Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/18/20 in Posts

  1. 6 points
    This is my 1000th post! Time to celebrate, This is a fine moment to open the Islay Single Malt I got for Christmas. Cheers from Ghideon, to all new and old form members!
  2. 3 points
    As others have informed you, the only centre of any universe, is that of our observable universe. An Alien on the edge of our observable universe, would also be the centre of his or her observable universe. It has been shown [MAXIMA, Boomerang, WMAP experiments] that our universe is flat to within small tolerances. That flatness does not give us with any certainty, an answer to the question re the universe being infinite or finite, when we consider exotic geometries like a torus. Been off grid for a while fellas and a busy little beaver but havn't as yet kicked the bucket!!!
  3. 3 points
    A general advice in this forum: Do listen to the experts' (side) notes, regardless of topic. Today's result; a batch of mud cakes with strawberries for dessert tonight: Thanks for the inspiration @Strange /G
  4. 3 points
    I am not going to watch a 16 minute video that you claim supports your view. The video may be mistaken, or you may be misunderstanding what they say in their alleged support. Q1. No energy needed. The total energy involved remained constant. While in the material the photon is interacting with the material, and this cannot be ignored in considering conservation of energy. Q2. As others have stated, the photon always travels at c. But time is spent interacting (virtually) with the medium. Q3. Nonsensical question. There is no "halfway out." The border is not well-defined at this scale, and you either have a photon or you don't. It's not a scaled-down version of a submerged beach ball rising out of a pool. Q4. The classical picture is a little different, but the notion of light interacting with the medium and consequently slowing down the speed of propagation still holds. It just does so in with the bulk medium, rather than on an individual particle basis. The wave outside of the medium travels at c, the wave inside at c/n. To add to this: it's because the interaction is with a virtual state of the atom in the medium - the photon can't impart energy or momentum to the atom because there is no state to do so with, so the photon must be re-emitted with the same energy and momentum, with none imparted to the atom.
  5. 3 points
    Do not forget that also in the physical 4D-world, the time dimension does not stand on equal footing with the space dimensions. Pythagoras in spacetime is: x2 + y2 + z2 - (ct)2 = d2 Note the minus-sign. So in some sense we experience a 4D world: we need 4 coordinates to define the spacetime location of events. But time- and space dimensions do not behave exactly the same.
  6. 3 points
    Great demonstration of why correlation is not causality:
  7. 3 points
    There is so much wrong with this... In the first place, the fictional light clock and atomic clocks work on completely different principles, so I have no idea why you throw them in one bucket. Secondly, you should not forget that SR is based on 2 postulates: one is the invariance of the speed of light, and this is used in the example of the light clock. The other postulate is that there is no physical experiment that can show you that you are in absolute rest: observers in all inertial frames see exactly the same laws of physics. But if clocks based on other principles than the light clock would run at different rates, one would have a criterion to say who is at rest, and who is moving. The light clock is just a nice example to easily explain time dilation to lay people. But there are derivations of SR that are much more fundamental, than this. (Why do you think the original article of Einstein was titled 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'? There appears no light clock at all in this article.) Do not think that SR is based on the example of the light clock!
  8. 3 points
    To see whether gravity is a force, simply attach an accelerometer to a freely falling test particle. You will find that the instrument reads exactly zero at all times, even though the trajectory of the test particle makes it obvious that it is affected by gravity. And then of course you have other effects, such as gravitational time dilation, that can’t be explained by forces at all. Thus, gravity isn’t adequately described as a mechanical force. It completes the “zoo” of those particles which the Standard Model predicts within the energy ranges that we can probe with current technology. The hypothetical graviton interacts so weakly that it would be extremely difficult to detect it directly. The entire idea of a “graviton” is based on the notion that gravity can be quantised using the usual framework of quantum field theory. It is in fact easy to write down a QFT for gravity - but the problem is that such a QFT is not renormalisable, and exhibits infinities that cannot be removed via any known method. Essentially, the resulting QFT is useless, in that one cannot extract many meaningful physical predictions from it. So evidently, QFT is not the right method to quantise gravity. Based on current knowledge, it would seem that gravity is conceptually different from the other fundamental interactions, and is hence not amenable to the usual quantisation schemes. This puts a huge question mark behind the notion of a “graviton” - treating gravity as the interchange of vector bosons may not be a meaningful concept. But if it is, then it would not be difficult to incorporate it into the Standard Model (you’d just add an appropriate term to the Lagrangian). This is an area of ongoing research.
