All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Today
  3. Dropping out of highschool

    It's not a company devoted to software engineering, if that's what you mean. It's an industry based company that handles about a million and a half shipments a year to various warehouses, construction sites, etc, of various building materials and supplies. The software is mostly used in collecting basic data, and then using that data to optimize the production. For example, a software program that was used for recording parts that were damaged during production found that over 75% of parts being damaged on line 5 was at a single area. Upon inspection of the area, there turned out to be a rough spot on the conveyor which would scratch the part, damaging it. Stuff like that.
  4. Duality & Non-locality Unified

    I haven’t seen any quantum interpretations in anyone’s explanations.
  5. Yesterday
  6. Duality & Non-locality Unified

    I'm not convinced about the measurement thing. The two things are predicted by theory so they "exist" (if they exist at all) even without measurement. But, of course, we can never observe them unless we make measurements. But the same is true of whether a coin landed hands or tails; we can predict the possible outcomes, but we won't know until we look. So I don't think they are caused by the measurement, but our measurements expose them. If we make a measurement of wavelength, for example, then we will see a wave phenomenon. If we make a measurement of location, then we will see a point particle.
  7. Duality & Non-locality Unified

    I'm hanging on.
  8. Duality & Non-locality Unified

    I had not heard of physicalism before, so thanks for that. It is probably a better description of my view than materialism, which would seem to exclude art, music, dreams and emotions which all exist but are not material. My view has also been described as "naive realist" before now: what we see is what there is. However, I also know that these are entirely indefensible beliefs, unsupported (and unsupportable) by any evidence. It is just as valid to believe in solipsism; it is just as consistent with what we experience. But that is just another analogy to to describe the maths. All interpretations of quantum theory are indistinguishable scientifically. They are purely aesthetic choices. I don't like any of them, particularly. I don't understand why you think that is inconsistent with physicalism. But then again, I think there are (at least) two schools of thought about the Copenhagen Interpretation: one is that the wave function is a rather abstract concept, a mathematical description, that collapses to a single value and the other that it is a real physical thing. But in both of these, the wave function is either physical or "supervenes on the physical". So it seems a form of, or at least compatible with, physicalism, to me. Most interpretations are based on some underlying physical reality, so they all seem to fit the description of physicalism. (For anyone else who is not familiar with it: I have no idea whether people do or not. It makes no difference to the science so I don't think it gets discussed often. But even if people favour different interpretations, I don't see why you would not wish to discuss these things. You don't want to be in an echo chamber of only people who like the Copenhagen Interpretation, do you? Incidentally, if you want to discuss interpretations of QM then maybe we should request a moderator to move this to the Philosophy forum?
  9. Are there any known chemical reactions using borax to alkalize a weak solution of sodium silicate and sodium bisulfate?
  10. Fields and ether

    You were asked to confirm thst you were referring to the luminiferous aether, and I may have missed the response. Is that what we’re discussing? (It’s what I was assuming)
  11. Duality & Non-locality Unified

    My understanding of 'interpretation' in this context is a description which gives the same results as other interpretations. So it's impossible to distinguish between e.g. a version of the Copenhagen interpretation and the many worlds interpretation by prediction or experiment. If you can distinguish it's not an interpretation; it's a theory. I would interpret that as saying other people do not share your preference for a particular interpretation. BTW as interpretations are in practice imprecise rather than rigorous, I've never found a rigorous, generally accepted version of the Copenhagen interpretation. Measurement is an interpretation based concept; It's questionable that measurement has any causal influence. From
  12. Menopause

    But then why didn't they find it in a lot more animals then the ones mentioned in Wikipedia? If it's only due to aging then they should find it in many animals, past a certain age. They also found it in birds and fish. And menopause typically only happens in social species wher female members of the group assist in child rearing.
  13. Flying saucer. Picture, project of a spacecraft

