joigus

In the classical theory it doesn't make sense to talk about "this" EM entity (a piece of field) and "the other" (another piece of field). All EM fields coming from all the sources in the universe contribute to one value of the EM field at this or that point. Quantum fields, on the contrary, allow for the possibility of several (curiously enough indistinguishable) quanta being tangled up with each other. And on top of that, everywhere in space. Quantum fields have this thing that you can count (a counting number). And entanglement occurs in this counting number. When EM fields are in the classical regime, there are so many quanta that this number becomes completely irrelevant and the field behaves like this entity that is built from all the EM fields coming from all sources in the universe. The classical field is roughly equivalent to the average number of photons in the quantum field. As to so-called non-locality, it's not a matter of anything travelling anywhere at any speed; it's rather a matter of a 2-quanta state being more like "one thing with counting number two" than like "two things" so to speak; so that changes in one part of the whole system being reflected in the state of both. It's hard to say in words, and we need the maths really. This "both" is not one and the other, as they are indistinguishable. Throughout the years, whenever I have been pressed to explain, I've contrived my own way of saying it so people kinda come to terms with it --if not totally understand the same way we understand, e.g. a rock falling. Nobody does, and I for one don't. The way I say it is: "particles are instanciations of a field". And I've even borrowed the verb "instanciate", which I think programmers use on a daily basis. These instanciations are tangled up. You can't say which one is which. There is no "which". And nothing is travelling from one to the other, as there is no "one" and "the other". All quantum correlations are initial. They're there from the very preparation of the experiment.

Somehow I didn't felt the need to be blunt here. At times just quoting the other is enough.

I think the premise, "nothing happens, something happens, or something else happens" is extremely vague, and far too inclusive to be meaningful. The story with physics as just prediction/discovery or prediction/refutation is far too simple, as others have pointed out. Accidental discoveries, imagination, and other elements, like precision tests, play a role. Sometimes there are even uncomfortable compromises one must reach. On the theoretical side, most of the time it's about parametrizing the world, and then mapping it with those parameters. You could say that physics is more akin to cartography. A very sophisticated cartography. On the other hand, physics is not under the same strictures as mathematics. Obtaining a theory that's a mathematical delight would be wonderful, but it's not the main drive of most physicists, I think. I think most physicists have come to terms with the fact that good physical theories don't have to be logically complete. Good physical theories are not as directly affected by mathematical necessities either. I'll give you an example: Whether Planck's constant is a rational or an irrational number is not only uninteresting, but completely meaningless from the physical point of view.

Total energy: \[E=\frac{mc^{2}}{\sqrt{1-v^{2}/c^{2}}}\] Rest energy: \[E_{0}=mc^{2}\] Kinetic energy: \[\textrm{K.E.}=\frac{mc^{2}}{\sqrt{1-v^{2}/c^{2}}}-mc^{2}\]

Just to clarify --although Swansont and Ghideon are doing a very good job of it--. For a particle of mass m --mass is just rest energy: Total energy: E=mc21−v2/c2−−−−−−−−√ Rest energy: E0=mc2 Kinetic energy: K.E.=mc21−v2/c2−−−−−−−−√−mc2 Rest energy is akin to positive potential energy. These concepts were clarified in Taylor & Wheeler Space-Time Physics a long time ago. Mass is better understood as rest energy.

Can you reproduce any piece of known physics with your theory? Let's say Coulomb's law, or Newton's law of gravity, or the like.

... for visible light.

Exactly as @exchemist says. It's not that if you shoot very energetic photons against hydrogen atoms the photoelectric effect doesn't go on. It does. But the clever trick is to use a metal, because there you can show that no matter how many photons you shoot against the metal, they won't free electrons from the metal unless they have the required frequency (energy = h x frequency). They would just be absorbed by the continuum spectrum (available energies) of the metal. And that threshold energy is nicely shown in a metal because there is a sharp gap of energy that the electrons have to surmount if the are to be kicked off from the metal. So the metal: 1) Completely absorbs any photons below the threshold kick-off energy 2) Emits electrons when the frequency surpasses that threshold energy They act like a very efficient switch for the photoelectric effect.