  9. 3 points
    I should point out to you that you don’t seem to be following the scientific method, which is a big red flag. You appear to have arrived at a conclusion (electron is composed of photons), and now you are working at making everything fit that conclusion. That is not how science is done. In the scientific method, you start with the data - in this case the known dynamics and properties of electrons -, develop a model to describe that data, and then test that model. If the model does not work, you either amend or abandon it. Crucially, any new model must fit in with all the rest of what we know about physics. If you come up with an idea, and then find yourself unable to abandon that idea even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it doesn’t work and cannot work, then you have a problem. I think you should stop wasting your time with this, and reinvest your resources into learning what we already know about the physics of particles. Only when you are familiar with what we already know, can you make meaningful inroads into what we don’t know yet. Just some friendly advice.
  10. 3 points
    It's actually a very effective style of debate, pretty much perfected by Trump. You can tell whatever falsehood you like (from 'little white lie' to 'liar, liar, pants on fire') and then move on with the damage of the falsehood effectively done. Works great with with those who don't really require evidence, like many Trump supporters. If someone calls you out you just ignore, refuse to engage, don't answer questions, obfuscate, hoping the person will go away. If they don't, just say you didn't mean it "literally" (or whatever), and that the fault really belongs to the person who brings it up due to their own weakness, such as "nitpicking". Trump's preferred phrasing seems to be that he eventually says "it was only a joke" and then faults the person bringing it up as someone who has no sense of humor. Personally I prefer the style where if someone calls you out for something you said, you either explain why you were right all along, possibly that they actually misunderstood what you were saying, or if appropriate, respond with a "yes, perhaps that was a bit overstated". So THIS time you were being literal. Got it. Kind of hard to tell when to take it literally and when not to take it literally. My bad. Guess I misunderstood him, which seems to be the entire issue here. When he said... ...I for some reason thought that he was implying that Nadler and Schiff were the only ones insulting the jury prior to final verdict.
  11. 3 points
    She was seen by him and Giuliani as an obstacle to their scheme of extorting Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden before military aid was released. She’s been a career diplomat for 30 years for administrations in both parties, and wasn’t one to go along with questionable behavior. So, they had her removed so they could pressure Ukraine in the way they did. trump says he didn’t pressure anyone to have her removed Now, one of these indicted guys named Lez Parnev is saying all of this happened with Trumps explicit direction. Trump kept saying he’s never even met Parnev so Parnev began releasing some of the hundreds of selfies he’d taken with Trump. Trumk said, “nah, well I take pictures with people all of the time. Doesn’t mean I know them,” so Parnev released a video of them having a 90 minute conversation together. As part of that conversation, we see Trump telling Parnev to take her out and get her out of there a year ago, and largely because she wasn’t going to be a sycophant to him nor would she help facilitate the quote unquote Ukrainian drug deal. He said he had nothing to do with the ambassador. He did. He said he’d never met Parnev, but selfies (and now this video) prove otherwise. Meanwhile, Trump continues to ask (in essence): “Who ya gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes?”
  12. 3 points
    Seems that some people believe arguing about the discussion is the same as discussing the argument.
  13. 3 points
    It is confusing. You can't find a clear example of someone being called a liar, but still think it's a problem?
  14. 3 points
    The quote appears to be a general comment and does not seem to be directed at a specific person. As such it does not seem to call a particular user a liar. This is not semantics but an important distinction. Second, it also leaves the door open that folks argue from a point of ignorance rather than deliberate deception.
  15. 3 points
    You already started with an emotional guess about the percentage that was already present. I doubt we can reason you away from that view. I'm very leery these days about people with emotional criticisms. The current POTUS is criminally proficient at screaming he's being treated unfairly, and it's gotten him a lot of leeway he didn't earn and doesn't deserve. I'm suspicious that you're setting the stage here by painting people as unreasonable and rude if they argue against you.
