druS

Members
  • Content count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About druS

  • Rank
    Quark

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Quantum

Recent Profile Visitors

675 profile views
  1. Vibrational Frequency CO2 Global Warming

    Apologies on the delayed response - Studiot, plenty of things arising, lol. I need to wrap my head around the info before asking for expansion. back at work, with exams cominng means I'm a bit time poor. Just wanted to say thanks for now.
  2. Vibrational Frequency CO2 Global Warming

    OK another interesting topic seemingly come to an end. Could I ask, as at least one non-expert who has been viewing this thread with interest, could someone complete the loop? Studiot - you proposed working through this with classical wave theory. Is it possible to finish that thinking? Cheers guys.
  3. Haha! I did realise that Planks constant was a unit, but I also thought that it was a an actual number. So, not the case. Cheers
  4. HallsofIvy Sorry mate, I hadn't checked in as I simply thought it was a case of a specialist dumping on a basic novice. SO have to say I was very wrong in that assessment and thank you for your response. FWIW I wasn't suggesting that all irrational numbers are prime square root, pie being an obvious example. In fact I would of thought that there are many, many irrational numbers, more than rational I guess.Yes I AM interested in the relationship of polynomials to transcendental numbers. But education must prevail for a while before it means much more to me than an abstract observation. I'll get there. With persistence. By the way, maybe someone here can answer a question I asked of a maths lecturer earlier this year but without clear response. Is plank's number irrational? I get that "plank-bar" would be due to the involvement of pie, but what about planks number itself? (apologies to Vovka for the hijack.)
  5. I said I wasn't an expert. I also did not say it was "the definition" but "pretty much a definition". This might not be math, but it is English. I guess that verbal qualifiers can be tricky things. Out of interest, can you name a root of a prime that is rational? Genuine interest if the answer is yes.
  6. Not an expert, but I thought any root of a prime number is pretty much a definition of an irrational number.
  7. Waves,particles and fields

    Guys, have to say from an interested (non expert) bystander point of view - fascinating discussion. Thanks
  8. How photons move?

    Eren Mate, the actual physicians here can have a way of getting to the point of the physics but miss some of the history. You have discovered a conundrum that did indeed confuse scientists. The experiment used was to take a large alarm clock with bells on top and a little hammer that vibrated against the bells to make the alarm. They then put it in a glass tube, sucked out the air to make a vacuum. And set off the alarm. Wahey! You can't hear anything because the vacuum removed the air, and the sound wave has nothing to travel through. BUT you could still see the clock and the little hammer striking the bells. They "knew" that light was a wave, so what medium was it travelling through? They hypothesised a "luminescent aether" which must fill the void of space (we get light from stars) and they set out to prove the existence of the aether. Michelson and Morley are the two guys to look up on Wiki, in the late 1800's. To prove the theory they had to show that light travelled slightly faster with the aether and slightly slower against it. And they proved instead that light traveled at one constant speed no matter the direction. [The equipment they used something like 140 years ago is a fore-runner to the interferometer used at LIGO. Obviously on a much smaller scale.] This confused the world for a long time, with many scientists trying to postulate an answer - Einstein managed with the special theory of relativity in 1905. It doesnt explain the wave particle duality, but after the slit experiment have a look at black body radiation, starting with Max Plank, and then further cogitated by Einstein. Very great minds have been confused by your question!
  9. Love this bloke. Way beyond me, took him several years to be able to talk down to my level, still. Does this lecture talk through this issue? [Ignore me, if "no".]
  10. John, I am hardly an expert, just an interested observer, but that's a touch harsh. As far as I can work out, the journal is more specific than "relativistic effects", it's about specific and unexpected behaviour. We have seen something of a cross over with larger and larger chunks of matter showing quantum effects (think it was US PhD who used silicon chip manufacturing to create an object that was visible to the eye, and demonstrated quantum effects). Then we have this cross over happening where very heavy molecules are not following the expected quantum behaviours. I would think this very news worthy. BTW, if you'd like to expand on gold and mercury relativistic effects in a thread, I would at least be one interested party.
  11. Global Warming is Opinion

    I might add, while some might be concerned on my questions, this journal report on it's own puts to bed the silly title of this thread. No it's not opinion, it's science.
  12. Global Warming is Opinion

    ChY I'm not embarrassed about ignoring the popular press on a science forum, TBH I'm sick and tired of the nature of science reporting in the public press (especially on sites like the Guardian), the but yes I found the link. Very interesting paper and excellent correlation on those results. It struck me just how much missing data there is and it's curious that the largest area of high temp is within the area of least data. See Table 1 figure A through to G where the bulk of heat in the diagramme is in the central and western Pacific where the least data is reported. Using the available data requires this work and they are to be commended for pulling together such an extraordinary correlation. I like the concept that the climate modeling should be tested against these results. BTW Figure 2 showing observations of elNino and volcanic activity - am I right that in the text they presumed certain adjustments to the modelling in those periods? Necessary perhaps, but a qualifier all the same. Other presumptions include a linear interpretation through the data in the south which is considered appropriate where it wouldn't be in the north - a truism but in some ways also surely a generalisation. Presumption that the heat increase below 2000m matches the upper layers. We can be happy that this interpretation works very correctly on a mathematical and statistical basis, if for no other reason that the correlation is excellent, the Journal should be peer reviewed, and they have either replicated or expanded on previous science research. Just from my perspective this excellent correlation may lock in to certainty. Or it may not. But no, this is not what I was looking for. It a very good subset on the overall picture. IPCC and the science world is frequently reported as stating predicted temperature warming based on the current CO2 trends through modelling. What I was asking is have any of those models proven themselves when tested on the historical data? Correlation along the lines of your referenced Cheng et al 2016 would be fantastic. I'm presuming that it has been done, but lost in the public media through the "noise" on this topic. Thanks in advance.
  13. Global Warming is Opinion

    Thanks CharonY. Yes that's what I was after. Hindcasting, Like it. Mate, your link to the Guardian, it's not something that I can take as persuasive in science, so I just sort of switched off. Is there anything say in Journals confirming modelling that replicates history. Let's start with the last 100 years before we look to short term 10 year "proofs".
  14. Global Warming is Opinion

    Hi guys. Hope you can cope with a genuine query, I am not arguing anti AGW at all, genuinely interested. Has anyone "back modeled" successfully yet. The term is wrong, but has anyone used the known data from say 1750 to today (or even 1900 to today), and produced a model result that accurately reflects what has happened? Thanks in advance.