hyperinflation or runaway inflation—you get a monolithic move in everything. You're not getting that here; it's a very fractured situation.

JP: Today almost 43 cents out of every dollar the U.S. government spends is being financed with debt. In your opinion, how long can this continue before the U.S. reaches a debt limit very much in the same way that Greece has almost hit a brick wall?

RP: I'll tell you, it'll be longer than I think because I wrote Conquer the Crash in 2002, and I didn't think the markets had another wave of inflation in them. But they did, and they managed one into 2006 plus or minus a year, looking at real estate and stocks. Even now, the world still thinks the U.S. bond market is a good investment. Of course the irony is that the more people buy those bonds, the worse shape the rest of the economy is in, because the corporate borrowers and the municipal borrowers run up against difficulties when people can easily borrow from the U.S. government. The irony is, there's no way out. The more debt the U.S. government goes into, the worse off other debtors are going to be. The other debtors are the ones that hold up the economy, and eventually the contraction is going to impact tax receipts and call into question the solvency of the U.S. government itself.

I think all the forces are towards debt contraction, debt retirement and more conservative operation of the banking system. You see that in the way Congress is behaving and the kinds of laws they're passing now and the kinds of things they're discussing. I think the major change is towards conservatism in the financial area, and nothing can turn that around. So your question is a long-term question, and we can say only that we know it can't last forever. But I can recall people in the 1960s writing about how the government was spending too much, there's too much debt, this couldn't go on forever. It always seems to go on longer than people think it should, certainly than I think it should.

There's an observation—and I don't know who the first person was to say this—that crises always develop slowly and then seem to come out of the blue when they happen. We've been watching this crisis develop for years and years and years. We know we're getting close to the end. I think between now and 2016 you're going to see that flash point when everybody's eyes get big and they realize it's here.

JP: In 1933 at the bottom of the crisis, the Roosevelt administration comes in. In its first week they declare a bank holiday, they reopen the banks with the FDIC, they sever gold, they come in with massive fiscal stimulus and they devalue the dollar substantially. The result was from 1933 to1937 we have positive CPI, economic growth, a robust stock market. If fiscal and monetary measures fail to revive the economy and the market, could the government try devaluation to change the deflationary outcome the way they did 1933?

RP: Well, you have to have a benchmark in order to devalue a currency. Our currency isn't pegged to anything, so I don't understand even what the term devaluation would mean. What would they do to do create a devaluation?

JP: Maybe they come out with a formal saying: the dollar is now worth a half a euro, X amount of yen or it’s a formal statement. They just declare it formally.

RP: Yeah, but everybody already knows what it's worth, because it's floating freely against these other currencies. And they certainly couldn't fix it to a lesser currency like the euro. And then the managers of this other currency would simply make another decree and negate it. That’s not going to work.

Let's take your example, because it's very important. The whole idea of the government being ahead of the curve is bogus. You know the collapse was from September 1929 down to July 1932, right? The government did not act until it was over. They waited for the bottom of the collapse—of course—and then they finally decided they're going to do something about it. So, months after the low in 1932, they finally shut the banks and pass laws such as Glass-Steagall, which created the FDIC, and the Securities and Exchange Act, and that sort of thing, to bring confidence back into the banking system. I think the same thing is going to happen here. They're going to try the same old stuff, more and more lending, more and more borrowing—which is the problem, not the solution—until everything collapses, and then they'll go, “Oh maybe we should try something else,” and by that time we'll already be at the deflationary nadir, and it'll be time to look for an inflationary outcome.

My whole thesis is exactly along those lines. We want to stay prepared for a deflationary crash, and when it’s over, we're going to convert whatever money we have to stocks, and raw land, and gold, and whatever else we want to buy. That's when—if the government makes a political decision to inflate through currency printing—it would make the decision. They're not going to make it before the bottom. The government has never acted before the bottom, never acted in a new way. Right now these bailouts and other schemes are simply pressing the accelerator harder on what we've been doing since 1913.

Get Up to Speed With Robert Prechter's Latest Perspective. Read the full report titled "Deadly Bearish Big Picture" (Prechter's two-part, 20-page, April-May 2010 Theorists) plus his latest June issue with a thorough, new interview on inflation vs. deflation. It was so insightful and easy to digest that Bob now shares it with his own readers, please click here to learn how to get risk-free access now.

JP: You know, unlike the '30s when there were other currencies, even in the ‘20s during Germany's hyperinflation, there were other currencies that were backed by gold. But say we live in a fiat world where all currencies are fiat, what's to stop the process of competitive devaluations where countries keep devaluing against each other during that period of time; the one benchmark that rises is, let’s say, the value of gold?

RP: Well, they can't devalue, because their currencies are not pegged to anything. The only way that a country can effect something like a devaluation is to print money. So they can't simply devalue and say, “Well, now our franc is worth so much gold, or now our dollar is worth so much gold.” Everybody already knows what gold is trading for in dollar terms, so there's no decree that could devalue the currency. It has to be valued to something before you can devalue it. And I don’t see what they would accomplish by establishing a new, false value.

JP: All right, let’s take the situation like the Fed last March, where they said, “We're going to monetize $1.7 trillion.” People thought the ECB would be steadfast, and they came up with their trillion-dollar equivalent rescue package. What's to stop them from saying, “All right, we're going to this time to try and monetize three or four million dollars?”

RP: Nothing! theoretically. But I think eventually social mood is going to stop them in their tracks. People are already upset at the government and the Fed, and they're going to start throwing congressmen out who keep acting this way. At the moment there are no restrictions on the Fed from monetizing. But even its own governors are arguing about the amount of monetization that they've already undertaken. I think there's internal resistance to the idea of doing far more.

Even if they did another five trillion, there's a quadrillion dollars worth of bad debt over the entire world, and they can't monetize it all. They're not going to the local courthouse and buying these bad mortgages, are they? They bought some through Fannie and Freddie that were more or less guaranteed by the Treasury.I just can't see the Fed saying, “Yes, we're going to buy everybody's rotten IOUs.” If they said that, people would start writing IOUs, wouldn’t they? I would.

There are going to be limits. There’s more bad debt out there than the Fed could possibly handle. And not only that, I want to make one more point: Even if the Fed monetizes old bonds that people thought were good, that doesn't change the net supply of money plus credit. It simply changes credit into money, so I don't think that that necessarily creates inflation. Under a robust economy it does, because those dollars can be re-lent. But if nobody wants to borrow, if nobody can borrow, there's still no net inflation. That's why you can have a year like 2008 and early 2009 despite trillion-dollar bailout packages by the government and the Fed.

JP: I want to come back to government spending, but first I want to move onto the stock market. In your last two Elliott Wave Theorist issues, you laid out a scenario that would put the Dow and S&P, which in your opinion may have peaked on April 26, as the top from here. You feel that this top is the biggest top formation of all time, a multi-century top and we could head straight down in a six-year collapse that would end in 2016 that could see a substantial portion of the S&P and the Dow wiped out in a similar way that we saw between 1929 and 1933. Let's talk about that and the reasoning behind it.

RP: Yes, you're exactly right. I did a lot of work on technical forms, cycle forms and Elliott wave forms in April and May and put them in a double issue. Let’s talk about the cycles first.

The 7¼-year cycle has been quite regular since the first bottom in 1980. The next bottom was at the crash in October 1987. The next one was November 1994, which is when the economy went through four years with lots of layoffs; it was a recessionary period throughout until that cycle bottomed. The next one was between September 2001, which was the 9/11 attack, and the October 2002 bottom. And the latest one was at the low in March 2009. All those periods are 7¼ years apart, so we are in the uptrend portion of the 7¼-year cycle.

However, notice for example that in 1987, the market went up until August of that year and then bottomed in October, just a couple of months later. So the decline occurred very, very late in the cycle. This time it occurred a little bit earlier in the cycle, topping in '07 and bottoming in '09. In the current cycle, prices should peak the earliest of all of them. It's what we in the cycle prediction business call “left-hand translation.” The market’s already gone up for about a year, and I think that's just about enough. I think we're going to spend most of the cycle going down. But the important thing to note is that the next bottom is due in 2016. That means I think we're going to have a repeat of what happened between 1930—which was the top of the rally following the 1929 crash—and the July 1932 low. Instead of taking two years, it's going to take about six years.

It's going to be a very long decline. It's going to be interrupted by many, many rallies, just as the decline from 1930 to 1932 was. And every time it bottoms and rallies, people are going to say “OK, that's enough; it's over.” But it won't be over. It's just going to be a long, long process. I think you and I will probably be talking a few times during this period. One of the interesting aspects of this process is that optimism should actually remain dominant through the first three years of the cycle. That will carry us into 2012. Even though prices will be edging lower, most people are going to think it's a buy, and you shouldn't get out of your stocks, and recovery is just around the corner, probably for the next three years. And then, for the final half of the cycle, the final three years, that's when you'll get the capitulation phase when everyone finally gives up.

Get Up to Speed With Robert Prechter's Latest Perspective. Read the full report titled "Deadly Bearish Big Picture" (Prechter's two-part, 20-page, April-May 2010 Theorists) plus his latest June issue with a thorough, new interview on inflation vs. deflation. It was so insightful and easy to digest that Bob now shares it with his own readers, please click here to learn how to get risk-free access now.

JP: I want to come back to that period, because we saw, beginning with Hoover, widespread intervention of government. We had a lot of pronouncements from the Secretary of the Treasury to the President to the head of the Federal Reserve to prominent people such as John D. Rockefeller. His famous saying was: “Me and my son went down to the floor and started buying.” There was this kind of hope, I guess, in the sense that government could fix a problem, and I believe that we're still in the hope that government can fix the problem. Look at this tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico and everybody's turning to Washington, like Obama is going to put on a deep sea diving suit and go down a mile below the ocean and plug the hole. Are we in that similar type period were people are looking at government and saying, “OK, fix this”?

RP: We are in that period on steroids. Back then, in October 1929, people didn't turn to government right away; they turned to private bankers. There was a banking consortium of the big banking guys who said, “We're buying stocks here,” and you'd get these half-day rallies where the market would go up like 12 percent and then close unchanged. This time we have a much bigger gorilla, two gorillas actually: the Treasury and the Fed. They're saying, “We're going to make money available for nothing, and we're going to give credit for nothing, and we're going to bail everybody out that's possibly having trouble.” It's a similar consortium, but this time it's much bigger and it's all public. Last time it was at least partly private. Today no one turns to the private sector for answers to these systemic problems. They think the government can solve them all.

So, government right now, to me, is the naked king riding down the street on a horse, and people haven't noticed that he's not wearing clothes yet. But they will by the time it’s over.

As I see it, in 1929 to 1932, the lesson people took away from that time—which Franklin Roosevelt exploited—is that private interests failed. And this go-round, by the time it's over, I think people are going to conclude that government has failed. They already are very sour on government, but the deeper we get into this cycle the more people are going to realize that the government doesn't know what it’s doing. There's nothing it can do to alleviate the problem. And even deeper than that, it is the cause of most of our problems today. We can go through the litany, but it was government that created all of these credit-pushing agencies that ballooned up the real estate market and made houses impossible to afford so that people had to borrow 99 percent of a house just to live in one. Congress created Ginnie Mae and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks, and every one of them was pushing credit on the public and forcing up housing prices and making it incredibly hard to buy a house for cash. It’s doing the same thing with the price of education by pushing student loans.

All this credit is the problem, and now everybody owes money and no one has any money to pay it off. The banks are ruined; they've lent out everything. The paper that they hold, most of which is mortgages, is becoming worth less every day that they hold them. They're trying to liquidate homes, and they can't liquidate them fast enough, and when they do they're getting 40 cents on the dollar if they're lucky. In my view, most of the banking system is already bankrupt; people just haven't lost confidence yet.

This upturn in the cycle has allowed people to regain some confidence. You know, back in February of 2009 people were starting to get afraid, very afraid, but it was brief. That was the bottom of the 7¼-year cycle, and this time around, they're going to feel just fine for probably another couple years even as stocks fall. But eventually it's going to lead to a banking crisis, and I don't think the FDIC has the resources to handle it.

JP: You know, one thing that happened in the markets between '29 and the bottom of '32, there were some very astute investors, such as Bernard Baruch. And one investor that everybody knows is Jesse Livermore; he made a fortune shorting the markets in the '29 crash, but he got back in stocks in 1931-1932 and got wiped out. Is this going to be a difficult market to navigate?

