Royston

NOOOOOOO!!!!! IT IS NOT INSTANTANEOUS!!!!!

(read post #2)

 

 

Not technically correct' date=' although it is correct. Pauli said that no two [u']fermions[/u] can occupy the same quantum state. Electrons, neutrinos and quarks (and consequently protons/neutrons) are subject to this, so you were right, but it's fermions, not only electrons.

Thanks I've just started learning so technical details are needed.

I read that it was instantaneous...but information couldn't be sent using entanglement faster than the speed of light...this was in the same paragraph, and confused me greatly.

Now it makes sense, wondering if it was just a typo. thanks for putting me straight.

Could you elaborate a little further why it's not instantaneous, or provide a good link please.

NOOOOOOO!!!!! IT IS NOT INSTANTANEOUS!!!!!

(read post #2)

 

 

Not technically correct' date=' although it is correct. Pauli said that no two [u']fermions[/u] can occupy the same quantum state. Electrons, neutrinos and quarks (and consequently protons/neutrons) are subject to this, so you were right, but it's fermions, not only electrons.

Thanks I've just started learning so technical details are needed.

I read that it was instantaneous...but information couldn't be sent using entanglement faster than the speed of light...this was in the same paragraph, and confused me greatly.

Now it makes sense, wondering if it was just a typo. thanks for putting me straight.

Yes exactly that is why I cannot see it having any relation to the question and too entanglement :|

 

And entanglement isn't instantaniouse is it?

Entanglement is instantaneous. In fact going back to the original post they're using this very principle for quantum computing and quantum teleportation.

Am I being dence or is entanglement nothing to do with exclusion?

Not sure if you already know this but Pauli's exclusion theory is purely that (in a closed system) no two electrons can occupy the same state. This also holds for protons and neutrons...photons are different.

In more complex atoms it's possible for an electron to occupy two states...but you'll have to ask the experts about this, maybe this is where the confusion sprung from ??

I've googled related topics on steroids and keep on getting 'dangers of using anabolic steroids' et.c So I was wondering if anyone could answer the below.

As a child I used to suffer from severe eczema, thankfully it's now under control. However a couple of months ago I had another outbreak and was prescribed a strong steroid cream called Dermovate.

I know anabolic steroids (which obviously this cream is not) inhibits the release of adrenaline, the cream I use seems to speed the healing process...though I'm not sure this is exactly what's happening.

What is the fundamental process of a steroid on the body ? I can't seem to see the relation between anabolic steroids and the topical steroid cream I'm using.

Also (I know this covers two topics) there seems to be a lot of skepticism on what triggers eczema outbreaks...does it work in the same way as an allergy. I found it very difficult to pinpoint exactly what made my condition worse as I grew up.

I know for a fact now that yeast based products seem to cause problems (marmite being particularly bad...but I love it, and sadly beer), I had a really severe case after trekking through the alps in the rain, so I was wondering if this could of possibly been mould floating in the air due to damp conditions ? This could account for weather changes causing problems...but I also experience outbreaks in really hot weather sometimes ???

Exactly...dopamine works for a time' date=' even if released in large amounts it's not sustained,that's why you get certain drugs that are used on a recreational basis are only used occasionally. Dopamine is a chemical much like serotonin that fluds inhibitors.

 

Drugs that have a more subtle, short burst (if you like) release dopamine in small but easily *sustained amounts (due to the short life span of it's activity) so prolonging the addiction. Nicotine being the most subtle...and most addictive. Drugs that are long in thier activity 'use' up dopamine to an extent that it's not addictive over a short period and so lessens the need to use the drug more frequently.

 

In essence the body needs to constantly 'top up' due to the short term effects of the dopamine release.

 

*'Sustained' meaning, prolonging a cycle.[/quote']

 

Small note...adding posts after the pub on an empty stomach is not recommended. The above is utter tripe...apologies.

