Jump to content

joigus

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    2042
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    17

Everything posted by joigus

  1. Please, @porton, do not embed your own words in a quote by other user. It's very confusing.
  2. My two cents: What for? So that we can have Donald T**** still around 3000 years from now? Einstein still working on the unification of EM and gravity? The genius of Chaplin in a Tarantino movie? Highly proficient old geezers taking up all the god jobs so that young people never get their hands on the task? What about overpopulation? Those aren't questions. They're assertions. None of them remotely related to immortality. Stem cells, telomerase, hello...? And guess what types would be first in line to achieve immortality. A world full of moguls, fighting w
  3. Do you mean "some kind of justice"? Perfect justice? Come on.
  4. As @swansont said, energy levels are a characteristic of bound states under an attractive potential. For all intents and purposes, you can assume energy levels so close to each other that considering them anything other than a continuum is pointless, IMO. Also, dark matter appears as a distribution of mass density that starts to be noticeable at the level of or well beyond galactic halos. I don't see how dark matter would have sizeable effects at Casimir-range scales. There probably are inhomogeneities, but they're about the size of intergalactic distances. And I don't understand the concept o
  5. Sorry for conjuring up the image of Gandalf thrown out of a jet, @MigL. I know how much you love movies.
  6. Not so much of a digression. If I were to be thrown out of a jet at high speed, I'd rather be a Bilbo Baggins type than a Gandalf type. Even better an ant, for all kinds of physical reasons.
  7. God! I mean, good! Informative, interesting, very telling, that some of the chief warden concerns are very reasonable --to do with security, mainly--. But some others clearly go off limits. "What would the victim's family think of this?" comes to mind. I think there are some lessons for the victim's families and the victims themselves. If you come to me and twist my arm, and you harm me, what good does it do me to twist your arm, and harm you, in return? Nothing! No reparation, only more harm spread around, no relief for me, and a radicalisation of your already violent prof
  8. I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree. From the Nature article: (My emphasis.) Exactly as I said. AKA virtual particles. No mention of Euler axes on the Nature article. No mention to Euler axes on the BBC report either. It's not a classical phenomenon. Here's an abstract of the PRL paper: No mention of Euler axes either. Here's another one from PRL-D: No. Prof did. I didn't. I did only mention it in response to his bringing it up, for reasons completely mysterious to me, as it as no bearing on the problem. I only intervened to say that curvature can n
  9. I set my bets in that the calculation is right. Eleven significant digits cannot be out of sheer luck! It'd be a pleasure paying you the prize, @Eise. Fix it, and we'll talk. I'd be a pleasure meeting you, even if it's to pay you for losing that bet.
  10. More on this topic... An interesting possibility, I think, is that the baryon and lepton-number conservation laws that we know to be satisfied exactly --and put into question only on the grounds of GUTs and cosmology--, really are exact conservation laws. In fact, the principle could then be raised to a local gauge principle. This would require a baryodynamic/leptodynamic field that could[?] account for these discrepancies from the SM. Because this topic of a possible baryodynamic field is a long-forgotten road, I've tried to dig out something relatively recent about it on Google. I'
  11. Very interesting googling suggestion! I wasn't aware of this "extra dimension." The dream of cheap energy is too attractive, and it's bound to die hard. But I also agree with you that the internet plays an important part in keeping the dream alive --zombie-like.
  12. I very much agree with Eise on this one too. When I said deterring works to some extent, I meant for ordinary cases of breaking the law. Not for violent criminals. I lost some focus. For violent criminals I don't think deterrence is a factor. Nor is it positive to clump together people of a violent profile. I liked the video very much. Just one thing. When you say: I think you meant lose-lose. I don't think you want to conflate "lose" and "loose" when talking about criminals! I know it was an innocent typo, Eise, I hope you forgive me.
  13. I meant "radiative" as in "radiative corrections" = "quantum corrections". In QFT, when you calculate any parameter like mass, charge, etc., you don't know what happens at very small length scales. So you have to assume that all possibilities quantum-mechanically possible, somehow, are there. Classically the gyromagnetic ratio is just 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyromagnetic_ratio#For_a_classical_rotating_body Any deviations from this factor of 2 are purely quantum. Quantum electrodynamics owes much of its well-deserved prestige to the success of this calculation. The discr
  14. Dear professor, I would very much enjoy that sitting with you and @MigL. Sometimes I have a feeling that you're intellectually honest, sincerely interested in knowledge, and perhaps just a little bit "spread too thin", if you take my meaning. I'm a bit "spread too thin" myself so... And you have a sense of humour, which is always a big plus. Take care, and keep an eye on radiative modes.
  15. That's what I'm worried about. You proved some of its consequences if P=NP is true. IOW, it only means P=NP cannot be disproved --within your logical frame-- by reductio ad absurdum. But nothing else. That's called "begging the question." I'm not at the level of @Ghideon in these matters, I'm just telling you that you should be aware of this possible flaw. If you're aiming for the stars, you should point at them. I take it that your saying, was a joke. You may be on to something interesting after all. Even if it's not a proof of P=NP. I'll take a back sit and try to learn som
  16. Now, that's a very good question. And the kind of discussion that I wanted to entice here.
  17. Seems like it was yesterday. Promise of jobs for physicists, a new era of almost limitless energy, and what not. The goose that laid the golden eggs died without a bang, and after months-long whimpers. And the world never recovered from it. Or did it? We lost a lot of our former innocence anyway. I did. Very interesting Nature article on it: Lessons from cold fusion, 30 years on https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01673-x Reflections welcome. Sorry that the topic is a bit old. It's not the anniversary that I'm interested in.
  18. (My emphasis.) Curvature can be a 4-rank tensor (Riemann curvature tensor), a 2-rank tensor (Ricci curvature tensor), or a 0-rank tensor (curvature scalar). Watch out for 1-rank curvature tensors (vector fields); they're mean!! You took the words right out of my keyboard!
  19. Sorry, next to total ignorant here. The Millennium Prize is on proving P=NP. I assume that's what you're aiming for: (My emphasis.) Isn't assuming P=NP kind of begging the question?
  20. Now I understand! Those are cycling glasses, by the way.
  21. Rather: \[ \textrm{int}C\neq\textrm{Ø}\Rightarrow\textrm{if }x\in C\Rightarrow B_{\epsilon}\left(x\right)\subseteq C\Rightarrow\mu\left(C\right)\geq\mu\left(B_{\epsilon}\left(x\right)\right)>0 \]
  22. This is the part I do not understand: And this is the part I do understand:
×
×
  • 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.