RP: This is exactly what's happening today. If there were some smart people out there that said “Let’s short them” in '08, they're not going to short them this time around because many people have decided that we're in a real recovery and the most we can do is double-dip. But as happened to Jesse Livermore, the '29 crash was simply the first shot across the bow. The real destruction occurred from April 1930 to July 1932. Stocks lost over 80 percent of their value over that period. I think that's exactly the kind of environment we're in, and it's going to fool the smartest people on the planet. If you ask the people in the administration, the smartest people on the planet are running the Fed and the Treasury. I think they're going to get fooled. They think they can guarantee all this debt and get away with it; they're even talking about how they're going to make a profit. There's no way that's going to happen. They're going to dig themselves deeper and deeper into the hole until they finally blink. They're going to realize that if they're going to maintain any credibility with creditors on the face of the earth, they're going to have to stop.

Get Up to Speed With Robert Prechter's Latest Perspective. Read the full report titled "Deadly Bearish Big Picture" (Prechter's two-part, 20-page, April-May 2010 Theorists) plus his latest June issue with a thorough, new interview on inflation vs. deflation. It was so insightful and easy to digest that Bob now shares it with his own readers, please click here to learn how to get risk-free access now.

JP: In your May issue of the Theorist, you talk about this recent top as being the beginning of something big and describing how financial bubbles always get resolved through a price collapse, despite the efforts of government. We've talked a little bit about the technical aspects of that cycle, the seven-year time period. Let's talk about the socionomic reasons for this viewpoint as well.

RP: I think that markets, particularly the stock market, move up and down on waves of social mood. It is not buffeted by the news; the news results from waves of social mood. When the trend is up and people are feeling more positive, they buy stocks. It’s a natural, unconscious action. They always have an excuse and a rationalization, but the point is that they're feeling better and are willing to gamble.

Business owners do the same thing. They'll decide, “I’m going to borrow some money and expand my business.”That decision doesn't show up for a couple of months, because he has to go down to the bank, they have to negotiate a contract, they have to come to an agreement, the money has to change hands, then he has to put it to work. That's why the economy lags the stock market: People can buy and sell stocks in an instant based on their mood changes, but you don't see the economic numbers change until several months later. The recession always ends after the stock market turns up, and the economy always peaks after the stock market rolls over. That's why people are always caught at those turns.

In the year 2000, the market finished a very major uptrend in social mood that had been going on for many decades. It culminated in the greatest financial mania we've ever seen. And it's been unwinding ever since. It had a bubble rebound in 2003 to 2007 that's now over. It's having a last try at the upside, which is failing. I believe this ended in April, but I could be wrong by a few months; it should end sometime this year. But somewhere between 2010 and 2016, we ought to have the resolution period, which is a complete change in social behavior as it relates to social mood. People are going to get more and more negative, more and more pessimistic, and more and more conservative with their money, all the way down. That is the essential reason why the trend is changing. And there's nothing that anyone can do to change it, because mood changes are endogenously regulated. That simply means they're internal to the system.

Human beings have been changing their moods for thousands of years, and nothing is going to change it. Nearly everything we see in society is a result of that. That's why we study wave behavior rather than news. Very often we're able to predict the news, just as we talked about in 2009 when we said that at the end of the coming rally you're going to see up quarters in the economy and everyone is going to say, “We saved the financial system,” and so on. We're seeing that now. The next wave of news is going to be negative. Sometime later this year or in 2011, we're going to start seeing negative quarters again. Eventually I think we're going to see unemployment jump to 30 percent or even higher. I think we can predict headlines years ahead of time based on what the waves are likely to do. People who are looking at economic numbers now to try to decide whether there's deflation or recession or recovery are looking at lagging indicators. You have to look at the leading indicators to get a handle on the future.
JP: You know, I think a lot of investors around today would forget, but after the experience of what happened in the '30s and up into the war, there were a lot of institutions that couldn't even own stocks because they were considered risky investments. If you did own a stock, the dividend yields were higher than what you got paid in bonds, a lot higher. And that lasted for a long period of time.

RP: You are absolutely correct. In the 20th century, dividend yields would get as high as six to seven percent, and of course in 1932 they were 17 percent very briefly. I spoke with an academic from one of the Ivy League schools who told me he was very happy about the fact that in the late 1990s he figured out a way to trick employees into buying more stocks through the pension plans that companies offer. They let people decide where they want the pension money to go. He said a lot of people chose cash, but he figured out a way to get people to choose stocks. And that is the complete opposite of the way people felt in the 1940s. They were conservative and thought stocks were risky. In the past decade, people said that the risk is being out of stocks, you want to be in them. That is a multi-decade change in attitude that is completely based on this trend in social mood. I’m convinced that by the end of this decade people are going to feel even more negative towards stocks than they did in the '40s. They'll tell their children and grandchildren not to touch the stock market.

JP: You know it's interesting, too, because when I got in this business in 1979 and '80 we were going through a series of bear markets, and in 1981 the dividend yields were back in that six to seven percent range. It happened twice at least when I began my career, that's where dividend yields were.

RP: Yeah, in 1974 and 1982, and those were great buying opportunities. That's when I wrote my bullish book with AJ Frost called Elliott Wave Principle. We predicted a great bull market and it would end in a mania because it was to be a fifth wave under our Elliott wave model. That was a major bottom. And when I look at March 2009, as much as I said “they're going to rally from here,” that was not a major bottom. It had none of the earmarks from a valuation standpoint, a psychological standpoint or a momentum standpoint.

Get Up to Speed With Robert Prechter's Latest Perspective. Read the full report titled "Deadly Bearish Big Picture" (Prechter's two-part, 20-page, April-May 2010 Theorists) plus his latest June issue with a thorough, new interview on inflation vs. deflation. It was so insightful and easy to digest that Bob now shares it with his own readers, please click here to learn how to get risk-free access now.

JP: I want to take two well-known investors who would take the opposing view of a declining market. One is Dr. Marc Faber, who believes the S&P low of 666 will stand and that the government will simply inflate, because its debt is denominated in its own currency, unlike let’s say what we saw in Mexico where Mexico experienced some problems as a result of devaluation, they saw an increase in their stock market from the lows in nominal terms. So Marc believes because the U.S. debt is denominated in its own currency, the government will simply print, print, print. To add to Marc's views I want to take famed investor Felix Zulauf. In a recent interview in Barron's he also said one day the world's financial system will reach a financial reckoning day where the Fed's balance sheet will expand not by just a trillion or two, but by multiples of that, five, six, seven trillion, which would negate the deflation scenario. How would you argue against Faber and Zulauf's views?

RP: I don't think I have to. These are political predictions that may or may not come true. In other words, why does it have to go that way? Someone else could say just as easily, “Well, it's also possible that the voters will all become Tea Partiers, they'll throw all these people out, and they'll elect conservative guys who will balance the budget and eliminate the Fed.” How would you argue against that? You can't. It's just a scenario. It's not an argument, just a possible scenario.

Still, I don't think it's likely because of what I already said. I think the change in social mood towards the negative is already showing results. Here we are in a positive rebound, yet you’re still seeing Tea Parties and you're still seeing incumbents pushed out of office. I think by the time the trend really turns down again and breaks those 2009 lows, you're going to see the public so angry at their representatives that they're going to start forcing a difference in behavior. Congress is not going to be spending like it was before. They'll probably be drawn and quartered if they try to bail out another giant bank or certainly if they try to bail out the European banks as they did in the AIG disaster. All of this spendthrift behavior people are cluing into, and it's spreading on the Internet, and it's spreading through word of mouth.

You have this scenario that politicians are just going to monetize and they're going to go crazy. But it’s not a given. It requires that politicians are somehow untouchable by politics. But in a democracy, they're very subject to politics. Even in Greece, the leaders of that country wanted nothing more than to keep spending and borrowing and spending and borrowing. The creditors finally came in and said, “Enough. You can't continue or you're going to be literally out of power and bankrupt tomorrow.” So they agreed to some austerity programs, some creditors came to the door; some European governments, for example, came to the door. It's always the creditors who are in control—these bond vigilantes. Even Clinton was upset when he found out they existed. The U.S. government depends on these people for all of its borrowings. The Fed hardly has any U.S. Treasury bonds anymore; its portfolio is full of mortgages and all sorts of junk. The private market and other governments have sopped up all these Treasury bonds. The government could decide to “print, print, print,” but the only thing it can print are bonds. It can't print Fed notes; it can only print bonds. If the creditors shut down and say we're not taking any more of Treasury bonds, there's going to be a real disaster. They're going to have to raise interest rates to double digits, maybe 80 percent or 100 percent or some crazy amount. That's going to suck money from every other corner of the earth, and the economy is going to crash one way or another.

A crashing economy is going to be deflationary, because it means the debt that exists won't be paid off. It's the collapse in existing debt that's the problem. Now the Fed and the Treasury are trying to shore up some of this debt. The Treasury said, “Look, we're going to guarantee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” and the Fed gave money to help bail out Greece. The IMF did the same thing, which is mostly funded through the American taxpayer. But relative to the amount of outstanding credit, these are actually small moves, even though they're unprecedentedly large. That's because the amount of credit that has been building up for 70 years dwarfs the amount of money that we have in circulation. I think the problem is too big for them to solve. It's too late. The only thing they have to offer is more credit, more credit, more credit. So far, they really haven't offered much more money. Credit is the problem, so printing more bonds in my view is not going to solve the problem. The government has already been borrowing at a mad pace. Wouldn't you agree that the last year or two has seen the greatest government borrowing ever? And yet you certainly don't have runaway inflation according to the commodity indexes. What is it going to take to create inflation? It's going to require that they create something like 100 trillion dollars worth of new money, and I don't think Congress is going to be able to stand up to the people and do that.

These scenarios are matters of social analysis, political analysis and opinion. What I’m saying is, let's look at present conditions in the U.S. We can also look at Japan, which had quantitative easing like crazy, and they still ended up deflating: Stock prices are down, and real estate prices are way down in Japan. And the same thing is going to happen here. And that's the best scenario. The Japanese economy kept going because the rest of the world was still expanding. Now the whole world is basically on the edge of depression. Nobody's going to be able to bail out the world, because we're the only people in it.

I think it's a one way road to the nearly complete collapse of outstanding credit. And if you count all the derivatives, all the domestic and foreign debt that exists, you've got about a quadrillion dollars worth of IOUs out there and already written. I just don't think central banks can or will replace all of that debt with money. It would mean their own self-destruction. And not only that, there's this thing called moral hazard. As I said in a recent issue, the Fed is not a moral institution; it does not care about morality. But if it were to announce that it was literally going to monetize all the bad debt that anybody can create, the first thing that would happen is everybody would be out there creating new debt as best as they possibly could and selling it to the Fed. The scenario is not realistic. It comes from people who think the Fed and the government are machines. They don't realize that they're run by people who are going to have to survive politically. I don't think they're going to be allowed to do it. But time will tell.

JP: This brings me to an interesting question. Right now, the government spends about four trillion, and they take in close to two trillion in revenues. Every dollar they spend, 43 cents is coming from debt. Then we have $54 trillion in total debt as a country and another equal amount of unfunded liabilities. Social Security this year is paying out more than it takes in, and we have problems with Medicare. Despite the fact that these programs are going broke, we just added a new healthcare entitlement. Can you have a situation—let me just throw this one out because I’m dealing with my own state of California, which I think will be bankrupt. California has a habit of putting all these initiatives on the ballot. We want this, we want that. And the initiatives get passed, but then we block the tax increases to pay for it. People like the entitlements that they get, but they don't want to be taxed to pay for them, and even some of these Tea Party people, if you told them, “OK, this is a situation we're in: We're broke. We can't afford these entitlements. And I know you paid into social security, and I know you are entitled to Medicare, but we're not going to be able to do that. We just don't have the money to pay for it.” Do you think that will change social mood? In other words, we've got these looming, big deficits on the horizon, with these entitlement programs that are over 60 percent of the government's budget. How does that get resolved? Do you see a politician looking at the people and saying, “Look I'm going to give it to you straight; here's the situation we're in?”

RP: No, not a chance. They'll run it into the ground. Governments always do that. The Soviet Union was a disaster from the day it started, but the rulers didn't give up until they squeezed every penny out of the entire country and it was a wasteland. A lot of people in government know that they're heading towards complete bankruptcy. Certainly the state governments, which can't print their own bonds willy-nilly and can't print their own money through the Fed, know this, and yet they're doing it anyway! They're all going bankrupt, and they're flat broke. They're not only broke, but they are indebted up to their eyeballs. You can't pay interest on debt or the principal on debt if you're broke. Every possible solution simply sucks more money out of the economy.

Everybody always talks about the federal government spending more money as “stimuli.” It's ridiculous. Every dollar the government spends is a drag on the economy. It has to come out of someone else's hide: either by direct payment from the taxpayer or by borrowing the money, which means it can't be lent to a private business. The more the government spends and the more the government borrows, the weaker the economy gets. The weaker the economy is, the less chance it has to pay off the principal and interest that the debtors owe. If public servants’ behavior were any different, then the outcome may be different. But studying world history tells you that governments always take from the economy until it's completely destroyed. It's sad, but it's pretty predictable. You don't see someone coming into California and saying, “Let's clean all this up. Let's cut the budget by 60 or 70 percent and start paying our bonds off so we're completely out of debt in 15 years.” It's easy to do, anybody could do it. But they won't.