    Ok! Next step: we introduce the saucer again, as object B. Saucer is stationary in the air at this time. How this is accomplished is not important yet, in this case we neglect the effect of gravity. Let the initial push as discussed in previous post (where object “B” pushed some air “A”) be the first upstroke of the saucer. Internal construction of saucer is not important, we only assume that it can push some air up, at least once. The saucer push some amount of air "A" up with momentum P and hence the saucer has a momentum P down. The best possible theoretical outcome of this upstroke is if the saucer B at some time later somehow is affected* by the air so that momentum P is transferred to the saucer. This would result in a zero momentum down for the saucer, making it stationary again. The saucer is at this time at a slightly lower position than initially. Do you agree? The saucer has not yet performed a downstroke. *) Again, how the interaction is possible or the physical phenomenon(s) involved is not important now, it could be collisions, draft, drag, turbulence, friction or other. Only important thing is that the interaction follows the laws of physics (conservation of momentum) and that no external forces are involved. Any losses is also neglected at this time. B (saucer) is not allowed to perform any additional actions that may affect momentum or movements.
  14. Menopause

    The majority of female humans are too- because they die in childhood (except in the affluent bits of the world which are rare and new so they aren't a factor in evolution). However, unlike most animals, female humans who live long enough to bear children, typically do reach a menopause. That's unusual and cries out for an explanation. One hypothesis I have heard is that our species is so heavily dependent on knowledge and communication that having grandmas around to help is a significant evolutionary advantage.
  15. Fields and ether

    If you have read my posts carefully at this thread, you will have understood that I have never tried to argue in favor of the ether. And you will have noticed that mathematically I have argued against, because the vacuum is polarizable and the polarization fulfills everything that can be asked of a substrate. I do not try to discuss something outside the main thread. And I have already mathematically shown the minimum to give a framework to the subject.
  16. small explosion in bathroom

    Make photos of the all ingredients and attach in reply. It'll be easier to tell what reactants you had, and what reaction could occur. Listerine is known to contain ethanol. "toilet bowl cleaner" could have bleach (chlorine or peroxide-based).
  17. Duality & Non-locality Unified

    * It is called "the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment". Sorry.
  18. Menopause

    You know that evolution is not working this way. Majority of wild female mammals are dead long before oocytes are exhausted.
  19. Menopause

    Yes, we know. The question is "why hasn't evolution 'fixed' that?"
  20. Fields and ether

    Just something that I have been going to ask for a while.... "Einstein is generally credited with eliminating the need for the aether. However, as documented in the book “Einstein and the Ether”, from 1916 until his death he believed in the aether in some form. In these years, he used the terms “relativistic ether” and “physical space” to convey this idea. For example, in 1934 he wrote “Physical space and the ether are different terms for the same thing; fields are physical states of space.” The standard model is a field theory where all fundamental particles are considered “excitations” of their respective fields. For example, there is an electron field, a muon field and a Higgs field. Do these fields physically exist in spacetime? If so, can they be described physically and collectively described as a relativistic aether? The recent detection of gravitational waves (GWs) has elevated this discussion because one model says that GWs are waves of gravitons propagating at the speed of light through the empty void of space. The competing model advanced by D. B. Blair et al is that GWs are “ripples in the curvature of spacetime which propagate in a very stiff elastic medium. Spacetime has a characteristic impedance of c3/G.” This is describing the physical properties of spacetime encountered by GWs as an elastic medium with a tremendously large impedance. The word “aether” is not used by Blair, but perhaps the elastic properties of spacetime, the multiple fields of the standard model, and the vacuum fluctuations or quantum field theory should be lumped together into the collective term “relativistic aether”. Is space an empty void which messenger particles propagate through or does space have physical properties which justify the term “relativistic aether” and call for further analysis?" <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any comments? I'm not perturbed one way or the other in actual fact, and do not see it as causing a problem. This paper may also be open to some comment...again, I'm unable to see any problem one way or the other.... Space, Time and Aether Received Date: September 25, 2016; Abstract: At the end of the nineteenth century a luminiferous aether was considered necessary to explain electromagnetic interactions and the propagation of light waves. As this aether could not be detected it was disregarded and mathematical theories were developed to explain physical interactions without reference to the aether. Now, over a century later, it is generally acknowledged that a major part of the universe consists of Dark Energy. This article considers that dark energy could be the same entity as the elusive luminiferous aether and looks at implications for time, space and gravity. The conclusion is that results can be obtained by this method that are equivalent to those obtained according to Einstein’s theories <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I find this interesting......................... extract: "In 1920 Einstein said about ether corresponding with classical ether. But in his paper in 1924, named “Concerning the Aether”, Einstein explained the “aether of general relativity” is not absolute, because matter is influenced by the aether, just as matter influences the structure of the aether. So the only similarity of this relativistic aether concept with the classical aether models lies in the presence of physical properties in space. Therefore, Einstein’s use of the word “aether” found little support in the scientific community, and played no role in the continuing development of modern physics"
  21. Dropping out of highschool

