Laplace hypothesis

The values of the normed Laplace s-function are in Table J (appendix). When determining the given values zg=zmin is replaced by -< >, and zfe-zrn lx by +°°. When the calculated value of the Pirson criterion is below the tabular value the null hypothesis on normal distribution of data is accepted ... 

It s worth noting the weirdness of this example. Normally if you take a second derivative of a polynomial of a certain degree, that degree goes down by 2. In other words, this trick of using polynomials won t work for the regular Laplace operator, so why should it work for the spherical one The key lies in the finite dimensional hypothesis in Schur s lemma. For the lemma to work, the group G and the operator A must commute on this... 

Without this luxury Laplace set out to assess the natural stability of the system. When asked by Napoleon to clarify the role of God in this, he replied "I have no need of that hypothesis". The first important result, which he demonstrated mathematically, was that the irregularities in the eccentricities and inclinations of planetary orbits oscillate about fixed values, without amplification, and hence never deviate too far from the ideal orbits. He could therefore theorize that the solar system remains indefinitely stable. Like some self-correcting clockwork, driven by the universal force of gravitation, the solar system was concluded to be inherently stable and predictable. Laplace saw no reason why the whole universe should not be dynamically stable in the same sense. He claimed that ... 

Incorporation of the definition of the surface curvature into the equation of the capacitive energy variation in the system and the condition of nullity of this one when the system is at equilibrium (energy minimum) lead to the law of Laplace (here expressed in general, without the hypothesis of sphericity)... 

An alternative to the steady-state hypothesis is to solve the dimensionless problem using Laplace transform. That is, reconsider... 

Lavoisier and Laplace (1784) say that heat may be regarded as a fluid penetrating all bodies, either free or combined, or alternatively as the result of insensible movements of the molecules of matter , oscillating in small voids in the body, and in both hypotheses the amount of heat is constant. This follows in the second hypothesis from the law of conservation of vis viva (mv i.e. of kinetic energy hnv ). The second hypothesis (which is almost certainly that held by Laplace) is favoured by many phenomena such as the production of heat by friction. Lavoisier and Laplace do not decide in favour of either hypothesis, since both lead to the conservation of free heat , which states that the quantity of free heat always remains the same in the simple mixture of bodies , and is the fundamental principle of calorimetry, and both hypotheses lead to the very general principle that ... 

That matter was not indefinitely divisible but had an atomic or molecular structure was q working hypothesis for most scientists from the eighteenth century onwards. There was a minor reaction towards the end of the nineteenth century when a group of physicists who professed a positivist philosophy pointed out how indirect was the evidence for the existence of atoms, and their objections were not finally overcome until the early years of this century. If in retrospect, their doubts seem to us to be unreasonable we should, perhaps, remember that almost all those who then believed in atoms believed equally strongly in the material existence of an electromagnetic ether and, in the first half of the nineteenth century, often of a caloric fluid also. Nevertheless those who contributed most to the theories of gases and liquids did so with an assumption, usually explicit, of a discrete structure of matter, llie units mi t be named atoms or molecules (e.g. Laplace) or merely particles (Young), but we will follow modern convention and use the word molecule for the constituent element of a gas, liquid, or solid. 

The null hypothesis of the HPP (Homogeneous Poisson Process) with the alternative being a NHPP (NonHomogeneous Poisson Process) is defined by a trend test such as the Laplace Test or the Military Handbook test (Lindqvist, et al. 2006). 

Almost thirty years ago the author began his studies in colloid chemistry at the laboratory of Professor Ryohei Matuura of Kyushu University. His graduate thesis was on the elimination of radioactive species from aqueous solution by foam fractionation. He has, except for a few years of absence, been at the university ever since, and many students have contributed to his subsequent work on micelle formation and related phenomena. Nearly sixty papers have been published thus far. Recently, in search of a new orientation, he decided to assemble his findings and publish them in book form for review and critique. In addition, his use of the mass action model of micelle has received much criticism, especially since the introduction of the phase separation model. Many recent reports have postulated a role for Laplace pressure in micellization. Although such a hypothesis would provide an easy explanation for micelle formation, it neglects the fact that an interfacial tension exists between two macroscopic phases. The present book cautions against too ready an acceptance of the phase separation model of micelle formation. 

---