Leaderboard

That really hurt Trump, didn't it? The problem here is there is no "right" way to be a woman in politics. People who don't like them will make up excuses not to like them. True of men to some extent (tribalism is real), but amplified with women, since it includes many metrics never used on men.

I'll let the point go if you can show me the thread you started to complain about Trump's bizarre facial expressions.

The chicken egg came before the chicken, because the egg was laid by a creature very similar to a chicken but different enough to be a different species. The mutation occurred in the egg creating the first chicken. Therefore the chicken egg came before the chicken.

! Moderator Note Appeal denied

They are almost Maxwell, but not quite - they are invariant under hyperbolic rotations and translations, but not under boosts, because two of the quantities in the equations don't transform in the necessary way. Actually no, they can't. The GEM field is a rank-3 tensor, which arises from a rank-2 potential, giving the Lagrangian density \[\mathcal{L} =-\frac{1}{16\pi } F_{\mu \nu \alpha } F^{\mu \nu \alpha } -\frac{G}{c} J^{\nu \alpha } A_{\nu \alpha }\] This is different than would be the case for electromagnetism (which arises from a vector potential, and has a rank-2 field tensor). The above is a good approximation for the linear part of the Einstein equations, so it is a weak field approximation to GR. Hm, I don't think this is obvious at all. For one thing, since it is not Lorentz invariant, it's also not CPT invariant, so adding this into the Standard Model is not trivial. Renormalizability also cannot just be assumed, this will have to be specifically checked; I don't know if anyone has done these (pretty complex) maths for the case of GEM.

I should point out here that not all relevant quantities are observer-dependent. Locally, all proper quantities - such as proper acceleration, proper length etc - are invariant, and all observers agree on them. Furthermore, all those quantities that characterise the geometry of spacetime and the distribution of energy-momentum therein are tensors, so all observers agree on them, too. So there is only one reality, which is characterised by suitable invariant and covariant quantities (which may not always be obvious to us). What I do find fascinating though is that the vacuum ground state of quantum field theories is not one of those quantities - it is explicitly observer-dependent. Hence, where one observer sees a vacuum, another observer may see a thermal bath of particles. This raises some interesting questions about the ontology of what we usually consider to be the fundamental building blocks of our universe (particles). It also makes it obvious that there is a deep link there somewhere between GR and QFT.

Thinking out loud... At the time, Einstein did not have to feel embarrassed because he didn't know how to reconcile his theory with QM. If one would be developing GR some 40 years later, he would be under some pressure to provide a theory that includes QM. Some guys/girls might abandon their work out of frustration... So maybe, we won't ever have GR as it is now, but we would directly have (eventually) a version given with QM in mind.

Still, all these experimental falsifications of GEM would not have taken place until the middle of the last century, Markus. That would have made GEM the ruling gravitational theory for about 40 years before people noticed enough of a problem to search for different formulations. Whereas SR was just waiting to be pulled together and published ( probably by H Poincare ) when A Einstein beat him to it in 1905, GR might have taken up to a century without A Einstein. We might just be at the stage now, where A S Eddington was in 1920; one of three people in the world who understood GR.

Well, Liz, there's your answer Your book is too basic. Get a more advanced one.

It is a general introductory textbook for freshmen undergrad students, that gives rough outlines of the major disciplines of physics. It's actually a good book (I have a copy here), since it is very easy to understand due to a large number of illustrations, examples, and exercises. But it's also very basic, and doesn't go in-depth on many topics.

I do not know that textbook, but various solutions may be found derived in many Physics and Physical Chemistry textbooks. Modern Physics by Eisberg Physical Chemistry by Moore It is important to remember that Schrodinger is a partial differential equation. As such the boundary conditions are needed to provided any useful solution since general solutions of PDEs involve arbitrary functions.

Yes, it is of course possible - but only for simple systems, such as various types of simple potential wells, and also for the hydrogen atom. Anything more complex than this generally can’t be done in closed analytical form, which means you need to use numerical methods and computers. Any introductory textbook on quantum mechanics will explain how it is done for simple systems.

Playing the Nazi Card in the Third Reich

The word "arrive" is related to "river" and "riparian" (= related to river banks) because it originally meant "to arrive by boat".

Great demonstration of why correlation is not causality:

My advice for Kamala Harris is to control her facial expressions. Hillary Clinton lost her election by a slim margin. Hillary had a very quick and easy BROAD smile. By "broad" smile I mean the toothy grin of a first grade teacher, the first day of class, with eyes bulging out. It does not look presidential for independent voters. If Hillary had controlled her facial expressions, like a Margaret Thatcher or Angela Merkel, she would have won her election. Kamala please do not smile too broadly.

Is God the first time-traveller?

To alter my dna so I may change form (!). However should I alter my conception dna, NOW, must I wait until my conception reaches this moment, and would my conception ever reach the moment without the end of time? 0---------->1----------->2 ------------>0----------->1