    I don't know much about the US system but the team I manage does include software engineers. You say you'd be working as one, do you really mean you'd be working as a software engineer or would you be doing programming for a company who don't really know what software engineering is? That could make a big difference to you when you come to get your next job. A pretty simple interview question for an entry level software engineer might be something like "what importance do you place on quality assurance and what tools and practices have you employed to demonstrate this in a particular project?" I'd suggest you need to think about this role, it's prospects both in the company and what you might want to do career wise next, after collage. You might also be interested to know that for university graduates we look at their a-levels as well (equivalent age to high school in the USA).
  22. Dropping out of highschool

    If that happened, I wouldn't have access to a good job anyways. I can't afford college without this job. So if the market and economy suddenly tank and I get laid off, I'm not going to college. At that point, other problems arise as well and this is a situation that is bad in both areas. That being said, if the market collapses while I'm in high school that'd be even worse, as then I wouldn't have any job experience nor savings, nor any progress on my college education. If it collapses while I'm getting them, then I'm in a better position. Additionally, this isn't really a controllable risk, and is something I'm willing to take on should I take the GED plan. My risk tolerance is higher then yours. They aren't equal, but that being said the school has nothing more to offer academically. I.E. no extra courses, clubs, etc. So it's really just a time sink at the moment. Time that I could spend working, getting a college degree, etc. Early graduation isn't the important part, it's the amount of time I'm losing simply staying in school doing nothing, which is something I'd much rather be making money to put towards college for.
  23. Flying saucer. Picture, project of a spacecraft

    I agree. I drew attention to this fact, because it indicates that object B was already set in motion without violating the law of conservation of energy. As far as I understand, that was exactly what had to be proved.
  24. Duality & Non-locality Unified

    The first three replies I've had in this thread all carry the signature of old school physicalism combined with math. They setout with math, and then finds analogies to fit them to physicalism. I am a supporter of the Bohr/Heisenberg version of the Copenhagen Interpretation. That the measurement itself is a deciding factor in QM (Which was confirmed by the delayed quantum eraser experiment). That does not work well with physicalism. So, it seems this is not a place for me, since (I presume) the majority of you guys here do not support the Bohr/Heisenberg interpretation.
  25. Fields and ether

    Your original post, Quiet, asked for REASONS to dismiss ( and also to keep ) the notion of the aether. You have been given plenty of reasons, and some of those developed historically. At first we had a model which relied on commonly held assumptions of what a wave needs to propagate. With J C Maxwell's and A Einstein's work, we were able to get rid of these 'assumptions' and simplify the model. And this new model has worked exceedingly well. Are you now saying you wish to discuss something else concerning the aether ?
  26. Menopause

    "Ovarian aging As women age, they experience a decline in reproductive performance leading to menopause. This decline is tied to a decline in the number of ovarian follicles. Although about 1 million oocytes are present at birth in the human ovary, only about 500 (about 0.05%) of these ovulate, and the rest are wasted. The decline in ovarian reserve appears to occur at a constantly increasing rate with age,[17] and leads to nearly complete exhaustion of the reserve by about age 52. As ovarian reserve and fertility decline with age, there is also a parallel increase in pregnancy failure and meiotic errors resulting in chromosomally abnormal conceptions.[medical citation needed]"
  1. Load more activity