Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by sethoflagos

  1. I'll stand to be corrected but my understanding is that apples cannot self-pollinate. Cultivated apple trees are cloned varieties grafted onto an appropriate root stock. All fruit on a tree is true to the grafted cultivar, but the seeds will not sprout true to type - you'll get all sorts coming up, even from a single fruit.
  2. So you dispute the law of conservation of quantum information, which is a consequence of the no-hiding theorem. This is in turn considered rigorously proven by many authorities. Your argument by common sense seems to fall a little short in comparison. Google is your friend. The wiki page for 'no hiding theorem' addresses most of your misunderstandings. Even the black hole stuff.
  3. I'm guessing you are referring to the apparent 'furrow' running roughly E-W from the SE end of Cuba to the coast of Belize. Compare with a tectonic map of the Caribbean area The feature clearly aligns with the northern boundary of the Caribbean plate, comprising two E-W transform faults flanking a small N-S trending rift zone. Yes, it looks like a furrow. But it's tectonic, not extraterrestrial in origin.
  4. It's focused somewhere but with a very shallow depth of field. So most of the image is oof The focal plane doesn't appear all that planar. Is it taken through an astigmatic lens?
  5. ... or cylindrical (commonest in my line of work) or even spherical from time to time. False premise (see above) and no. If coordinate axes are not mutually perpendicular, how do you even separate the vectors into independent axial components? Difficult for verbal perception too if you're going to use made up words. Then what use is it? Where are the triangles in a torus? Fluid? Navier-Stokes is a continuum model, not a particle model. This is a rather fundamental distinction and renders the rest of your post somewhat off-topic as far as solving Navier-Stokes is concerned.
  6. Dawkins has used hypothetical cases such as this as a reductio ad absurdum criticism of the Linnaean classification system. In particular, that intermediate evolutionary forms must be shoehorned into either a parent or daughter species at some arbitrary single point mutation event. The reality is of course, that genetic isolation etc allow the transition to occur over many generations of intermediates. The OP is simply an attention seeking gross misrepresentation of Dawkins' argument.
  7. I responded to your question about the funding of palaeontological studies in good faith only to discover that your OP was more of a vehicle to peddle conservative fiscal propaganda. Or at least take its dogmatic assumptions at face value. Okay then: In general, private commercial enterprise requires a supply of well-educated young recruits (including palaeontologists and rocket scientists) but is too short-sighted and avaricious to fund public education themselves. Relying on the population to fund their own individual education creates fundamentally unstable, self-perpetuating tiered societies where the majority are denied access to good education and the better-paid jobs that follow on from that due to lack of means. Most of the more successful economies fund universal education programmes through progressive taxation policies leveraging preferentially on commercial profits and the wealthier sections of society to maximise the opportunities for all to realise their full potential. This latter option carries the additional benefit that a better-educated majority is more likely to appreciate the fairness and political stability of such a system, and less likely to indulge in armed insurrection for example. Of course, there are those who prefer the privileges they gain from less fair systems of wealth distribution. Funding for palaeontological studies for example is under constant pressure from religious fundamentalists for example as its findings tend to belie their underlying mythologies.
  8. A good dinosaur fossil can be a very valuable commercial property. Plus palaeostratigraphy (the dating of rock samples by eg their fossil assemblage) is big business in mineral extraction etc. Maybe it's graptolites and conodonts rather than dinosaurs in that case, but the economy still needs a good reserve of trained paleontologists to identify them.
  9. That's actually quite mindblowing. Thanks!
  10. You really have to look at these interactions holistically don't you. The photon momentum is relatively tiny, but it still must result in a small but quantifiable shift in the kinetic energy of the absorbing molecule which may be +ve or -ve depending on frame of reference. This in turn also impacts the relative values of initial photon energy and electron orbital shift energy. If this effect can be accounted for in doppler broadening, then at least my degrees of freedom issue may go away. I don't think you can use the word 'generally' when your justification is based on the specific case of a boolean relationship. Applying this reasoning to a continuous variable like photon frequency seems too big a jump for me.
  11. Good point, however that doesn't appear to challenge the 1st Law in and of itself. Simple absorption is a little different. Okay, an atom can absorb an incoming photon of say 1MHz above or below its standard excitation frequency, but it I can't see it 'remembering' that it has done so. When the excited electron drops down to ground state, I'm assuming that it too could be say +/- 1MHz away from standard with the same probability as the absorption case and for the same reason - Heisenberg. But this leaves us with small accounting errors in both the energy and momentum budgets which even if they average out to zero in the long run introduce the same sort of fuzziness as raised in my 'How Sacrosanct is Conservation of Momentum in QM' thread. I wondered if the discrepancies could be dissipated thermally, but that runs into a degrees of freedom issue. One discrepancy can only balance one conserved quantity I think.
  12. Of course. Blasted autocorrect. Aha! So it's bounded by the uncertainty principle. That makes sense. Thank you!
  13. QM calculations these days are so precise, at least for the simpler species, that electron orbital transition energy levels can be calculated with great precision. This in turn defines the (minimum?) frequency of the energising photon with similar precision. The probability of receiving an energising photon of exactly the required minimum energy seems to me to approximate to zero, and yet the excitation definitely happens. What happens to the mismatch between orbital energy change and photon energy?
  14. And not just any old doctor - a paediatrician no less: a professional specialising in child development.
  15. Am I right in reading 'off shelf' as 'off shell' ie not a solution of the mass/energy equivalence eqn?
  16. Reasoning in the absence of supporting evidence is just wishful thinking.
  17. Exactly. Can we now develop @exchemist's point and address whether the random quantum fluctuations of the vacuum state can perturb the momentum of a gas molecule?
  18. I guess I can take a couple of negs here and there, but it would be nice to know the reason.
  19. And thus the language of our noble ancestors lies dying in the no man's land of post-modernist chutzpah
  20. Presumably this is consistent with a classical picture of momentum exchange in the interaction of a gas molecule and a photon. How about interaction with a random quantum fluctuation? Can the gas molecule 'leak' momentum into displacement of such 'virtual' particles? I'm really asking about phenomena distinct from the measurement problem. I can buy some fundamental uncertainty in the actual path taken. More, I'm trying to narrow it down from some kind of random walk to a spectrum of possible paths all of which are straight lines.
  21. I've seen statements such as this kicking around for decades and always been troubled by a niggling doubt. I imagine that the phenomenon can be explained by normal electron scattering and tunnelling without invoking any deviation to conservation of momentum. But is that all there is to it? Is the momentum vector of a particle subject to variability due to, say, random quantum fluctuation in local field strength? This idea seems somewhat belied by the near point image my eyes can make of a distant star, but even so... My primary contextual interest is in the absolute deterministic nature of gas molecule trajectories between collisions - ie how 'straight' are their paths through free space.
  • 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.