  16. 3 points
    While female and male brains have differences, it would be difficult to pick apart what is truly biological variance between populations and what is cultural conditioning. I vaguely recall a study that found female hippocampi were on average smaller than in males, which was said to explain why men were better navigators. But we also know parts of the brain less used will atrophy. So is it a case of their hippocampi being intrinsically smaller, or a result of gender roles directing its use (or lack of)? When women have risen to prominent historical roles they have pretty much done as men have done - Wu Zetian, Boudicca, Hypatia (but maybe that's because they emerged in patriarchies). There is also evidence of early societies that while not matriarchal, were more balanced. The Spartans are a probably the best documented example, and weren't significantly different from surrounding societies. I've also heard it said men more readily pursue risky pursuits, perhaps leading to voyages such as Colombus'. Assuming this is a neurobiological difference, it wouldn't necessarily preclude risky behaviour from men. Remember Colombus was sponsored by both Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand, with the former willing to sell some jewels to fund it (thoough she didn't need to). War would still be conducted by men on the field; aside from differences in physiology making men on average more suited to those demands, sending women to fight would be a flawed strategy. The Romans lost ~300,000 men to Hannibal in the Punic wars from a total population of ~3.5 million - thats a huge proportion. If they had all been women of child-bearing potential Rome would almost certainly have fallen. Overall i don't think there'd be gross changes to the patterns of war, economic cycles, spiritual practices, technological development etc - just a lot of changed details which are impossible to guess at. They say men are from Mars and women from Venus, but we all know they're both from Earth.
  17. 3 points
    For intrinsic curvature that is correct. An example of intrinsic curvature would be the old Atari 'Asteroids' game. The left side of the screen is identified with the right hand side, and the top with the bottom, such that when your spaceship disappears from one side of the screen it reappears on the other. The screen would be an example of a 'flat' 2dimensional torus, as opposed to the surface of a 'regular' torus which looks like a doughnut, and requires a 3rd dimension to visualize. Extrinsic curvature actually requires an external 'embedding' dimension. IOW a 4th dimension to describe 3dimensional curvature. An example of extrinsic curvature is the rubber sheet analogy of GR, and it is precisely why it is problematic. The flat 2dimensional sheet actually bends into an external ( 3rd, embedding ) dimension, when a mass is placed on it. I don't really consider the space-time of GR to be 'bendable' ( whatever that means ). But GR allows me to assign a co-ordinate system to that space-time, and the altered spacing of the co-ordinate gridlines in the presence of mass-energy ( or energy-momentum ) is the equivalent of 4dimensional 'curvature'. These co-ordinate gridlines are essentially equipotential field lines of the gravity field.
  18. 3 points
    That is not what "squaring the circle" means. Given a circle of area 1, yes, there also does exist a square also of area 1. That is not a problem. The problem is that from a line segment of length equal to the radius (or equivalently the diameter) of such a circle, it is not possible only using ruler and compass to construct a line segment to make a side of a square of the same area as the circle. The claim in your old book does not make immediate sense. It is true that if you are given a line segment of unit length, then you can quite obviously construct a square of unit area. But having been additionally given a circle of unit area would not be helpful in any way to do it.
  19. 2 points
    What up! I know I am about 16 years late but, I just wanted to point out that (like others have) @Tesseract was incorrect in saying that salt and vinegar makes hydrochloric acid. I dislike the spread of misinformation. Next time make sure something is correct before you post it to the internet. Also I made this account to post this. But I'm sure nobody will ever see this. I put so much time and effort into doing something so utterly pointless.
  20. 2 points
    Strange has given you the accepted thinking of the scientific community. A photon hitting a photographic plate will show an image whether a human ( or other ) consciousness looks at it or not. Hint- Getting into a metaphysical argument with Dimreepr is best done when you are stoned. Sometimes you wanna hug him, sometimes you wanna strangle him .
  21. 2 points
    I've had a passing interest over the years in people claiming Big Pharma blocking 'cheap' or 'natural' cures and, so far, I've seen no justification. They just don't pass peer review. Most of it's answered in your link. Conspiracy-based paranoia is a way for some people to avoid the fact that they are largely responsible for how their life turns out.
  22. 2 points
    There is also the fact that when a new virus is encountered, the dangers are unknown so it makes sense to try and contain it as quickly as possible.
  23. 2 points
    The mortality rate for flu is about 0.1%. The mortality rate for 19 NCov is about 2% It's about 20 times more likely to kill you. In the UK about 600 people a year die from flu- in spite of the fact that many people are vaccinated and that we have antivirals that help treat it. So, it's not unreasonable to imagine that, if there's a serious outbreak in the UK, it's more likely that you will catch it and, if you catch it, it's more likely to kill you. That's grounds for making a bit of fuss.
