exchemist

A photon is not, or should not be, described as a packet of energy. Energy is not stuff. It's just a property of a system, like momentum. A photon is not "made of" energy, it "has" energy - along with a number of other properties. A photon is sometimes described as a wave packet, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_packet , but not an energy packet. Systems that move (relative to others) and have energy will naturally carry that energy with them, so yes, that energy moves, but only as a result of belonging to the system that moves. To describe a photon as moving energy is not correct. Similarly a ball is a physical object - a system. It has mass as one property, and that mass is associated with a rest energy by E=mc². But the ball is not "composed of" mass, so it is not "composed of" energy either. It has both mass and energy, along with radius, colour, maybe spin, smell.......etc. All these are just properties of the ball. It is the ball that you toss in the air, not any one of these properties.

Thanks, very helpful. So, if I try to summarise, as it is impossible to evaluate all drug-drug combinations, knowledge of the mode of transport and mode of action of a drug is used to predict what interactions with other drugs might be expected, and priority is given to checking these combinations. And then, after introduction of the drug, there is a catch-up process, to flag any further interactions discovered in clinical practice. What seems still unclear is what requirements there are, if any, to check out potential interactions as part of the regulatory approval process.

More gibberish. I'm out.

What are you suggesting might have been “deep faked”, then?

As a chemist, I am conscious that a real physicist my pop up and shoot me down, but I think you have to start again with the system as it is after the interaction. Energies, potentials, momenta etc may have changed, so you have a new state, with a new Hamiltonian (a mathematical description of the total i.e. potential plus kinetic, energy of the system) in the Schrödinger equation. In many cases you can work out what this will be from the nature of the interaction, e.g. absorption of a photon by an electron in an atom. But you generally would need to solve the equation again, I think (except I suppose in very simple cases, like an elastic collision or something, where you may get away with just changing the phase.) The relationship between the two wave functions itself won't be probabilistic, since each is a defined mathematical expression. But each expression is a probability-based description of the system.

You can read about it here: https://bletchleypark.org.uk/our-story/bletchley-park-and-d-day/ Though what this has to do with moon landings, or secrets kept by the state. I don't know - unless you mean the Enigma-coded messages sent by the German military.

Is that entirely right? Surely even a single solution to Schrödinger's equation is still a "monochromatic" wave function, describing in effect a probability density over space, rather than a specific location at which the QM entity might be detected. In which case, "collapse" represents detection (or interaction) at a specific location, with a likelihood predicted statistically by the (single) solution (wave function).

Ah yes, the telltale "ya" makes its appearance: in my experience a sign of aggression as a substitute for rigour. Your penultimate paragraph reinforces this impression, being merely a rant against some imagined foes, rather than advancing a coherent argument. But the rest seems close to word salad. This stuff about 3 points on a graph is a clunky pseudo-mathematical way to say something simple, viz. that different parts of your body are at physically distinct locations. You then go on to say something that appears to be simply wrong, namely that sensation is experienced at all three parts of the body simultaneously, when it is a known fact that nerve impulses take time to travel. (By the way, "the proof is in the pudding" is nonsense. The expression is: "The proof of the pudding is in the eating".)

No, you need to present a topic for discussion here, not require readers to click on links to take them elsewhere - and maybe pick up malware in the process. According to my limited understanding of QED, particles are modelled as disturbances in fields. Does your hypothesis relate to how these disturbances arise?

No. And nor do QM entities either, at least in the most prevalent interpretations. The so-called wave function collapse is due to interaction, not necessarily "observation" by a conscious "observer". Observation requires interaction with a detector, but interactions with things other than detectors, i.e. that don't result in observation, have the same effect. According to my understanding at least.

Yes, that's partly what I was getting at: how can energy be orthogonal to space and time? But also, one can speak of two points separated in space or in time, but what can two points separated in energy mean, without reference to the presence of a specified system, for the energy to be a property of? Energy is not free standing: it only exists as an attribute of a physical system.

Yes, Pigliucci and Peter Woit are the people I often go to when I feel I smell bullshit: they are good at cutting through opacity and pretentiousness and seem to have their feet firmly on the ground. Good point about Ryle, though I can't pretend to have studied him.