Get Up to Speed With Robert Prechter's Latest Perspective. Read the full report titled "Deadly Bearish Big Picture" (Prechter's two-part, 20-page, April-May 2010 Theorists) plus his latest June issue with a thorough, new interview on inflation vs. deflation. It was so insightful and easy to digest that Bob now shares it with his own readers, please click here to learn how to get risk-free access now.

JP: I want to move on to the public. The public got into the stock market game late—in the late ’90s, especially after '97 with the tech boom. They got their clocks cleaned in the correction, the bear market let’s say, from 2000 to 2002. Then they moved their money over into the real estate market and from real estate, they got back into the stock market. They got their clocks cleaned again. Now for the last seven consecutive months, the public is moving into bond funds: junk bonds, corporate bonds, Treasury bonds. Is this another recipe for disaster?

RP: You read my mind. On several recent interviews when I was on television, I went through that exact list. Now everyone thinks that they don't want stocks; they don't trust stocks anymore. They don't want commodities; they got creamed in the oil market. They don't want real estate; they can see that that's not going to recover for 20 years. So what are they buying? They're loading up on bonds, especially municipal bonds and corporate bonds, many of which are junk. They think they can get their 6½ to 8½ percent yield. This is going to be the biggest disaster of all of them, because we're headed down the road to complete debt collapse. They're putting their money into these instruments, and one day the debtors are going to announce, “We're sorry; we can't honor any of these IOUs.” The people who've invested in these things are going to realize that, instead of that 100,000 dollars or million dollars or 50 million dollars that they thought they had in safe places in municipal debt, in corporate debt, they're going to have zero. One by one, these debtors are going to give up on paying any part of it. They're just going to default or go bankrupt. This is another thing that happened to some degree in the early 1930s. There were counties and cities that declared bankruptcy; their debt was no good anymore. It certainly happened to some corporate debt.

This time the situation is 20 times worse than it was in 1929-1930. We’re heading into a much bigger collapse. So I agree 100 percent: The last thing you want to do is what everyone else is doing. This is why ever since Conquer the Crash, I've been very, very consistent in saying that you want the safest possible cash and cash equivalents. That means cash notes, Treasury bills—not even Treasury bonds—and certainly no municipal debt, no corporate debt, and no foreign debt, except maybe for Swiss money market claims, which are the equivalents of T-bills; in other words, none of the things that people think they find attractive. They find bonds attractive because they think they have a yield. That yield is actually, in the end, going to come out of the principal.

JP: I find it almost astounding in looking at the monthly inflows in municipal bond funds, because we know next year the top tax rates under the Bush tax cuts expire, so people are saying if you're going back into a 40 percent tax bracket, buy muni bonds. I saw an advisor who was addressing some of these issues that you and I have been talking about, about municipal debt problems and the fact that they can't print their own money, and he was talking about, well, in a fund or in an ETF, you're diversified. But if you own 200 bonds in California, and California goes bankrupt, what good is the diversification?

RP: That was the argument that they used to sell people a bunch of crummy mortgages: “Oh yeah, they're all individually no good, but you put them together and you're fine, you're diversified.” So that doesn't work for me. It's a bogus argument. It's a great way to sell the worst stuff you’ve got.

If you're a financial planner, you're probably telling your clients to make sure you have a lot of different types of bonds. There's some value to diversification in certain restricted situations. For example, when I say I think people should be completely in cash, I would like them to be in several different forms of it. That's a safe way to diversify. The people who really believe that municipal bonds are the place to be are being prudent when they say, “OK, you should have different ones just in case I'm wrong about one of them.” What these people are missing is that the problem isn't going to be just one city or one state. It's systemic. The only state that I know of that doesn't have a serious debt burden is Nebraska, because they have a law against it.

JP: I want to move on to the topic of gold. It's gone up for ten consecutive years, including this year so far. I know at times you've recommended gold after severe pullbacks, but you've been generally bearish towards the metal. Has its relentless rise surprised you?

RP: Yes. It went higher than I originally thought. I actually put out a very bullish comment on gold the day of the bottom in February 2001. Barron's had run an article that day showing that nobody was bullish; even the industry was bearish, and they were putting out hedges. I said this is a real good buy. But I only rode it up for about a year, year and a half, and it's gone much higher than I originally thought. However, I also think that it's very much a situation such as we had in the oil market, or in the real estate market, or in the stock market, or now in the muni market. It's an area where people have focused particularly in the last two years at the expense of other areas. And that means it's going to probably pay the price and have a serious correction. There are two things that make me feel that way. First are the non-confirmations against other metals and the gold stocks. The XAU topped in 2008, platinum topped in 2008, and silver topped in 2008, so gold has gone to new highs in the last two years all by itself. The second thing that I think is important is the fact that at a recent peak in gold we had a reading from the Daily Sentiment Index put out by MBH Commodities that showed 98% of futures traders in the gold market were bullish. That's the same reading we had on the euro when it topped out and the dollar bottomed. It's not a good time to be betting that gold is going to keep going up.

I'm very patient. I think we're going to have a buying opportunity in gold sometime in the next few years. I certainly wouldn't want to be overly leveraged in gold right now. It's stretched about as far as it's going to go. I also realize that I've said that a couple of times. We'll just have to see how it turns out. I think people in gold stocks have been very disappointed for the last two years; they've actually lost money even though gold has made new highs. It's definitely not a monolithic market. It's the single market that's doing well. I'll also point out that most of the people who believe in hyperinflation do not talk about those other markets very much. They point to the gold markets, but they don't point to the silver market, which is still 60 percent below where it was in 1980, or platinum, which is way under its old high. I think they're being selective in pointing one finger, and it's better to look not only at gold but also at these other precious metals, the gold stock index, and especially the CRB index of commodities, which includes oil and agricultural commodities and everything else.

In a hyperinflationary environment, such as Germany in the 1920s or Zimbabwe in the last decade, everything went up; prices were soaring all the time. And now, very few commodities are moving on the upside, most of them are very stagnant. They're down 50 percent from their 2008 highs and don't seem ready to go anywhere. That could change. But so far, I think people who are saying gold is making new highs because inflation is a threat aren't looking at the rest of the indicators of inflation.

Get Up to Speed With Robert Prechter's Latest Perspective. Read the full report titled "Deadly Bearish Big Picture" (Prechter's two-part, 20-page, April-May 2010 Theorists) plus his latest June issue with a thorough, new interview on inflation vs. deflation. It was so insightful and easy to digest that Bob now shares it with his own readers, please click here to learn how to get risk-free access now.

JP: Is it possible that your deflationary scenario plays out only against gold? In nominal terms asset prices rise, but in terms of gold they continue to deflate? I know you've written something similar about this in the past.

RP: Well, that would be inflation. That would be the hyperinflationary scenario such as happened in Germany and in Zimbabwe. Real stock prices were actually going down even though nominal prices were going up. That's the stagflation scenario, a replay of the 1970s but bigger. I don't believe it. I think nominal prices are finally ready to follow real prices on the way down.

Probably my best forecast, but unfortunately not one that I pushed, was one I published in early 2001. It was a picture of the Dow Industrial Average priced in ounces of gold, going back 200 years. At that time, I said I think it's going to go from the current level, which was in the low 40s—I think the Dow peaked being valued at 42 ounces of gold—all the way back to 1. So we're going to go down to par; the Dow and the dollar price of gold are going to be equal. Stock prices are not only going to go down in nominal terms, but they're also going to go down in real terms by 40 to 1. The Dow has already fallen to a value of 10 ounces of gold, so it’s gone a long way towards fulfilling that forecast. It's possible that that forecast, as I said at the time, could happen no matter what happens to the currency, even if it's inflated. That outcome to me is unavoidable. The ultimate decline in the stock market is going to take prices to depression levels. In January 1973, when the Dow made a new high in nominal terms but not real terms, it led to a decline in nominal terms. We had the same thing happen in 2007: The Dow made a new high in nominal terms but was not even close in real terms. It really turned turtle at that point, falling 57 percent in the S&P in 2007 and 2009 in nominal terms. I think that's the beginning of the big decline we're looking for.

We'll have to see how it plays out. Six years is a long time. I think we'll see a decline in nominal terms. Whatever money survives is going to be able to buy a lot more than what it can buy today. This ocean of credit, as you pointed out earlier, that's now being supported by the Fed and the Treasury instead of private interests, has managed to hold prices up. I think it's more precarious than ever. When the implosion begins, it's really going to be relentless.
JP: What would cause you to change your position on deflation? What would you like to see before you would change that position?

RP: If the major benchmarks that were pushed up by credit make new highs, then I'll say somehow these brilliant directors of our financial life and economic life have won the inflation game. That would mean if real estate went to a new high above its 2006 peak, the stock market averages went above their 2007 highs, and the commodity indexes went above their 2008 highs, I would probably have to conclude that they must be printing money faster than credit is imploding. I have been arguing from the beginning that outstanding credit is already there and it can implode faster than anybody can monetize. We'll just have to see.

JP: If I were to summarize your views: The greatest part of the economic and market downturn lies ahead of us. On the economic side, you see an economic depression unfolding. From a stock market perspective, you see a near 90 percent downturn unfolding over a six-year period. And most bonds will fall in a major wave of deflation. Have I left anything out?

RP: You've nailed it.

Get Up to Speed With Robert Prechter's Latest Perspective. Read the full report titled "Deadly Bearish Big Picture" (Prechter's two-part, 20-page, April-May 2010 Theorists) plus his latest June issue with a thorough, new interview on inflation vs. deflation. It was so insightful and easy to digest that Bob now shares it with his own readers, please click here to learn how to get risk-free access now.

JP: Once this bottom is reached, is that when you see hyperinflation kicking in?

RP: Well, that's when it would be politically possible. Maybe I should even say financially possible. I don't think it's possible now, because we have so much outstanding debt. If the debt market collapses and bonds are no longer any good, then at that point Congress could make a political decision to get its hands on a printing press and start printing notes. Right now, it doesn't have that ability, and the Fed is somewhat of an independent bank. I don't think it really wants to own the worst debt on the face of the earth to back its notes. It generally tries to buy things that it believes will hold value. That behavior hasn't changed. But it might later.

JP: Under your scenario, how would you be positioning your portfolio? You've talked about the most secure cash type of instruments such as Treasury bills. Anything else you would own?

RP: That’s the most important question, so I'm glad you're bringing it up near the end of our discussion. Now, you know that we try to call markets all the time, so we have services for people who want to trade, who want to get in the dollar, get out of the dollar, get into the stock market, get out of the stock market, or maybe sell short for certain declines. But typical investors in my view should not be in any financial market. They should be in cash and safe cash equivalents. The people who have been holding cash occasionally look around and say, “Look at the big bull market I'm missing; I'm missing this whole move in oil,” and so on. But the people who bought oil futures believing that oil was going to go up forever got killed. They got slaughtered. The people that bought real estate: same thing. There are stories of people in Las Vegas or Florida that had 24 homes, which they had pyramided one on top of the other; all was credit, all was collateral for more credit from banks. All it took was a 20% downturn and they were wiped out. They have no money left. These people are flat broke.

Even though there will be bounces in some investments, whether it be commodities, or oil, or gold, or stocks, or whatever, by the time this whole process is over it'll be the people like Bernard Baruch, who went to cash somewhere in 1928 or 1929 and stayed out of the way, allowing their cash to be worth more and more, who come out winners. For example, the dollar is now worth twice as much “house” as it was in 2008. I think more and more of that is going to happen. The people that are holding onto cash are eventually going to find bargains in consumer prices as well. Consumer prices are the last prices to turn, so they really haven’t had much of a turn yet. Their rate of change is still near zero, but I think eventually deflation is going to affect consumer prices. We've recently seen Wal-Mart and some other discount stores cutting prices. How could that possibly happen in a hyperinflationary environment? I think the pressures are already there.

In hyperinflation, what's the classic scene in your mind? It's people with wheelbarrows full of marks and Zimbabwe dollars, or whatever they call them, trying to get rid of them in whatever way they can. Today, it's exactly the opposite. People are out there scrounging for dollars. They can't get them from banks; banks are stingy and won't lend. The stores want dollars from the customers, but the customers don't have the dollars to go in and buy the stuff, and that's why you're seeing bargains appear. People are trying to find jobs, but it's very difficult to get an employer to part with a salary because he's trying to cut corners. Dollars are hard to come by now despite all of the inflation, despite all of the stimulus, and despite all of the stupid government programs, which are actually making things worse. To me, the reality here, even though it's not really severe yet, is the opposite of a hyperinflationary environment. People are trying to get hold of money; they're not trying to get rid of it.