The degree of reward is not determined by the overall amount of dopamine released' date=' but by the speed with which it spikes. Crack, for example causes an extremely rapid elevation in DA levels, which is why it's so addictive. Nicotine can cause rapid elevation too (taking bolus doses into the blood via the lungs results in a 'hit' in around 6 seconds). This is one reason nicotine is so addictive.[/quote']

 

Exactly...dopamine works for a time, even if released in large amounts it's not sustained,that's why you get certain drugs that are used on a recreational basis are only used occasionally. Dopamine is a chemical much like serotonin that fluds inhibitors.

 

Drugs that have a more subtle, short burst (if you like) release dopamine in small but easily *sustained amounts (due to the short life span of it's activity) so prolonging the addiction. Nicotine being the most subtle...and most addictive. Drugs that are long in thier activity 'use' up dopamine to an extent that it's not addictive over a short period and so lessens the need to use the drug more frequently.

 

In essence the body needs to constantly 'top up' due to the short term effects of the dopamine release.

 

*'Sustained' meaning, prolonging a cycle.

I find it funny that the British are so passionate about discussing the weather, when ours is the least extreme.

I've experienced one hurricane in my lifetime...it was pretty tame compared to what other countries have had to go through. Yet it's been marked as quite a historical moment in British weather.

It gets on my nerves when they open with "Hi, I'm (fill in as appropriate). Today was really lovely, sunny and warm! Wouldn't you just love to be at the beach today? Here's some film of people enjoying the lovely sun at the lovely beach! (fatuous grin)[/i']". How the hell is that a forcast? I was awake! I was out there! And if I wasn't, I have windows!

So true...it's like the handkerchief hanging out of the window joke...when it's raining the handkerchief is wet.

Maybe that's the core of meteorology.

is it just me or are the weather shows in britain dumbing down quite a lot. i just kind of noticed just now that i haven't seen a single isobar chart on tv for over 3 years. and today, on a whole map of britain there were 3 symbols(one in Wales and 2 in England). Scotland and Ireland were completely missed out. WTF is this all about. I usually use the met office website anyway.

When I was watching the regional news they explained the new graphics used for the 'new look' weather reports....

Patronising news reader "So the dark patches (located funnily enough under the clouds)...is that, is that where there's cloud...ok and the light patches, I take it that's where there's (pause) sun ?" proceeds with "isn't that clever"

By this point I was crying.

Scary thing is that I'm sure there's a lot of the population that need it explained in such a child like manner...excluding the under fives.

Thanks everyone, that should keep me busy for a while...time to retire to the study.

Well I hope to at least get a diploma in physics, I've become fascinated with the subject, and I would like to learn for my own pleasure...i have no aspirations to go into that field of work.

when i was a kid i was being stupid and took wires that were pluged into a regular outlet(110v) and connected them to a 6v battery in an attempt to charge it. there was a bright flash of light and i was knocked out' date=' later i woke up on the ground VERY dizzy, ever since then ive bein able to feel the slightest electral charge. just by being near it. even as little as a 1.5v aa battery. my only theory was that this is the bodys natral defence to prevent that "shock" from happening again. i was only 10 at the time and didn't know you can't recharge a non-rachargeable battery. i haven't had any negative effects, witch was sruprising considering the power of an EMP that i experinced. i didn'y accualy get shocked, the wires were highly insulated and i didn't touch the metal.

 

i just want some opinions on the effects i have from it.(feeling electricty, the slightest amount)[/quote']

 

Hazarding a guess it sounds more psychological than anything...sometimes the body produces sensations when reminded of a trauma or bad experience, an example being hairs standing up on the back of the neck or arms.

 

I wouldn't say your body has become more sensitive to electrical currents, that wouldn't make sense. But it does sound like the experience has manifested into a warning signal when you're near an electrical appliance. Do you only get this sensation when you can actually see the source of electricity...or can you feel it before hand ?

hello!

has anyone thought that god did not create us in his image but that we created him in our image. its like the question what came first the chicken or the egg?