Plenty of respected thinkers don't consider there to be a "hard problem of consciousness" in the first place: https://philosophynow.org/issues/99/What_Hard_Problem For the little it may be worth, I think Pigliucci is spot-on.

But these have to be independent variables, right? Whereas energy is in general a function of space and time, is it not?

Must admit I can't follow this. Why would a single, seemingly arbitrarily chosen, property of a physical system qualify as a dimension? An event is not a physical system, surely? Distance and time are not properties of physical systems either. And why energy, rather than, say, momentum, or other properties of physical systems? I can't help thinking there is a category mistake here.

From a brief web search on the subject of drug-drug interactions, it looks as if this subject is a real issue in modern medicine and not tremendously well controlled. For instance I found this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3500158/. While it looks as if quite a lot can be predicted by knowing the modes of action of a given pair of drug on the body, clearly this is not really sufficient. I tried to find out how the regulations for drug approval handle this issue but the relevant pages from the FDA seem not to be readily available, while I could not find anything on the UK's MHRA, apart from the "Yellow Card Scheme", which is for reporting adverse events seen in clinical practice, i.e. after drug approval has already been granted. I'd actually be very interested to see comments from one of our forum experts in this sort of thing. Perhaps @CharonY may know something about this.

Then don't talk gibberish and stick to the topic. What the hell have Siamese twins got to do with either rates of change or the differentiation of planetary bodies? And what the hell do you mean by volcanoes as "retrothrusters"? We're not talking bloody Buck Rogers. Get a grip of your thoughts, for Christ's sake, and stop wasting people's time with this nonsense.

As a singer, my suspicion is that it may have something to do with the vowels involved. I don't think consonants echo very effectively (complex transient waveforms, including a lot of high frequency components). So I think what you hear is mainly the vowels. The sounds that will echo the best will be the open vowel sounds, as these have the simplest waveform (closest to sinusoidal, with fewest high frequency components). The English "I" is a diphthong, consisting of AAA and EEE. The "o" of love is AAAH and the "ou" of you is OOO. AAA and OOO are open, while EEE is not. So in the case of "I", The EEE won't echo very well and the preceding AAA is very short. So you hear mainly the following longer AAA and OOO. At least, that would be my best guess.

I vill not buy zees tobacconist, it eez scratched.

That's nothing. What about this? Why are they hiding the truth from us? :-

Thanks very much for that. I have found this reference: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nazi-sun-gun-space-mirror_n_3015475. So my scepticism was misplaced. It seems this story goes back to a Life magazine article in 1945. I can't find anything more authoritative, but it does seem the Germans entertained a number of highly speculative ideas and impractical technical ideas around that time. All rather reminiscent of that James Bond film "Diamonds Are Forever", chiefly notable for Charles Grey as Blofeld and the rather gorgeous Jill St. John as Tiffany Case.

The first satellite was only launched over 10yrs after the end of WW2. So it sounds to me like nonsense. Where did you hear this story?

I won't. The thread is discussing the separation of mixtures of materials into different layers, in the early planets etc. It was actually you that used the term "differential" in this context, in an earlier post. Don't play games by switching to an unrelated context. If you want to know why differential calculus is so named, start a thread on it.

No you can't infer that. The process of differentiation relies on difference in density, which only makes denser objects sink, relative to lighter ones, in the presence of gravity and the absence of other factors that would counteract this. As for energy transformations, these can occur, since phase changes will take place at some point, which absorb or release Latent Heat. In fact there is a hypothesis that one source of heat in the interior of the Earth is due to phase changes which progressively release heat and thus slow down the rate of cooling. When Latent Heat is released or absorbed, there is an interconversion between internal kinetic energy of atoms and molecules and the energy of chemical bonds. However heat being converted to cold makes no sense. "Cold" is just a relative absence of heat.

As @MigL says, no energy is needed, or at any rate no input of energy is needed. This is implied by Newton's First Law of Motion: https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100232420 If, however, you are thinking about the specific scenario of periodic motion in a gravitational field, e.g. a planet orbiting the sun, or a pendulum in a clock, then gravity certainly affects how much kinetic energy the object will need to have, in order to follow a given trajectory. But again no input of energy is needed, once it has been initially set in motion.