JP: Finally Bob, is there anything else I've left out or an important point you'd like to make to end our discussion on?

RP: One of the consequences of a positive social mood is that society is lots of fun and great to be in. You saw an example of that in the 1980s and '90s. People were entertained; they were in a good mood; there was very little mayhem, very little social unrest. When the trend turns down, the opposite happens. Shortly after the top occurred in 2000, we finally had an attack on the American continent from an outside source for the first time since the War of 1812. Then the government decided we had to go to war. We've now been in the longest war we've ever fought. You're starting to see threats from North Korea, telling South Korea they're going to turn them into a sea of flames. You're hearing Israel talking about maybe attacking Iran. These are consequences of a negative social mood. Our lives are going to get very, very difficult. I think when the banks fail and people with little money find out they now have no money, it's going to get far more challenging.

I think that four years from now people won't even be listening to financial interviews because they won't care about the stock market, they won't care about investments; they'll all be down, and the money will be gone. They're going to be worried much more about their livelihoods. As much as calling the market is a fun thing to do and can be a profitable thing to do, I think people should also start to think about what their alternatives are and how they can protect themselves against social unrest. I talk a little about that in Conquer the Crash; I'm not really an expert on all the ways that you can be defensive. But choosing your place to live for example could be very, very important. Certainly where your major banking is done could be very, very important. Being in an area that suffers from war or attacks or severe social breakdowns would not be good for your health.

Now—while you can think calmly and things have recovered—remember back in the first quarter of 2009, people could not think calmly. If they were told, “Here's a good way to get safe,” they could barely even get themselves to fill out forms or contact people and get the information, they were so upset with what was going on. Now we've had a recovery and people are calmer. This is the time—probably the last opportunity—to act. When the storm returns and prices are collapsing in the stock market and there's some terrorist act that's worse than the last one, it's going to be very, very hard to concentrate. That's why I try to do my media tours near the tops. I started in October 2007 doing media again. I really stepped it up from November 2009 through April of this year because I wanted to get stragglers to act when prices were up and they could get out of stocks in a nice orderly manner, in a nice calm way. We even had a little bounce in real estate. I hope that near the end of the rebound people unloaded whatever they were still stuck with. This is the time to make all of your plans. You can calmly read a book like Conquer the Crash. Maybe there's another one out there, but I don't agree with most bearish books because they're recommending foreign markets and all sorts of dollar-inflation hedges.

Whatever your camp, whether you’re a deflationist or an inflationist, you need to get your escape hatches built now, and you need to have your plans in place because its going to be a tough ride. It's going to be harder to think when the mayhem is at its peak.

Get Up to Speed With Robert Prechter's Latest Perspective. Read the full report titled "Deadly Bearish Big Picture" (Prechter's two-part, 20-page, April-May 2010 Theorists) plus his latest June issue with a thorough, new interview on inflation vs. deflation. It was so insightful and easy to digest that Bob now shares it with his own readers, please click here to learn how to get risk-free access now.

JP: You mention something interesting, so just a little anecdote as we end here. We have a nice, suburban mall with the big 18-movie complex and I just noticed we don't go to the movies that often because it's just too crowded. The last time I went to the movies, Bob, you used to have the ushers with the blazers on and the flashlights who told you to be quiet or ushered you in. These guys are now packing stun guns and nine-millimeters.

RP: Like the people in the movie!

JP: I said, “I don't believe what I'm seeing,” and sure enough, when we got out of the movie, I guess they have gang problems that come into the mall there, and there were squad cars.

RP: If you get into incidents in movie theaters, people are going to stop going to the movies. This is how negative social mood impacts everything throughout the economy. You can't say, “Well, the movie industry will be fine.” No, the negative mood is going to permeate people's behavior. It's going to make them afraid. When we had the attack on the twin towers, people wouldn't fly in planes for weeks afterwards. There are repercussions that people haven’t even thought of from this trend towards negative social mood.

Another thing I tell people: Remember how you felt after 9/11? Remember how you felt in March of 1980 when we had that Volcker jump in rates and everything was collapsing, commodities were falling, gold and silver were crashing and the stock market was going down, all at the same time? Those kinds of fears under the Elliott wave model have certain degrees attached to them. Those were bear markets of “Primary” degree. We're heading into a Supercycle degree decline. It's going to be a scary time before it's over. The time to prepare psychologically and physically is now.

JP: I couldn't agree more. As always, it's a pleasure speaking with you. If our listeners would like to follow the work that you guys do at Elliott Wave International, please give out your website.

RP: You can find us at elliottwave.com. We've got a lot of free things that we give out, you don't have to spend any money, and most of the things we do offer are very affordable. Our books are in the 20-dollar range, you can get our monthly market analysis for $19 a month. You can move up the ladder from there if you’re a really serious commodity trader or something like that. I think our publications are one of the best bargains in the world. We're the hardest working group I know. We do more market research than anybody I can name, and we back up all of our opinions with graphs and evidence. You can at least look at that research and decide whether you agree that what we conclude is important or not. Make up your own mind.

JP: I hope in the meantime between now and 2016 you'll come back, and I’m sure we'll have some more interesting conversations.

Get Up to Speed With Robert Prechter's Latest Perspective. Read the full report titled "Deadly Bearish Big Picture" (Prechter's two-part, 20-page, April-May 2010 Theorists) plus his latest June issue with a thorough, new interview on inflation vs. deflation. It was so insightful and easy to digest that Bob now shares it with his own readers, please click here to learn how to get risk-free access now.

Presented by Elliott Wave International

Founded in 1979 by Robert R. Prechter Jr., Elliott Wave International (EWI) is the world's largest market forecasting firm. Its staff of full-time analysts provides 24-hour-a-day market analysis to institutional and private investors around the world.

所有跟帖： 

• www.shadowstats.com economist M3 -marketreflections- ♂ (6607 bytes) () 07/06/2010 postreply 15:59:06

• non-self-liquidating type credit (图) -marketreflections- ♂ (3680 bytes) () 07/06/2010 postreply 16:12:27

• When money is created by the banks or the fed it is created by i -marketreflections- ♂ (2568 bytes) () 07/07/2010 postreply 09:31:13

• mis pricing: Our debt markets assume that the future will be muc -marketreflections- ♂ (584 bytes) () 07/07/2010 postreply 09:37:34

• Greenspan Any onset of increased investor caution elevates risk -marketreflections- ♂ (5807 bytes) () 07/07/2010 postreply 09:51:47

• Axel Merk -marketreflections- ♂ (66 bytes) () 07/07/2010 postreply 11:56:14

• www.debunkingeconomics.com/.../Lecture_07_Minsky_FIH_Dynamics200 -marketreflections- ♂ (4145 bytes) () 07/07/2010 postreply 15:41:21

• Companies' cash piles (图) -marketreflections- ♂ (5873 bytes) () 07/07/2010 postreply 15:53:50

• John Brynjolfsson -marketreflections- ♂ (4097 bytes) () 07/07/2010 postreply 16:13:46

• www.zerohedge.com -marketreflections- ♂ (68 bytes) () 07/07/2010 postreply 16:20:51

• marketfolly.com Hugh Hendry -marketreflections- ♂ (4088 bytes) () 07/07/2010 postreply 16:29:38

• www.creditwritedowns.com Meredith Whitney strategic default -marketreflections- ♂ (181 bytes) () 07/08/2010 postreply 11:05:13

• Texas Ratio -marketreflections- ♂ (479 bytes) () 07/08/2010 postreply 11:16:56

• http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/ -marketreflections- ♂ (43 bytes) () 07/08/2010 postreply 11:26:20

• Michael Pettis Albert Edwards -marketreflections- ♂ (5558 bytes) () 07/08/2010 postreply 17:41:28

• mpettis.com China Financial Markets -marketreflections- ♂ (69596 bytes) () 07/08/2010 postreply 17:54:48

• Andrew Roberts -marketreflections- ♂ (4171 bytes) () 07/08/2010 postreply 17:47:33

• Doug Kass -marketreflections- ♂ (1480 bytes) () 07/09/2010 postreply 16:18:15

• trader Kevin Ferry a last-ditch, crazy fifth wave. This is what -marketreflections- ♂ (5626 bytes) () 07/13/2010 postreply 11:13:32

• 波包内只能看见其他带电粒子，群聚，爱波统计；周围是高度的不确定性（高维时空） -marketreflections- ♂ (310 bytes) () 07/13/2010 postreply 11:26:05

• von Neumann 复杂的现象或动态演化过程中的吸引子、自组织和混沌现象 -marketreflections- ♂ (22359 bytes) () 07/13/2010 postreply 13:54:36

• 宇宙中存在着远离平衡状态的“自组织体系”，这些体系都是在有负熵流的作用下产生的，并且维持这种“自组织体系”的长期存在，需要外界有 -marketreflections- ♂ (3083 bytes) () 07/13/2010 postreply 14:05:03

• “自组织”,都具有“活”的有序结构，即由微观粒子的不停运动构成，需要外界不断供给物质或能量来维持和发展 -marketreflections- ♂ (2553 bytes) () 07/13/2010 postreply 14:08:55

• 风险资本市场的自组织行为 -marketreflections- ♂ (5522 bytes) () 07/13/2010 postreply 14:12:24

• 无尺度网络,证券市场需要不确定性才能得以存在和延续 -marketreflections- ♂ (13638 bytes) () 07/13/2010 postreply 14:20:26

• 《隐藏的逻辑》作者：[美]马克·布坎南/著 人类社会正在上演一场“量子革命”。物理学法则开始为我们描绘出一幅有关人或“社会原子” -marketreflections- ♂ (2298 bytes) () 07/13/2010 postreply 14:28:15

• 群众行为模式：“我们在思考自己的行为动机时，想法总是错误的，因为我们会情不自禁地以个体的身份来思考和行为 -marketreflections- ♂ (939 bytes) () 07/13/2010 postreply 14:35:17

• 经济学家认为，我们人类最重要的是具有理性思考的能力 -marketreflections- ♂ (971 bytes) () 07/13/2010 postreply 14:54:26

• 阿克塞尔罗德,理性选择假设的真正优势在于，它使推理成为了可能。”假设人是绝对理性的，能使我们单凭逻辑建构理论，而不用再煞费苦心地 -marketreflections- ♂ (1331 bytes) () 07/13/2010 postreply 14:58:28

• 逻辑思维停在了第一步或第二步 -marketreflections- ♂ (1674 bytes) () 07/13/2010 postreply 15:02:42

• John Nash:一个理性的人在得知其竞争对手也都是理性的情况下，很多时候他总是能找到一个“最佳”策略加以运用 -marketreflections- ♂ (779 bytes) () 07/13/2010 postreply 15:06:13

• 现代人的头，石器时代的脑,99％的人类历史中，我们的祖先都住在一个小型的游牧群体中，打猎和采集是他们的生存方式 -marketreflections- ♂ (2636 bytes) () 07/13/2010 postreply 15:09:33

• 密度函数,信息的累积效应,使得价格大幅波 -marketreflections- ♂ (318 bytes) () 07/13/2010 postreply 15:19:09

• 约翰·肯尼斯（John Kenneth）：经济系统之所以存活了下来，“不是因为那些预测经济未来的人工作做得有多杰出，而是因为他们 -marketreflections- ♂ (2665 bytes) () 07/13/2010 postreply 18:01:59

• 动力学:驱动市场的动因其实是投资者策略的生态体系（ecology）, and their loss and profit,cap -marketreflections- ♂ (3099 bytes) () 07/13/2010 postreply 18:06:15

• 价格变化有一个平均值，位于铃型曲线的顶点，也是变化值最常出现的地方。然后，曲线向顶点两侧快速下降,平面波 -marketreflections- ♂ (2906 bytes) () 07/13/2010 postreply 18:13:30

• 物理好图 平面水波的波速容易受波長和水深影響 -marketreflections- ♂ (4914 bytes) () 07/13/2010 postreply 18:29:29

• 均匀平面波的概念内容提要：讨论无源空间中的波动方程 (图) -marketreflections- ♂ (719 bytes) () 07/13/2010 postreply 18:35:07

• 均匀平面波 trading, no liquidity at tails -marketreflections- ♂ (7368 bytes) () 07/14/2010 postreply 15:20:33

• 波包的运动是量子力学中一个古老的课题 -marketreflections- ♂ (14103 bytes) () 07/14/2010 postreply 15:37:49

• 平面波 定态薛定谔方程定态:哈密顿算符不含时间(与时间无关)→ 粒子在空间各处出现 -marketreflections- ♂ (441 bytes) () 07/14/2010 postreply 15:53:45