  24. 2 points
    Ok. Sorry to hear that you have lost your interest. Is there particular reason why you choose to blame that on the member's of this forum?
  25. 2 points
    I actually checked the Yang website where he proposes to reduce tuition fees, and it seems that for the most part he is barking up the wrong tree. He wants universities to reduce administrative positions, but quite a few studies indicate that while it contributes to cost, it is not the main driver and also it is not clear how he wants to force unis to restructure that way. He wants to collect additional data and somehow link tuition fees with salary outcomes, but it is absolute not clear how that is going to work. University costs are distinct from the salary potential of graduates so one would need to change uni from a teaching/research environment to vocational training system mostly run by sessionals. There a few other points which do not make sense whatsoever (wants presidents to discuss job prospects with alumni- why?). As such it is not clear how that is supposed to increase teaching quality at the same time. And the biggest missing bit is that there is no serious element of federal funding (other than investing in innovative and growing schools??), which is actually one important driver of tuition costs. That section is a bit symptomatic why I have some issues with Yang on certain topics- it reminds me too much of a techbro sales pitch- it propose relatively easy solutions often targeting superficial issues, but failing to actually address the issues it promises to solve.
  26. 2 points
    I spoke with Senator Warren today. Asked about getting things done in an age of recalcitrance and how even things supported by vast majorities of US citizens still die in congress more often than not. I’ll be caucusing for her tomorrow night as we Iowans kick off the voting season for 2020. My concern is it won’t be enough. The polls seem to be all about Bernie vs Biden these last few days. My pick may not come out ahead (tho New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Super Tuesday states all clearly matter, too, so can’t write anyone off just bc of tomorrow). She’s flying back to Washington tonight for impeachment activities Monday. This is my first election cycle in Iowa. I got to meet a few US Senators and a pretty popular mayor. Unfortunately, the math didn’t work out for me to get jumped into the Gang. Regardless... This is way better than voting in Texas... and I’ll only need to wait another 1,460 days to do it again. Anyway, I even got a picture with her dog Bailey. He’s a good boi... yes he is. 🐶
  27. 2 points
    I was particularly struck by the posts about losing UK sovereignty. Here's the UK's sovereign (before, during and after the UK's membership of the EU). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II Here's the man who sent his cronies to lie to her https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson The problem's not so much that they think others are stupid, as that they are stupid themselves, but think everyone else is wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect. Yes, they "see" that, but it's clearly illusory. (and that's before we get to the issue of brexiteers who apparently think that China, India and Africa must be part of the EU, because they think that brexit will affect immigration in a manner that tallies with their racist viewpoint)
  28. 2 points
    It's not increased g but lower gravitational potential energy (depth in a gravitational well) that makes clocks relatively slower. It's easy to confuse because with common masses g is typically higher where the potential energy is lower. If you took a pendulum clock tuned for Earth's gravity and suspended it somewhere above the sun where g=9.81 m/s^2, you could confirm that the clock keeps time with a nearby light clock the same way one would on Earth. But it should be deeper in a gravitational well compared to the Earth's clock, so that if you compared the two pendulum clocks operating with an equal g, the one above the sun should be slower. That's the thing about "all other things being equal"; you can make all other things equal and you still get the relativistic effects, so you can rule out mechanical reasons for time dilation.
  29. 2 points
    Can this be stated in other words, "Electromagnetic waves are only transverse and gravitational waves are both longitudinal and transverse" ?
  30. 2 points
    Kobe Bryant, the star Laker who retired less than 2 years ago, his daughter, and 7 others were killed this morning when Kobe's chopper crashed in Calabasas CA. I go bike trail riding at Malibu State Park, which is about a mile from where his chopper crashed. Kobe was the kind of athlete that is likeable, a real nice guy, besides being poetry in motion. See you later Kobe! He's been immortalized in video.
  31. 2 points
    I never trust anyone who DEMANDS I trust them by refusing to provide a citation. Regardless of whether or not he knows what he is talking about, when someone speaks to me that way my first thought is "pompous ass". There is nothing wrong with not understanding what he is saying. It is either because it is beyond your current understanding (EVERYONE has things beyond their current understanding), or because what he is saying makes no sense. Scolding you for trying to get to the heart of the matter makes him untrustworthy and a pompous ass. I also can't comprehend what he is saying. I suspect he is throwing together lots of concepts in an attempt to appear superior. All my opinion of course.