Well not really...if we created God in our image, and we for arguments sake are the chicken, and we conceived the idea of God (the egg) then the chicken came first.

If God conceived us, then we would be the egg and the chicken came first again.

The chicken and egg question has had philosophers stroking their chins for centuries !

I've been hunting around for courses in physics. However, my local Uni fails to offer evening classes on the subject, and due to financial constraints I'm unable to afford those 'distance learning' courses which are available, so I'm basically tied to being self taught, until next year...but I'm eager to start now.

What I need is recommendations on a number of books that can guide me from basic equations on classical mechanics (I'm talking high school / A level) through to relativity and maybe quantum mechanics (if I feel I can tackle it.) I ideally need the books to follow on from the last...I realise it's a long haul being self taught, and I realise proper education in this discipline is far more beneficial but I'm going to give it a shot anyway, and see how I fair.

Please don't recommend 'Brief History...' 'Elegant Universe' books for the masses, I ideally need detailed explanation into equations / models and applications, from the very basics to advanced level. I really need to get a proper grasp on the subject, as I get to grips with one theory and get lost with another. I often think 'outside the box' but it's my lack of understanding in the field that lets me down.

I searched for book recommendations, but I couldn't trace anything for these particular needs. Suggestions please.

E.G. caveman's brain swells up due to over active defence mechanism' date=' he dies, genes for faulty defence mechanism are not passed on.

 

now adays, modern mans brain swells up, goes to hospital and undergoes a course of drugs and/or operations, lives, genes can be passed on.[/quote']

 

We simply are not built to withstand heavy knocks due to the infrequency of them happening. Our skull is the defense we have, an incident that will penetrate / shatter the skull is rare. In fact it's only due to our modern environment that these are more frequent...car crashes et.c

 

Many animals that fight due to upholding dominance in a pack have even more protection such as antlers, horns and tusks. If our daily lives included smashing each other round the head frequently then this defense would be more highly tuned...but we don't, so there is really no need for it unless in exceptional circumstances, which isn't enough to warrant an evolutionary change.

Previously on ER...OK we got cerebal contusions, axonal damage...there's some severe stretching there, we got a hemorrhage people....wheres the MRI !!! We're losing him...dammit !!! Get YT2095 !! who ? (music rises) Cyber Doc !

Excellent, you're advice was exceptionally close to my doctors diagnosis. I have swelling in the right ear, which has excess fluid to prevent further damage and will go over time...in fact my hearing is fine today, small course of an anti-inflammotry...no sign of infection.

The 'solid lump' of blood was indeed a sign of healing and the abrasions and swelling on my head and face are superficial. My slight incoherence and ability to focus was more down to shock and the inbalance of fluids which effected my concentration and recollection, but I must say I'm feeling a lot more alert today, and my memory seems fine.

Now I can just look forward to the gig this evening.

He's made a miraculous recovery...you've done it again YT2095. (pats on back...cheesey sincere grins.)

just on spec' date=' I know it`s non of my business, but what happened to you?

 

btw, the solid lump coming out is a good sign, you`ve obviously been asleep since then and so it really an "old" injury now as far as initial trauma is concerned, you woke up, you`ll be just fine [/quote']

 

Funnily enough...with regards to the sheep post, I can't tell you for legal reasons. But I appreciate your interest.

 

I'm glad to hear the solid lump is a good sign.

 

Hopefully my ear will be better tomorrow...I'm playing a gig tomorrow night, needless to say I have ear plugs if required.

But going to the trouble to really understand a current scientific theory isn't as much fun as learning just a tiny bit and then coming up with my own crazy theory that appears to be better than the original because of my lack of understanding.

Perhaps you should start another thread, this one's for the experts...which I'm clearly not either, but it won't stop me reading and researching the terminology used and trying to get a slight understanding of the subjects raised...that also can be fun.

I think Severian deserves a break from advising people like me all the time.

well... seeing yer Doc is certainly a Good thing

 

you mention heavy blows' date=' were you rendered unconscious at any time? if yes call an ambulance NOW. bleeding from the ear or Nose (if you weren`t hit there) do the same!