• 物理好图 平面波 只有采用不含时的形式， 经典波动方程和薛定谔方程之间才可能有联系 -marketreflections- ♂ (12455 bytes) () 07/14/2010 postreply 16:04:54

• 物理好图 平面波 行波 人在抖动一条绸带时，有行波沿绸带向远端传播 (图) -marketreflections- ♂ (1286 bytes) () 07/14/2010 postreply 16:10:59

• 物理好图 平面波 行波 平面简谐行波 -marketreflections- ♂ (287 bytes) () 07/14/2010 postreply 16:15:37

• 物理好图 平面波 机械波、光波、物质波波动方程比较-黄鹏辉 -marketreflections- ♂ (747 bytes) () 07/14/2010 postreply 16:29:33

• 在保守力和定常约束作用下的力学系统称为保守系统，即保守系统[1]是指相空间相体积保持不变的系统 -marketreflections- ♂ (523 bytes) () 07/14/2010 postreply 20:24:51

• 相空间相体积保持不变的系统为保守系统 -marketreflections- ♂ (89 bytes) () 07/14/2010 postreply 20:26:37

• 相空间:┌空间：设系统由N个全同粒子组成，粒子自由度，系统自由度,广义坐标, 横坐标，广义动量,为纵坐标所张成的2f维直角坐标空 -marketreflections- ♂ (5272 bytes) () 07/15/2010 postreply 14:26:57

• Timothy Hayes, weekly close to neutralize the previous week loss -marketreflections- ♂ (120 bytes) () 07/16/2010 postreply 05:00:50

• rogernightingale.com economist trader website -marketreflections- ♂ (43 bytes) () 07/16/2010 postreply 11:22:25

• stutland.blogspot.com trader website -marketreflections- ♂ (29 bytes) () 07/16/2010 postreply 13:44:12

• sell out-of-money puts and buy at-the-money calls. -marketreflections- ♂ (1936 bytes) () 07/16/2010 postreply 13:59:33

• Directional Risk / Delta Risk trader 质子 -marketreflections- ♂ (13377 bytes) () 07/23/2010 postreply 15:32:35

• agoracom.com www.deepcapture.com -marketreflections- ♂ (7112 bytes) () 07/23/2010 postreply 15:45:01

• IMPLIED VOLATILITY EXPLANATION -marketreflections- ♂ (4678 bytes) () 07/24/2010 postreply 07:50:14

• Updated Volatility Charts options best trader -marketreflections- ♂ (47 bytes) () 07/24/2010 postreply 07:58:50

• In a put interest play, if a stock falls from $70 to $50 and the -marketreflections- ♂ (8503 bytes) () 07/24/2010 postreply 16:43:01

• Andrew Wilkinson 01.16.10 Baidu Bulls Hit The Options Hard -marketreflections- ♂ (2420 bytes) () 07/24/2010 postreply 16:54:52

• http://www.marketfolly.com/ -marketreflections- ♂ (9979 bytes) () 07/24/2010 postreply 17:11:44

• Option Gamma In a market where the stock bounces around like a y -marketreflections- ♂ (5014 bytes) () 07/24/2010 postreply 17:26:20

• Gamma Scalping vs. Bleeding -marketreflections- ♂ (4340 bytes) () 07/24/2010 postreply 17:35:45

• Gamma represents the change in delta for a given change in the s -marketreflections- ♂ (6149 bytes) () 07/24/2010 postreply 17:45:52

• TradeKing Trade Like a Market Maker: Gamma Scalping -marketreflections- ♂ (3777 bytes) () 07/24/2010 postreply 17:30:28

• PDF] The Options Course for Brokers & Market -marketreflections- ♂ (414 bytes) () 07/24/2010 postreply 17:38:29

• Gamma is important because it shows us how fast our position del -marketreflections- ♂ (4933 bytes) () 07/24/2010 postreply 17:59:50

• At-the-money options have the largest gamma -marketreflections- ♂ (826 bytes) () 07/24/2010 postreply 18:03:17

• As volatility falls,the gamma of deep in-the-money and out-of-th -marketreflections- ♂ (329 bytes) () 07/24/2010 postreply 18:06:51

• spot movement is increasingly driven by what goes on in the opti -marketreflections- ♂ (5862 bytes) () 07/24/2010 postreply 18:15:19

• when investors sell market maker puts, they have to buy stock to -marketreflections- ♂ (10648 bytes) () 07/24/2010 postreply 18:32:29

• market-makers who bought those options trade the “gamma” aggress -marketreflections- ♂ (8857 bytes) () 07/24/2010 postreply 18:53:43

• market makers can not keep up with the realized integrated volat -marketreflections- ♂ (1733 bytes) () 07/24/2010 postreply 20:21:53

• excitement or call volume before ER or major event, if not, sell -marketreflections- ♂ (4469 bytes) () 07/24/2010 postreply 21:52:51

• Oct 26, 2009：Baidu-BIDU volatility at 49; share price near recor -marketreflections- ♂ (306 bytes) () 07/24/2010 postreply 22:01:06

• www.elitetrader.com best trader -marketreflections- ♂ (118 bytes) () 07/24/2010 postreply 22:16:03

• Kevin Cook best optiontrader (图) -marketreflections- ♂ (14144 bytes) () 07/24/2010 postreply 22:33:59

• Kevin Cook best optiontrader (图2) (图) -marketreflections- ♂ (12082 bytes) () 07/24/2010 postreply 22:39:19

• Kevin Cook Baidu (图) -marketreflections- ♂ (6494 bytes) () 07/24/2010 postreply 22:52:49

• 路径积分,随着n的增大而剧烈振荡的函数,抛餐盘: 摆动角度很小时，转动速度是摆动速度的两倍 -marketreflections- ♂ (21319 bytes) () 07/25/2010 postreply 07:39:20

• 物理好图 第三章蒙特卡罗方法的若干应用 -marketreflections- ♂ (771 bytes) () 07/25/2010 postreply 07:58:44

• 维数灾难一般也就是指高维空间下数据的稀疏性,高能着贡献多 -marketreflections- ♂ (575 bytes) () 07/25/2010 postreply 08:08:24

• 费曼图 粒子会在每一个可能的方式下相互作用：实际上，居间的虚粒子超越光速是允许的。（这是基于测不准原理，因深奥的理由而不违反相对 -marketreflections- ♂ (4370 bytes) () 07/25/2010 postreply 08:14:32

• 高维积分平均值法 被积函数在超立方体的积分区域里可能强烈地变化。 -marketreflections- ♂ (5790 bytes) () 07/25/2010 postreply 08:25:09

• 对股市的最初印象，决定大多数股民的全部金融行为特征。 -marketreflections- ♂ (2365 bytes) () 07/25/2010 postreply 08:34:30

• D(k)是自旋为零的标量粒子的费曼传播子 -marketreflections- ♂ (335 bytes) () 07/25/2010 postreply 08:40:55

• 力学量是希尔伯特空间中的张量，一般是二阶的;狄拉克符号,把希尔伯特空间一分为二，互为对偶的空间 -marketreflections- ♂ (9566 bytes) () 07/25/2010 postreply 08:46:37

• 狄拉克符号法：狄拉克的q数理论（即符号法）已成为量子力学的标准语言，它包括表象理论和以q数为基础的方程 -marketreflections- ♂ (10612 bytes) () 07/25/2010 postreply 08:54:07

• 狄拉克“q数”vs.“c数”（c代表“普通”：海森堡矩阵乘法规则：p×q ≠ q×p,“泊松括号”。 -marketreflections- ♂ (9850 bytes) () 07/25/2010 postreply 09:01:43

• "矩阵乘法规则群论"”:p×q ≠ q×p。( 数学上，矩阵就是由方程组的系数及常数所构成的方阵。一个事物乘另一个事物，结果不对 -marketreflections- ♂ (3182 bytes) () 07/25/2010 postreply 09:09:33

• 在数学及经典力学中，泊松括号是哈密顿力学中重要的运算，在哈密顿表述的动力系统中时间演化的定义起着中心角色。在更一般的情形，泊松括 -marketreflections- ♂ (709 bytes) () 07/25/2010 postreply 09:13:06

• 正规矩阵: 一个复矩阵和它的共轭转置的乘积可以交换次序 -marketreflections- ♂ (305 bytes) () 07/25/2010 postreply 09:56:23

• "泊松括号时间演化", 在规则运动情形，相点轨迹对于初始条件的微小变动是稳定的 -marketreflections- ♂ (2747 bytes) () 07/25/2010 postreply 09:25:40

• PDF] 第九章正则方程 -marketreflections- ♂ (2485 bytes) () 07/25/2010 postreply 10:00:21

• 热力学第二定律即需要矩阵L为正定矩阵。包含着力学中微观可逆生考量的统计力学意味着此一矩阵为对称矩阵。此一事实称为昂萨格倒易关系 -marketreflections- ♂ (2686 bytes) () 07/25/2010 postreply 11:46:57

• 局部平衡。在某些例子中，有一堆分离的系统经由一堆分离的接连来相互作用着。连续系统则由测量每单位体积的外延量(如密度)及认为内涵量 -marketreflections- ♂ (835 bytes) () 07/25/2010 postreply 11:48:54

• 正规矩阵 normal matrix. 正则化，保守场化，有限维化，重整化，测度论，相对论也是测度论 -marketreflections- ♂ (919 bytes) () 07/25/2010 postreply 11:58:25

• the importance of the market maker's delta-neutral position -marketreflections- ♂ (484 bytes) () 07/24/2010 postreply 22:10:15

• Pin Risk www.optionsatoz.com/ -marketreflections- ♂ (11496 bytes) () 07/24/2010 postreply 22:27:38

• trader http://www.deepcapture.com/wp-content/uploads/story-of-de -marketreflections- ♂ (67 bytes) () 07/23/2010 postreply 16:04:27

• http://crimsonmind.com -marketreflections- ♂ (2692 bytes) () 07/23/2010 postreply 16:52:27

• 原子唯物论 -marketreflections- ♂ (3794 bytes) () 07/23/2010 postreply 16:56:06

• 研究原子内部结构要用到的方法：微观粒子碰撞方法 電子與質子結合成氫原子時會放出強烈的紅光 -marketreflections- ♂ (4812 bytes) () 07/23/2010 postreply 17:02:23

• 连续对称性 -marketreflections- ♂ (329 bytes) () 07/24/2010 postreply 14:35:20

• "ted spread chart" vix relates to credit mkt -marketreflections- ♂ (53 bytes) () 07/16/2010 postreply 14:09:19

• cboe.com video -marketreflections- ♂ (42 bytes) () 07/16/2010 postreply 14:40:39

• 在这新的相空间内能量曲面方程就是球面方程 -marketreflections- ♂ (945 bytes) () 07/15/2010 postreply 14:38:08

• 相空间相体积不变，可积哈密顿系统，非混饨,否则就是混饨，就要不断对下边界定性定量 -marketreflections- ♂ (687 bytes) () 07/17/2010 postreply 03:50:59

• 数值解爱因斯坦场方程为啥难 [ 测不到的信号 ] (图) -marketreflections- ♂ (6843 bytes) () 07/17/2010 postreply 04:10:26

• 能量守恒用现代哈密顿力学原理描述，就是其位置和动量所组成相空间相体积不变，但形状可以任意变化，呈现所有可能状态 -marketreflections- ♂ (41275 bytes) () 07/17/2010 postreply 05:19:45

• 而耗散系统则不然，相体积在演化过程中不断收缩，各种各样的运动在演化中逐渐衰亡，最后只剩下少数自由度决定的长时间行为，即：耗散系统 -marketreflections- ♂ (4797 bytes) () 07/17/2010 postreply 05:24:17

• 《生命之谜(探索者物语)》纯波动态只有动量而静质量为零，纯粒子态乃是只有静质量而动量为零的极化状态，实际上多数情况下呈现为波粒两 -marketreflections- ♂ (22801 bytes) () 07/17/2010 postreply 05:34:34

• http://forrootbasic.51.net来访问物理科学探疑 -marketreflections- ♂ (20 bytes) () 07/17/2010 postreply 05:45:17

• MIT开放课件首页 » -marketreflections- ♂ (248 bytes) () 07/17/2010 postreply 11:32:08

• 微分方程 .李亚普诺夫函数 ,广义相对论的基本方程组也是这样的 -marketreflections- ♂ (3777 bytes) () 07/17/2010 postreply 11:44:59

• 非线性动力学,定性方法是由彭加莱和李亚普诺夫创立的，他们同时还建立了微分方程定性理论 -marketreflections- ♂ (20727 bytes) () 07/17/2010 postreply 11:51:43

• “手性均一”指一种手性构象占绝对优势的现象。这种现象对于今天的生命是必需的 -marketreflections- ♂ (22970 bytes) () 07/17/2010 postreply 17:46:01