  32. 2 points
  33. 2 points
    That article references academics who looked into it. You were obviously trying to cause offence.
  34. 2 points
    I can think of some more cons. I'm not sure how valuable our data will become. At present estimates vary wildly from less than a few cents to a maximum of $100, though most estimates seem to congregate around a dollar. Even at the most optimistic case that's not enough to be used as a currency. The value of data would have to increase massively if it were to become useful. And if it did increase much, i can imagine that most companies would just switch to scraping your data from elsewhere. They don't need direct access to your healthcare records, they could just access your shopping records and infer your health status from that (already possible). I also think you would need global legislation in place to deny companies the companies the legal grey areas they need to operate. That could take decades - if ever. Also i think the younger generations are already used to their data being all over the place and would resist change, even if it were in their interests, as companies make things less convenient for them and blame this new data legislation. I think this horse bolted long ago: which is something people working in general AI fields have been warning of (e.g. Nick Bostrom😞 changes could occur much faster than traditional social and legal institutions are able to keep pace with.
  35. 2 points
    We have no choice Zap. If we didn't, who would you have a discussion with ?
  36. 2 points
    We only spambanned them because the robot left out, "Don't forget to drizzle some on your huevos tomorrow for breakfast!" This is why we still need people.
  37. 2 points
    Swansont is correct. If we look at gravitational time dilation as the loss of energy of an EM reference signal as it travels up a gravitational well, then an EM signal ( light clock ) would lose energy travelling in the direction of acceleration, and gain when travelling opposite the direction of acceleration. By gain/loss of energy I mean increased/decreased frequency and/or shortened/lengthened wavelength. IOW the equivalence principle holds.
  38. 2 points
    It wouldn’t surprise me if Trumps loose language resulted in some unhinged person deciding to take matters into their own hands and harm those he chooses to target (like his supporter who mailed pipe bombs to 16 people just over a year ago), but IMO it’s a stretch to suggest Trump specifically wanted the ambassador killed and not just removed from her post.
  39. 2 points
    Are not my opinions of his behavior as valid as his opinion of my behavior? Has he supplied the examples of our bad behavior that we've requested? Frankly I cannot understand your support of this poster He has compared "us" or accused us of: - A standard attitude of “STFU, you stupid, ignorant denier" - That we "routinely sling ad homs, insults , and tell others to STFU" - "insults flying" - "boorish behavior" - That we "tell people to STFU and calling them liars, trolls , and ignorant" - That " anyone not agreeing with the mass is either a troll, is stupid, or is just a liar" - "snakiness and snideness" - "a general attitude than anyone who doesn't agree might possibly be a liar" And these "insults" to us have been repeated multiple times in this thread with no substantiation. Frankly I'm growing tired of his boorish, insulting behavior and wish he would just STFU.
  40. 2 points
    This was really insightful, though slightly displaced from another similar possibility which has crossed my mind... Namely, he consistently ignores feedback in all of his various threads, keeps repeating invalid points even after getting corrected, keeps failing to support anything with evidence even when asked, then gets called out for trolling. Voila! He gets to point back here and tell us all how blinkered we are and how we’re all far too eager to call innocent well meaning people like him trolls... something which all those other better forums would NEVER do.
  41. 2 points
    Yes, 3D space is a volume. We live in 3D space Things like points and lines are mathematical concepts. They can be useful in physics (and other areas). For example, the route between London and New York is 1D line. That is not a "thing"; but it is mathematically useful. Similarly, electrons (which may or may not be "things" depending how you define "thing") are modelled as 0D points. That is useful because it corresponds to the way they behave. Many areas of science use multi-dimensional abstract spaces. (Even "soft" sciences like social science.) Because they are useful ways of describing the world. Science, generally, isn't concerned with "reality" but about what we can measure and describe. If you want to discuss "reality" then you probably want philosophy (or maybe religion) rather than science. He did actually say that we can describe the universe as a 4D construct that combines space and time (called, not suprisingly, spacetime). All four dimensions have equal status of being "real" whatever that means. And all four are affected by the presence of mass (resulting in effects like gravity or time dilation).
  42. 2 points
    I guess I can refer to Germans as Nazis from now on since I'm of German heritage and don't mean it in a negative way. I can't decide if you are being purposely obtuse to serve your purposes or if you really can't see all the flaws in your arguments.