 

the resonant cavities that "develop" sound as YOU hear it will fill with fliuds and have swelling thus altering the sounds.

if it`s only fluids (protection) and swelling, then it will pass in time [/quote']

 

Thanks very much YT2095, you've made me feel a lot better.

 

I wasn't knocked unconcious, blood came out of my mouth the next day...a large solid lump. Which was why I was thinking maybe I had conjealed blood blocking my auditory passage (I don't know the technical name.) Nothing came from my ears or nose, though I was violently sick most of the next day.

 

I'm glad to hear it's probably just fluids causing the subsonic drone in my right ear and also accounts for the dizziness (slight loss of balance, but nothing major.) I'd personally rather lose my sight and both legs than lose my hearing...hence my concern...cheers, I'll give you feeback tomorrow on the diagnosis.

Done...sorry havn't been with it recently...see my latest post under general medicine.

I'm going to the doctor tomorrow after receiving some heavy blows to my head. Since the accident the hearing in my right ear has been affected.

As a musician this is a concern, the problem started a few days ago, then stopped and has now come back again.

Anything with a low frequency has excentuated resonance...as though my ear drum is vibrating that little bit longer than in my left ear. So supposing I hear a frequency of around e.g 40hz it will have a longer release than to what my left ear is hearing.

I'm sure I'll get a straight answer tomorrow, but I was wondering if anyone could put my mind at rest or tell me if my ear is actually damaged in anyway.

Is this just simply a blockage ? I'm also experiencing dizzy spells, mild flu like symptons and localized headaches now and again...any thoughts, advice...I'm in panic mode.

This should answer your question...especially the last paragraph.

from...

http://www.4to40.com/QA/index.asp?counter=186&category=science

It must have been a very intelligent human who looked at a sheep walking past and thought of the use its fleece might have!

Although the oldest surviving textile made out of wool is around 3,500 years old, the oldest fine woolen fabric dates to the fifth century BC (about 2,500 years ago) and was found in an ancient Greek colony.

Wool was probably the first fiber to be woven into a textile. Because when primitive man stopped hunting and started herding animals, it was his first step from a primitive life to a civilised one. Sheep were sort of a stone age convenience store for the nomadic lifestyle of our primitive ancestors, a walking food supply that required little care. Sheep provided for all the basic needs - meat and milk for food, skin and bones for clothing, shelter and tools.

The loose wool was less essential, but as the animals shed their coats each spring, tufts of fleece were gathered and used to soften some of life's harder edges. Slowly, it dawned upon someone that the fleece was the best part of the sheep.

Eventually, sheep destined for mutton roasts and sheep destined for fine woven rugs were distinguished, as good eating does not necessarily mean good quality wool. Early wild species of sheep had long, coarse outer hair protecting their short fleece undercoats. It is this under-layer that is desirable for textile use and has been selectively bred into modern sheep.

I guess the fleece under the outer hair doesn't shed, and the selective breeding brought about a fleece that grows like the outer hair. That's my take on it...please correct me if I'm wrong.

Aha! I knew I'd not imagined that. (Strange memories surface while dreaming.)

 

That's what inspired my question - what would possibly be the evolutionary advantage of having wool that became impossible to clean or remove?

I was under the impression that the modern sheep was a product of selective breeding (for the reason above)...like the alpaca, which If I remember was a cross breed between a vicuna and a llama. The Incas used the fur for trade and as a sign of wealth or nobility.

String theory is supposed (hoped) to provide a theory which merges quantum mechanics and gravity, so you don't need anything along side it! String Theory is[/b'] a quantum theory, so it has to be consistant with the ideas of QM. The problem with String Theory is that it is extremely difficult to work with mathematically, so it is difficult to make testable predictions.

Thanks for putting me straight Severian, I suppose I got confused because some people favor string theory over other quantum theories of gravity...time to do some reading.