• 规范场理论,存在一种对称性就自动要求存在一种场，而且场可以有多个分量。人们可以应用该理论研究粒子的内部对称性 -marketreflections- ♂ (1683 bytes) () 07/17/2010 postreply 17:48:29

• 量子场论:相互作用不再是由一种连续的场来传递，而是由这种场的激发（分离的虚粒子）来传递。这些虚粒子与真实粒子定域耦合，并在真实粒 -marketreflections- ♂ (16248 bytes) () 07/19/2010 postreply 15:39:49

• 自发的对称性破缺,萨拉姆设宴请客：“饭前服务员将餐具布置于圆桌周围，各碟子间和相邻碟子间的筷子都严格等距离。入席时客人坐在碟子后 -marketreflections- ♂ (1707 bytes) () 07/17/2010 postreply 17:53:02

• 宇称不守恒的弱相互作用（这是杨振宁和李政道获得诺贝尔物理奖时的重要理论成果）通过中性流联合电磁相互作用，使手性分子两对映体的电子 -marketreflections- ♂ (2176 bytes) () 07/17/2010 postreply 17:56:03

• 粒子物理(上)_章乃森 -marketreflections- ♂ (39 bytes) () 07/17/2010 postreply 18:08:20

• 电子伏特和伏特的概念不一样! -marketreflections- ♂ (392 bytes) () 07/17/2010 postreply 18:15:36

• 三倍标准差效应 希格斯粒子 -marketreflections- ♂ (3463 bytes) () 07/17/2010 postreply 18:21:20

• “三倍标准差原理”. -marketreflections- ♂ (2817 bytes) () 07/17/2010 postreply 18:25:32

• 大型强子对撞机 总能量达7万亿电子伏特的质子流对撞 数以百万计的粒子将在环形隧道内以每秒11245圈的速度“狂飙”，约为光速的9 -marketreflections- ♂ (2633 bytes) () 07/17/2010 postreply 18:28:27

• 从反粒子到最终定律[第一推动丛书]【第三辑】. -marketreflections- ♂ (38 bytes) () 07/17/2010 postreply 18:48:11

• 在费米理论中，中子和质子被认为形成一个与电流类似的带电的矢量流(记为V流)，中微子与电子形成了另一个矢量电流 -marketreflections- ♂ (11550 bytes) () 07/18/2010 postreply 08:19:59

• 南部 潜藏的对称性 -marketreflections- ♂ (1315 bytes) () 07/18/2010 postreply 08:22:47

• 电磁相互作用就是质子和中子同位旋对称破缺外因或同位旋破缺的机制 -marketreflections- ♂ (1968 bytes) () 07/18/2010 postreply 08:43:49

• 粒子的性质可以分为两类。一类称为静态性质，例如质量、自旋、奇异数、同位旋、重子数、电荷等；另一类称为动态性质,例如寿命,衰变宽度 -marketreflections- ♂ (7470 bytes) () 11/29/2010 postreply 09:03:52

• 电磁相互作用就是质子和中子同位旋对称破缺外因或同位旋破缺的机制。 因为电磁相互作用的强度只有强相互作用强度的1/137，所以在只 -marketreflections- ♂ (7872 bytes) () 11/29/2010 postreply 09:05:05

• 张沁源,对称性,某种操作下的不变,所以你无法确定这样的操作是否进行过 -marketreflections- ♂ (2337 bytes) () 07/18/2010 postreply 08:54:02

• 高涌泉：隱密的對稱 -marketreflections- ♂ (5772 bytes) () 07/18/2010 postreply 13:58:51

• 物理好图 电磁场方程:同稳定场一样，我们可以给变化电磁场引入势，导出关于势的微分方程，再求出势方程的解，进而利用场与势的关系定量 -marketreflections- ♂ (885 bytes) () 07/18/2010 postreply 12:54:52

• 物理好图 电磁场方程:同稳定场一样，我们可以给变化电磁场引入势，导出关于势的微分方程，再求出势方程的解，进而利用场与势的关系定量 -marketreflections- ♂ (129 bytes) () 07/18/2010 postreply 13:00:23

• 物理好图:当系统参量到达某个临界值时，原先具有对称性的状态失稳，新出现了 -marketreflections- ♂ (44461 bytes) () 07/18/2010 postreply 17:52:07

• 中国书画：非时空对称性。同时它讲究“胸有成竹，、“法无定法，自有我法，无法而法”， -marketreflections- ♂ (744 bytes) () 07/18/2010 postreply 18:02:16

• 由于人们的从众心理，使得空间旋转对称性，这样一个连续对称性，在这里自发破缺了。这就使得，在人群中激发“抬头粒子”称为轻而易举的事 -marketreflections- ♂ (7745 bytes) () 07/18/2010 postreply 18:51:43

• 所以當光從地球的引力場往上走，它失去能量，因而其頻率下降（這表明兩個波峰之間的時間間隔變大）,因此，從在上面的某個人來看，下麵發 -marketreflections- ♂ (421 bytes) () 07/18/2010 postreply 18:57:02

• 卢昌海 内部空间的对称性：波函数能够在更高维的空间 - 即我们称为内部空间的空间 - 中旋转 -marketreflections- ♂ (6533 bytes) () 07/18/2010 postreply 20:18:33

• 量子力学基本原理中粒子内部状态不可能通过干涉测量的原理 -marketreflections- ♂ (1747 bytes) () 07/18/2010 postreply 20:45:48

• “历史之梯”的对称，就是连续对称现象 -marketreflections- ♂ (4010 bytes) () 07/19/2010 postreply 15:10:58

• 我们就不仅要知道物质场在那上面的运动状态，还要知道这个圆柱面被扭曲的程度 -marketreflections- ♂ (2706 bytes) () 07/19/2010 postreply 15:15:09

• 将夸克两两分组， 每组称为一代)夸克， 那么它们的混合就可以导致 CP 对称性的破缺 -marketreflections- ♂ (1956 bytes) () 07/18/2010 postreply 20:39:05

• 王云平的博客 交叉项的时间平均值就是零，这项没有，所以没有相互作用。 -marketreflections- ♂ (3204 bytes) () 07/18/2010 postreply 20:56:47

• 光子不能局域于空间点，也就是能量并没有超光速地凝聚到一点上 -marketreflections- ♂ (58 bytes) () 07/18/2010 postreply 21:02:04

• 两个号称一样的激光器，其发射的激光的频率是不可能完全一样的，就是同一个激光在不同时刻发出的激光的频率也是有差别的 -marketreflections- ♂ (6013 bytes) () 07/18/2010 postreply 21:08:44

• 哈密顿使用具有动力学意义的正则变量（广义）替代只有运动学意义的广义速度和广义坐标，把拉格朗日函数和拉格朗日方程变换到哈密顿函数和 -marketreflections- ♂ (8143 bytes) () 07/18/2010 postreply 21:29:08

• 物理好图 第九章正则方程 哈密顿原理 -marketreflections- ♂ (761 bytes) () 07/18/2010 postreply 21:33:36

• 物理好图：相位：古老而陌生的概念 -marketreflections- ♂ (12942 bytes) () 07/18/2010 postreply 21:48:30

• 张永德教授量子力学讲义 第十一章 -marketreflections- ♂ (32254 bytes) () 07/19/2010 postreply 09:42:45

• 由于我们所处时空结构的时间轴固有的均匀性，孤立量子体系的Hamilton量必定不显含时间 -marketreflections- ♂ (535 bytes) () 07/19/2010 postreply 09:54:40

• 物理好图 拉格朗日方程 -marketreflections- ♂ (9292 bytes) () 07/20/2010 postreply 09:25:42

• 异次元：一群蚂蚁搬运一块食物向巢里爬去。我们用针把食物挑起，放在它们头上很近的地方，所有蚂蚁只会前后左右在一个面上寻找，决不会向 -marketreflections- ♂ (6373 bytes) () 07/20/2010 postreply 09:58:59

• Unhappiness is best defined as the difference between our talent -marketreflections- ♂ (452 bytes) () 07/21/2010 postreply 06:12:08

• 仅对x,y,z空间波函数作用的普通算符，不包括对自旋的运算 -marketreflections- ♂ (407 bytes) () 07/19/2010 postreply 10:16:49

• 库仑势能交换能本质上是静电作用，是量子效应 -marketreflections- ♂ (557 bytes) () 07/19/2010 postreply 11:21:35

• s&p monthly chart since 1870 best chart (图) -marketreflections- ♂ (107 bytes) () 07/19/2010 postreply 10:27:18

• four to six-week mid-summer rally on thin volumes will bring a b -marketreflections- ♂ (2608 bytes) () 07/19/2010 postreply 15:55:15

• Doug Kass -marketreflections- ♂ (1960 bytes) () 07/21/2010 postreply 18:15:56

• El-Erian：The cycle of deleveraging -marketreflections- ♂ (3006 bytes) () 07/20/2010 postreply 10:03:07

• Busch: Five Questions for Ben Bernanke -marketreflections- ♂ (3773 bytes) () 07/21/2010 postreply 08:18:07

• TCEHY TENCENT (0700.HK) (图) -marketreflections- ♂ (2714 bytes) () 07/21/2010 postreply 09:13:39

• 五大互联网公司：公敌腾讯，潜力百度 -marketreflections- ♂ (2791 bytes) () 07/21/2010 postreply 09:28:40

• 百度联盟 “凤巢”刚刚王湛也说了，这个是一个战略性的产品 -marketreflections- ♂ (33 bytes) () 07/21/2010 postreply 09:52:36

• 二八理论：网络时代面临着挑战—为数众多的中小客户所构成的长尾产生的总体效益超过了头部 -marketreflections- ♂ (1858 bytes) () 07/21/2010 postreply 10:14:19

• 虚粒子是指在量子力学中，一种永远不能直接检测到的，但其存在确实具有可测量效应的粒子 -marketreflections- ♂ (699 bytes) () 07/21/2010 postreply 10:26:55

• 量子力學允許（應該說是要求）能量暫時不守恆，因此，一顆粒子可以變成一對較重的「虛粒子」，之後又迅速復合為原初的粒子，好似這件事根 -marketreflections- ♂ (1809 bytes) () 07/21/2010 postreply 10:36:10

• 思維過程和量子體系在他們不能被過度分析為分離元素這一點上相類似，因為，每一個元素的‘內在’性質不是一種在與其他元素分離和獨立的情 -marketreflections- ♂ (427 bytes) () 07/21/2010 postreply 10:37:23

• 卡西米尔效应：就是在真空中两片平行的平坦金属板之间的吸引压力。这种压力是由平板之间空间中的虚粒子(virtual particl -marketreflections- ♂ (10298 bytes) () 07/21/2010 postreply 10:46:53

• 卡西米效应是由真空能(vacuum energy)引起的。Scharnhorst的计算表明，在两块金属板之间横向运动的光子的速度 -marketreflections- ♂ (20623 bytes) () 07/21/2010 postreply 10:50:23

• 在广义相对论中，不同地点的速度是不可以直接比较的。 -marketreflections- ♂ (368 bytes) () 07/21/2010 postreply 20:45:18

• 相互作用是量子力学效应：假定两个具有不成对电子的原子相互靠近。如果这两个原子的自旋相互反平行，则它们将共享一个共同的轨道，这样就 -marketreflections- ♂ (2268 bytes) () 07/21/2010 postreply 10:54:09

• 物理好图 量子力学 自旋这种现象没有经典类比 -marketreflections- ♂ (407 bytes) () 07/21/2010 postreply 11:17:30

• 评曾谨言量子力学教材 -marketreflections- ♂ (262 bytes) () 07/21/2010 postreply 11:35:49

• 陈叔瑄 宏观物体是大量不规则粒子运动的重叠，根本体现不了周期性运动状态 -marketreflections- ♂ (10155 bytes) () 07/21/2010 postreply 11:45:30

• 量子态是由各种可能的不连续的能级组成的，因而微观运动状态具有不连续性；而在经典统计中，系统的微观运动状态用广义坐标和广义动量描述 -marketreflections- ♂ (1241 bytes) () 07/21/2010 postreply 11:48:37

• 各粒子占据不同的量子态，但任意两个粒子交换量子态，不影响微观状态 -marketreflections- ♂ (292 bytes) () 07/21/2010 postreply 12:04:01

• 物理好图 念力的秘密 -marketreflections- ♂ (22199 bytes) () 07/21/2010 postreply 12:19:59

• 力或能的交换:〖占典物理学认为物体要能互相影响 -marketreflections- ♂ (246670 bytes) () 07/22/2010 postreply 08:19:12

• 量子物理史话 贝尔不等式 两个人根本不存在于“实在”之中，而是合为一体，按照波函数弥漫。用薛定谔发明的术语来说，在观测之前，两个 -marketreflections- ♂ (9143 bytes) () 07/22/2010 postreply 08:50:36