  43. 2 points
    And this is exactly the sort of problem I highlighted in my first post: people may come up with clever-sounding ideas that don't work because they don't understand all the details. Then other people (you, in this case) may dismiss perfectly sound ideas with straw man arguments because they haven't looked into all the details and assume it can't possibly work. Or, more realistically, the power company offers a deal where you get a slightly lower rate if you will allow them to borrow, say, 10% of your battery's charge - with guarantees about when/how this can happen to ensure that you are not inconvenienced and can drive your car in an emergency. But feel free to carry on with your assumption that no car manufacturers and infrastructure companies have thought about how this could work practically. wallflash: "I would love to hear everyone's ideas on how we can tackle climate change" wallflash: "No, that won't work" wallflash: "No, I don't agree" wallflash: "No. wallflash: "No" If we have this much difficulty coming up with purely hypothetical ideas between friends, imagine how much harder it must be for people who actually have to solve the technical, economic and political problems to get anything done. It is amazing that any progress is being made at all.
  44. 2 points
    So you're the arbiter of what's insulting or not? That's what you've set yourself up as, with the first couple of posts, and now this.
  45. 2 points
    i do not quite get what you are arguing as you seem to state even a secondhand implication of ignorance or a lie would be disallowed elsewhere. I find it rather hard to believe. If someone states that there is no consensus on what the sun is and why it is bright, is there a way to point it out without implying that the poster is either ignorant of the facts or lying about what is known? Because if that is the case it means that one would need to treat every crackpot idea the same way as actual knowledge. And if we start with this equivalency it basically means we have no knowledge at all, just opinions.
  46. 2 points
    I am not sure I understand the question. I am not even sure that the premise is true (did Alchemy and Chemistry even exist at the same time?). But as a hint to what I guess may be the answer you are looking for: Do you understand why turning lead into gold is not within the scope of Chemistry?
  47. 2 points
    https://phys.org/news/2020-01-particle-chip.html This image, magnified 25,000 times, shows a section of a prototype accelerator-on-a-chip. The segment shown here are one-tenth the width of a human hair. The oddly shaped gray structures are nanometer-sized features carved in to silicon that focus bursts of infrared laser light, shown in yellow and purple, on a flow of electrons through the center channel. As the electrons travel from left to right, the light focused in the channel is carefully synchronized with passing particles to move them forward at greater and greater velocities. By packing 1,000 of these acceleration channels onto an inch-sized chip, Stanford researchers hope to create an electron beam that moves at 94 percent of the speed of light, and to use this energized particle flow for research and medical applications. Credit: Neil Sapra
  48. 2 points
    conjurer suspend for a week for persistently posting above his level of understanding
  49. 2 points
    The fundamental mistake your making is assuming fundamental particles are made up of other particles. It's a common mistake and error, a large part of that error is thinking particles are corpuscular solids. The SM particles are field excitations. Lets take an example to prove the error on thinking. Take two protons and accelerate them to near c, then have a scattering collision. Now ask yourself the following question, if the rest mass of both protons is 938 MeV, how did this collision form a Higgs boson or in other reactions a top quark ? The Higgs boson isn't part of the proton as it is comprised of quarks and gluons, Secondly the mass of the Higgs boson far exceeds the rest mass of the two protons. Thinking that your colliding solid balls of matter particles and ending up with pieces of different types of matter particles is incorrect. What you really need is their wavefunctions and how those wavefunctions interfere either in constructive or destructive interference for both elastic and inelastic collisions of the particles wavefunctions. While your at it consider how it's possible for one type of particle and not others are capable of passing through solid matter while other particles do not. This can also occur with particles that would either get absorbed or reflected by that barrier of the same type. Ie quantum tunnelling. A little side note. The only way I have found to understand thermal equilibrium of particle states is by throwing away any matter like view point. Toss any corpuscular visualizations away and deal strictly through the QFT wavefunctions. (Also done in String theory) In thermal equilibrium different particle species cannot be distinguished from one another their Compton or DeBroglie wavelength becomes identical etc. (Ie they are symmetric to each other in any measurable quantity. (Hint symmetry breaking occurs as the particle species drop out of equilibrium) Bose Einstein or Fermi condensate is the same process. In this state all particles lose their identity from another. Hard to explain those with a little billiard ball point of view.
  50. 2 points
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.