• 物理好图 量子概率和普通概率的区别 -marketreflections- ♂ (23035 bytes) () 07/22/2010 postreply 09:04:39

• 赵国求 波函数有几何属性 测不准量在所建构”形”之范围内, 点粒子位置分布概率己隐含其”形”（曲率模型） 之中 -marketreflections- ♂ (3812 bytes) () 07/22/2010 postreply 09:14:07

• 互相纠缠的两颗粒子就好比插在海边而被海浪卷打倒下的两根杆子。 -marketreflections- ♂ (2773 bytes) () 07/22/2010 postreply 09:29:07

• 玻色—爱因斯坦凝聚:在像人类这样复杂的动态系统里，内在的能量可以创造千丝万缕的关系，让各部分不会各唱各调 -marketreflections- ♂ (2365 bytes) () 07/22/2010 postreply 09:56:17

• 多世界解释：低维的希尔伯特空间非正交，那么坐标轴互相之间有投影，导致了事件的叠加态 -marketreflections- ♂ (712 bytes) () 07/22/2010 postreply 10:07:58

• 关洪:几率幅,在经典物理学里, 粒子肯定是不能够叠加的,量子力学的真正惊人之处,正在于粒子也是可以叠加的,量子力学里,叠加的就 -marketreflections- ♂ (15148 bytes) () 07/22/2010 postreply 10:16:51

• 物理好图 三言两语说量子(修改版)之三：波函数满足关于t的一阶偏微分方程.(如果是二阶微分方程,则应该是波函数及其导数才能描述状 -marketreflections- ♂ (14038 bytes) () 07/22/2010 postreply 10:34:07

• 非齐次(积分)方程，经典物理中的叠加原理(d)式事实上就是非齐次方程解的1个定理 -marketreflections- ♂ (514 bytes) () 07/22/2010 postreply 10:48:06

• 普朗克：光与物质相互作用时交换能量不是连续的，只能是hν的整数倍，称hν为能量子 -marketreflections- ♂ (14467 bytes) () 07/22/2010 postreply 11:05:58

• Schrodinger方程：个框架内，光仍然按电磁场处理，不提光子 -marketreflections- ♂ (10758 bytes) () 07/22/2010 postreply 11:11:34

• 全同的宏观粒子（原则上）能区分:宏观粒子做轨道运动，只要开始时能把它们区分 开，以后就不用发愁 -marketreflections- ♂ (3360 bytes) () 07/22/2010 postreply 11:19:04

• 李政道 果小球是可分的,统计物理的等概率原理 -marketreflections- ♂ (4877 bytes) () 07/22/2010 postreply 11:23:49

• 自旋是一个全新的力学量，没有经典对应 -marketreflections- ♂ (4809 bytes) () 07/22/2010 postreply 11:29:43

• 量子力学中，一开始是把研究课题看成“粒子”来研究的，因此适用于描述非全同粒子。但粒子实质上是全同的。为了弥补理论和事实的不符，故 -marketreflections- ♂ (2922 bytes) () 07/22/2010 postreply 11:33:38

• 物理好图 南澳洲 三言两语说量子(修改版) -marketreflections- ♂ (840 bytes) () 07/22/2010 postreply 11:37:34

• 沉锚效应 第一印象和先入为主 在人鬼空间里提供第一个维度 -marketreflections- ♂ (35235 bytes) () 07/22/2010 postreply 13:21:51

• "先验概率后验概率希尔伯特空间":非构造性的证明，也就是说他只能证明某个数学对象的存在性，却无法将它具体指出。 -marketreflections- ♂ (24273 bytes) () 07/22/2010 postreply 15:07:24

• 量子力学，用概率幅（例如波函数ψ或者态矢|φ>）替代概率P(Ai)和P(B)，用Green函数或者跃迁振幅或者替代条件概率P(B -marketreflections- ♂ (3680 bytes) () 07/22/2010 postreply 15:17:07

• www.streetinsider.com top website trader economist -marketreflections- ♂ (69 bytes) () 07/22/2010 postreply 15:49:52

• www.schaeffersresearch.com -marketreflections- ♂ (100 bytes) () 07/23/2010 postreply 09:51:54

• 波包的坍缩：处于|Ψ>态的系统，如果测量物理量A得值ai 则该系统测量后进入A的本征|ai -marketreflections- ♂ (9988 bytes) () 07/22/2010 postreply 16:02:03

• 几率幅是个重要概念，表示态矢在一个表象的一个基矢上的投影的值。 -marketreflections- ♂ (10045 bytes) () 07/22/2010 postreply 16:05:09

• 一个或一组力学量所有的基矢即在希尔伯特空间中张成一个表象，通俗点说就是一个坐标系 -marketreflections- ♂ (991 bytes) () 07/22/2010 postreply 16:07:28

• Dirac：处于叠加态|Ψ>的系统，部分得处于|Ψ1>，部分的处于|Ψ2> ……， -marketreflections- ♂ (592 bytes) () 07/22/2010 postreply 16:09:58

• 经典力学中位置和动量是最基本的力学量，其它力学量都是它们的函数，所以借助于直角坐标系中最基本的位置算符和动量算符及其对易关系，可 -marketreflections- ♂ (1673 bytes) () 07/22/2010 postreply 16:13:53

• 中心场定态问题：当两个粒子组成孤立体系时，势将简化成只取决于它们的相对位置 ...对易关系 -marketreflections- ♂ (486 bytes) () 07/22/2010 postreply 16:16:56

• 中心场定态问题:由于时间空间均匀性质，不存在关于时间空间的绝对标架,势将简化成只取决于它们的相对位置,孤立体系本来并没有绝对方向 -marketreflections- ♂ (945 bytes) () 07/22/2010 postreply 16:28:27

• 锚效果:（先验概率）很强的话，要消除它或者大幅度的修正它，需要很多很强的新信息 -marketreflections- ♂ (4952 bytes) () 07/22/2010 postreply 15:21:52

• 内涵越丰富，外延越狭窄,“维数灾难”,confidence高的模式，support不高（出现的频数不高） -marketreflections- ♂ (5164 bytes) () 07/22/2010 postreply 15:25:39

• 既然是“鬼”：实空间应用如通信，很难：鬼可怕，因为实空间测量不到鬼 -marketreflections- ♂ (472 bytes) () 07/22/2010 postreply 10:23:31

• 表面的统计理论 假定原子间的相互作用用平 均场近似。后者即忽略原子簇聚效应 -marketreflections- ♂ (1283 bytes) () 07/21/2010 postreply 12:27:48

• 用一个平均场来代替其他粒子对任一个粒子的相互作用,这个平均场又能用单粒子波函数表示,从而将多粒子系的薛定谔方程简化成单粒子波函数 -marketreflections- ♂ (1459 bytes) () 07/21/2010 postreply 12:31:43

• 每个电子都是在原子核和其它电子形成的有效平均势场中“独立”地运动 -marketreflections- ♂ (4798 bytes) () 07/21/2010 postreply 12:36:36

• 用百度推广的生意经 bidu -marketreflections- ♂ (2455 bytes) () 07/21/2010 postreply 15:28:01

• 图解百度财报：总营收2.823亿美元同比增74% (图) -marketreflections- ♂ (3392 bytes) () 07/21/2010 postreply 20:54:25

• bidu 图解百度财报：总营收2.823亿美元同比增74% (图) (图) -marketreflections- ♂ (3050 bytes) () 07/21/2010 postreply 21:01:11

• 百度竞价排名：质量度×价格=最后的展现价格 -marketreflections- ♂ (5692 bytes) () 07/21/2010 postreply 21:06:34

• 两个学校继续在百度做推广，等是十月份过了，他们就下线了 -marketreflections- ♂ (3343 bytes) () 07/21/2010 postreply 21:34:21

• 非法网络业务风险：药品、保健、机械设备、旅游和连锁（5项共占总营收50%）， -marketreflections- ♂ (2381 bytes) () 07/22/2010 postreply 15:42:47

• bidu 百度的竞价排名行为是一个比较复杂的商业行为 -marketreflections- ♂ (8723 bytes) () 07/29/2010 postreply 15:32:57

• 雅虎和谷歌链接违法网页比例较高 引擎链接违法网页比例大多在10％—30％之间 -marketreflections- ♂ (842 bytes) () 11/23/2010 postreply 16:45:11

• bidu 李彦宏称百度营收10年将增长40倍 达到1600亿元 -marketreflections- ♂ (1655 bytes) () 11/23/2010 postreply 16:52:38

• www.zhaojinseo.com站长：赵津：no money no honey;bidu 百度的竞价排名行为是一个比较复杂的 -marketreflections- ♂ (7911 bytes) () 12/22/2010 postreply 12:58:38

• 百度占据超过70%的市场份额，服务于超过30万家企业 -marketreflections- ♂ (8930 bytes) () 11/23/2010 postreply 17:09:10

• 电磁力统一表述为磁荷作用下由库仑定律所确定的平方反比力，在相互作用或势能中引人排斥成分并扩充哈密顿量 -marketreflections- ♂ (3942 bytes) () 07/21/2010 postreply 11:23:45

• 量子粒子兩顆粒子一旦接觸過，彼此就會保持聯繫。虛擬粒子,那些小小的振動能量 -marketreflections- ♂ (5497 bytes) () 07/21/2010 postreply 12:13:20

• 在全同粒子系统中，各个粒子的运动是互相关联的，不能对每个粒子做单独的描述，只能做整体的描述，即粒子间存在着一种相互作用。这种与全 -marketreflections- ♂ (2268 bytes) () 07/21/2010 postreply 15:29:42

• 10 Positives to Battle a Downbeat Bernanke -marketreflections- ♂ (5412 bytes) () 07/21/2010 postreply 18:11:12

• housing "stabilizing" at historically negative levels -marketreflections- ♂ (3694 bytes) () 07/22/2010 postreply 14:30:59

• 物理好图：量子纠缠与空间非定域性 范场本身是非局域可观测的量，但它的非局域效应，一般数学上称为Holonomy，物理上叫Wils -marketreflections- ♂ (320 bytes) () 09/29/2010 postreply 08:22:59

• 爱因斯坦的定域性条件实质在于要求事物有自身的质，受其他事物的影响（如相互作用）不应超过光锥规范。 -marketreflections- ♂ (24536 bytes) () 09/29/2010 postreply 08:31:42

• 物理好图：纤维丛是流形向乘积的推广,矢量丛;E为全空间，M称为底空间， 称为丛投影， 称作纤维。直观地说，矢量丛E是积流形和纤维 -marketreflections- ♂ (21662 bytes) () 09/29/2010 postreply 08:37:39

• 物理好图：将戏统循环一周 返回后，由于参数空间的拓扑不平庸性，所出现的不为零相因子 称为Berry相位。 -marketreflections- ♂ (743 bytes) () 09/29/2010 postreply 08:40:08

• 物理好图：流形就是流变着的形状，它在每一点的近旁和欧氏空间的一个开集是同胚的。因此在每一点的近旁可以引进局部坐标系。流形正是一块 -marketreflections- ♂ (1946 bytes) () 09/29/2010 postreply 08:43:43

• 在量子力学中，完备本征函数形成了希尔伯特空间，微观粒子是由希尔伯特空间决定的。我们把不是普通三维空间的坐标或变量，叫做粒子的内禀 -marketreflections- ♂ (1559 bytes) () 09/29/2010 postreply 08:50:35

• 相对论类空间隔 逻辑上相互独立条件的合取：两个独立的条件是指“定域性”（locality）和“完备性”（completeness -marketreflections- ♂ (8855 bytes) () 09/29/2010 postreply 08:58:02

• 閔可夫斯基時空：光速在各个惯性参考系皆为定值,度规,正交归一基底(orthonormal basis)必然包含一个类时与三个类空 -marketreflections- ♂ (2352 bytes) () 09/29/2010 postreply 09:04:15

• 一维矢量平移总是拓扑平庸的,一维准定态时空演化过程，其拓扑性质是平庸 -marketreflections- ♂ (63 bytes) () 11/19/2010 postreply 03:28:34

• 底空间各个地点各有各的纤维空间，就是非平庸丛了。 -marketreflections- ♂ (25930 bytes) () 11/19/2010 postreply 04:11:36

• 积分流形就好比是好比是原函数，而已知的那组切空间的子基就好比是导数 -marketreflections- ♂ (11713 bytes) () 11/19/2010 postreply 08:15:50

• 微分几何的大部分也就是告诉你如何用微小的平直空间来建造一个"任意的"流形， -marketreflections- ♂ (562 bytes) () 11/19/2010 postreply 04:13:39

• 戏统循环一周返回后，由于参数空间的拓扑不平庸 性，所出现的不为零相因子称为Berry相位 -marketreflections- ♂ (92 bytes) () 11/19/2010 postreply 03:31:01

• 所谓纤维丛的截面就是每一根纤维上拿一点（一个值）来拼出来的东西。是平面曲线y=f(x)的推广 -marketreflections- ♂ (2837 bytes) () 11/19/2010 postreply 04:17:28

• 古典微积分中导数是函数的变化除以自变量的变化，推广到纤维丛就是截面的变化（平行移动）对底流形参数的变化，这就是联络（一般有多个分 -marketreflections- ♂ (260 bytes) () 11/19/2010 postreply 04:20:08

• 规范势是纤维丛（主丛）上的联络，而规范场强是纤维丛（主丛底空间）的曲率 -marketreflections- ♂ (21224 bytes) () 11/19/2010 postreply 04:24:05

• 量子粒子由波函数描述，通常包含内部自由度。内部自由度对应的波函数可以当作纤维，底空间可以是普通的三维欧氏世界，也可以是（能量算子 -marketreflections- ♂ (188 bytes) () 11/19/2010 postreply 04:25:38

• 底流形上的转换函数之非平庸由结构群描述 纤维也有"转换函数"的对应物，叫和乐群 -marketreflections- ♂ (488 bytes) () 11/19/2010 postreply 04:29:43

• 物理好图：吴国林 场与势 某一矢量的散度为零，则可以把该矢量写作另一个矢量的旋度，即可以把B写为：B=▽×A ，A就是电磁理论中 -marketreflections- ♂ (9744 bytes) () 09/29/2010 postreply 09:28:56

• 物理好图, 两个粒子运动的坐标系处理：类似于经典对两体绕质心运动问题的处理, 随几运动的两体系统难以描述，更谈不上精确 -marketreflections- ♂ (4523 bytes) () 09/29/2010 postreply 09:38:32

• 分析数学 实变函数论的中心内容是测度论和新的积分理论 -marketreflections- ♂ (16723 bytes) () 09/29/2010 postreply 12:12:45

• 物理好图, “惯性力场”是表现加速系（非惯性参照系）的相对论运动学的一个关键范畴, “升降机”为例，这是一个加速系，记作A，其中 -marketreflections- ♂ (31278 bytes) () 09/29/2010 postreply 13:39:19

• 麦克斯韦方程中有个divD＝ρ的等式。这个等式的左边是场的量，因为D可以还原到电场E上。右边则是物质的量——电荷密度。等式的成立 -marketreflections- ♂ (2389 bytes) () 09/29/2010 postreply 09:50:17

• 相位坐标 相位不变性 -marketreflections- ♂ (309 bytes) () 10/23/2010 postreply 16:08:53

• 不同观察者所得到的信息之间相差的只是一个修正，就是一个相因子,曲率的这种新的、严格的数学概念，弯曲空间 (图) -marketreflections- ♂ (15764 bytes) () 10/24/2010 postreply 17:03:44

• 教授那篇关于弯曲空间的演讲稿 “度规”就是决定空间的一切度量性质（内禀）的量。广相的问题就是找出物质分布时空间的度规; 度规，是 -marketreflections- ♂ (812 bytes) () 10/25/2010 postreply 08:09:35

• 平衡算是一个比较准确的词 [ jetcar ,各方都是在测算并试探着破局的各种可能性,同时却又尽可能地在现有规则下运作.谁要胆子 -marketreflections- ♂ (841 bytes) () 10/25/2010 postreply 09:00:25

• 西方功利思想太盛是看不透今天的世界的 jetcar -marketreflections- ♂ (226 bytes) () 10/25/2010 postreply 09:11:40

• 贾春宝：所谓的金融改革不过是西方化，那个西方化从根本上不是美国化，因为美国的金融系统也是在欧洲系统的基础上建立的，传承的也是欧洲 -marketreflections- ♂ (10339 bytes) () 10/25/2010 postreply 11:24:38

• 普鲁士工业贵族 重耳 -marketreflections- ♂ (86 bytes) () 10/25/2010 postreply 11:44:17

• 别忘记那个著名的“珍笼”棋局 [ jetcar ]：一切希望都酝酿于绝望之中 -marketreflections- ♂ (326 bytes) () 10/25/2010 postreply 09:14:56

• 美国现在就陷入法制的陷阱,只要搞出的法律动辄几百上千页,靠你人力是无论如何没办法吃透的,到时候一切还不得靠解释者来决定"法律的正 -marketreflections- ♂ (434 bytes) () 10/25/2010 postreply 09:33:38

• jetcar 白领工资偏低，这个倒是中国目前的心病 -marketreflections- ♂ (1285 bytes) () 10/25/2010 postreply 09:40:09

• 解放军最能打的部队很多都是国民党投降的士兵搞诉苦大会给发掘出来的 -marketreflections- ♂ (1437 bytes) () 10/25/2010 postreply 10:28:04

• 美国的选举现在实 际上到了第三境界，也就是说是不同的理念之争,最小公约数，相干波，路径积分 -marketreflections- ♂ (4220 bytes) () 10/25/2010 postreply 12:39:08

• (私有制乐器上奏出的单音)律音的相互作用有两种方式：产生一个更低的律音，它的谐音频率就是各律音的频率，[color=red]该律 -marketreflections- ♂ (6268 bytes) () 10/25/2010 postreply 12:49:45

• 42就是21与6的最小公倍数,48和14的最小公约数是2. -marketreflections- ♂ (349 bytes) () 10/25/2010 postreply 13:06:39

• 42就是21与6的最小公倍数,48和14的最小公约数是2,亏或获利了解容易形成共识（比须是简单的概念） -marketreflections- ♂ (280 bytes) () 10/25/2010 postreply 13:14:12

• "最小公倍数几何成长",non liner, mkt catches fire -marketreflections- ♂ (24 bytes) () 10/25/2010 postreply 13:16:17

• 小提琴的A弦频率是440Hz，E弦频率是660Hz，它们的结合音就是220Hz，相干音就是1320Hz，这两个音构成的和声是和谐 -marketreflections- ♂ (857 bytes) () 10/25/2010 postreply 13:31:33

• 欧式几何对这种空间在微小距离下的性质没有任何的描述,小是相对于多维的 -marketreflections- ♂ (110346 bytes) () 10/25/2010 postreply 13:58:50

• 一个矩阵的行列式就是一个平行多面体的（定向的）体积，这个多面体的每条边就对应矩阵的列,一旦方向变了，兵败如山倒 -marketreflections- ♂ (1123 bytes) () 10/25/2010 postreply 14:02:33

• 相同的唯一性定理也可解释为何在船只停泊码头前的靠岸阶段必须得依靠人工操作：否则的话，如果行进的速度是距离的光滑（线性）函数，则整 -marketreflections- ♂ (160 bytes) () 10/25/2010 postreply 14:04:32

• 如果我们的出发点不是群而是变换的概念（一个集合到自身的1－1映射），则我们绝对将得到不同的局面，这也才更像历史的发展。所有变换的 -marketreflections- ♂ (691 bytes) () 10/25/2010 postreply 14:11:25

• 映射是讨论两个集合之间对应关系的工具，一个集合到自身的映射称为这个集合的变换,常见的几种平面上点的变换以及几类常见变换对应的矩阵 -marketreflections- ♂ (3328 bytes) () 10/25/2010 postreply 14:16:03

• 一种基于拓扑势的网络社区发现方法,重整化，降多维为一维，系统能量指标都要变化 -marketreflections- ♂ (430 bytes) () 10/25/2010 postreply 14:41:56

• 幂分布:自相似性则是分数维的重要性质。说得再通俗些就是某系统（广义集合）中标志变量的相对改变量（dx/x）与其对应的个体的相对数 -marketreflections- ♂ (8492 bytes) () 11/19/2010 postreply 02:26:05

• 幂律分布：节点拓扑势的大小描述了网络拓扑中的某个节点受自身和近邻节点共同影响所具有的势值 -marketreflections- ♂ (8074 bytes) () 11/19/2010 postreply 02:32:37

• 弗赖登塔尔关于“数学化”的演讲稿 -marketreflections- ♂ (283 bytes) () 10/25/2010 postreply 14:56:02

• 具身认知之根: 从镜像神经元到具身模仿论 -marketreflections- ♂ (20845 bytes) () 10/25/2010 postreply 15:05:31

• 张志东 对于定态，波函数ψ和其复共轭函数ψ*中的动力学相因子相互抵消，不对物理观察量A 的平均值有贡献。也就是说，动力学相因子与 -marketreflections- ♂ (259 bytes) () 10/24/2010 postreply 17:09:57

• 在各种势场中，具有一定总能量的微观粒子由于势能的变化会引起粒子动能或速度的改变，而速度会引起粒子对应的波的相位变化，所以无论是引 -marketreflections- ♂ (479 bytes) () 10/24/2010 postreply 17:18:07

• 物理好图： 在线阅读 >> 《大学物理学（国家“十一五规划教材”）》 >> -marketreflections- ♂ (56 bytes) () 10/24/2010 postreply 17:49:39

• 物质结构、幻数及手征性 任何形式的结构与稳定性密切相关 -marketreflections- ♂ (72 bytes) () 10/27/2010 postreply 04:26:52

• 维度的本质含义是标度变换下的不变量。对于分形而言，不存在一个绝对可测量的尺度，即无特征尺度 -marketreflections- ♂ (90 bytes) () 10/27/2010 postreply 05:40:15

• Peano 曲线与正方形，作为点集，它们之间可以做出1-1 对应来. 于是平面上的点就可以不用两个有序实数（横坐标与纵坐标）表示 -marketreflections- ♂ (10138 bytes) () 10/27/2010 postreply 05:50:05

• 物理好图：突破经验维数必须是整数的观念 -marketreflections- ♂ (427 bytes) () 10/27/2010 postreply 05:54:13

• 物理好图 所谓对称性"实则«种变换中的不变性& Weyl 指出!’对称性«词在日常用语中有两重含义& ( -marketreflections- ♂ (34598 bytes) () 10/27/2010 postreply 06:05:39

• 配分函数_互动百科 系统处在能级Ei上的几率是 配分函数 伊辛(Ising)模型 郝柏林 -marketreflections- ♂ (226 bytes) () 10/27/2010 postreply 06:12:23

• 刘俊明 伊辛(Ising)模型 在铁磁体系，我们知道自旋箭头倾向于和其周围邻居平行排列，也就是说，两个相邻的箭头如果平行排列， -marketreflections- ♂ (3568 bytes) () 10/27/2010 postreply 06:19:04

• Jim Schroeder market is entering into a positive seasonal bias r -marketreflections- ♂ (5328 bytes) () 10/27/2010 postreply 06:29:37

• “dueling hammers.” Dueling hammers are almost always resolved wi -marketreflections- ♂ (826 bytes) () 10/27/2010 postreply 08:05:38

• Robert Colby of TraderPlanet.com low VIX suggests that sentiment -marketreflections- ♂ (769 bytes) () 10/27/2010 postreply 09:06:10

• （1）位置矢量的微分，有二个分量：径向分量是 ，横向分量是 ；（2）当位置矢量大小不变时，其微分只有横向分量 ，即 。 (图) -marketreflections- ♂ (311 bytes) () 11/17/2010 postreply 15:55:32

• 物理好图：同位旋是一个很重要的概念，它是描述强子内部性质的一种量子数,规范对称性,波函数的绝对相位也是无法测量的，或者说无法定义 -marketreflections- ♂ (7750 bytes) () 10/23/2010 postreply 16:54:56

• 为描述强子的多重态，引入一个称为同位旋的量子数I。在强相互作用过程中，I守衡；弱相互作用、电磁作用过程中，I不守衡。同一多重态的 -marketreflections- ♂ (1490 bytes) () 10/27/2010 postreply 10:04:22

• 物理好图：粒子的探索和研究 产生过程非常迅速和强烈，衰变过程却十分缓慢；总成对产生，而衰变时则可各行其事。 -marketreflections- ♂ (7283 bytes) () 10/27/2010 postreply 10:16:29

• 同位旋（是一种角动量，单位是kg m^2/s）。 -marketreflections- ♂ (238 bytes) () 10/27/2010 postreply 10:19:18

• 物理好图：对称性破缺是指:一个多体系统的基态或 相对论量子场论的真空态所具有的对称性 比定义这个体系的拉格朗日量或哈密顿量 所具 -marketreflections- ♂ (36763 bytes) () 10/27/2010 postreply 10:24:41

• 物理好图：http://physics.njnu.edu.cn/netcourse/lixue/teach_content/de -marketreflections- ♂ (134 bytes) () 10/28/2010 postreply 13:02:14

• 即平均场理论并不保证零能隙,平均场理论没有抓住无能隙激发后面隐含的原理 -marketreflections- ♂ (275 bytes) () 10/27/2010 postreply 10:56:06