The result of the integral doesn't depend on which approximation you use. The second one is called the lower Riemann sum. There is another one with starts with what you would call \(f\left(x_{0}+\triangle x\right)\) instead of \(f\left(x_{0}\right)\), and ends with \(f\left(x_{1}\right)\) instead of \(f\left(x_{1}-\triangle x\right)\) It's called the upper Riemann sum. Your expression differs only in a second-order term in \(\triangle x\). You only see a big difference because your \(\triangle x\) is enormous in the image. You can actually do an even better fit by taking a polygonal approach to the curve (for the same step \(\triangle x\).) https://www.geogebra.org/t/upper-and-lower-sum?lang=en Sorry. This is the applet that I meant to show you. You must play with the n=10. Take it up to n=24, for example, and you'll see what I mean. https://www.geogebra.org/m/SNS8SYSg

I think you're only too obviously an LTP. And I'm too busy to play LT now. I'm expecting a visit from HWL.

You mean in the literal sense? We can play this game forever.

Sorry, what's the NT?

LOL. Good try. I think it's a "me, me, me, me" kind of God. There goes nearly half the commandments.

He actually is lenient enough to forego on the plain fact that the first four are just about "I'm a superstar" on the part of God. No morality there: 1. I am the supreme Lord 2. You will put me above all else 3. Don't even think about using any representation of me 4. Dedicate one day out of every seven days only to me Dawkins and others insist on this over and over. To what effect in society, I don't know. But certainly the word "atheist", which etymologically is just "non theist" has come to represent an insult to many people, in a very similar way as the word "myth" has come to hold a derogatory value in many people's minds, when it just means: Maybe it's because of the way in which some people use these words, or because of what people sometimes read into them. Or in some cases, a combination of both. I watched the Dawkins-Pell debate years ago, and I was appalled. The more stupid and ignorant his talk was, the more applause did he get. We evolved from Neandertals? Evolution is random? The universe before the big bang was a mixture of particles with perhaps a vacuum with electromagnetic forces? Appalling ignorance to the delight of his cheerleaders. Did he actually read Krauss' book, or any other science book for that matter? I agree. There are religious trends in all traditions that are more reconcilable with science than faith-based religion. Observation of the world and the self, humbleness, practice, conscious curtailing of your insatiable "needs" whenever you observe they're not so badly "needed".

There is very little I can recall you as not being aware of --if anything at all. I just want this post to be as much (and as longer) alive as possible, because it interests me very much. In fact, it's inspired me to think of opening another, related, post. I'm working on it.

Yes, I'm aware of this. This is the reason behind "maybe" when I said "maybe crystals..." I find this hypothesis --perhaps in combination with the RNA world idea-- very promising: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hazen#Origins_of_life This guy et al. did a re-run of the Miller-Urey experiment, but they added minerals, and found interesting results: Pyruvate and oxaloacetate are important intermediates in cellular respiration, so I guess they were trying to look for a primitive version of it in a convenient "chemical cauldron". Documentary (Life's Rocky Start): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA4w0b2WRvo Things like tardigrades and other resilient organisms I tend to see as shedding light on amazing phenomena as: How is it possible that multicellular organisms endured episodes as Snowball Earth, and the like? Kind of like a second-order mechanism providing plausible explanation of life taking hold in spite of these cataclysmic episodes.

I'm not sure that tardigrades and panspermia are the key that unlocks this mystery. Resilience and "latency" suggest to me as mechanisms to make life more secure and widespread once it's started out and got a secure grip. Abiogenesis, I think, must be the key. Abundant water, energetic processes, chemical pumps in the way of volcanoes, RNA/amino acids worlds, maybe crystals as scaffolds for building of macromolecules, physico-chemistry of lipid membranes... These's a reason why ideas like these are suggested over and over. Speaking from sheer intuition, I think variants of abiogenesis are the way to go, and panspermia is peripheral. To me, panspermia is just pushing the problem somewhere else, but I'd be very interested to learn from other members' opinions.

Interesting... I know there are practised workarounds, or attempts at them. Here's the article that I found in The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2006/aug/31/guardianweeklytechnologysection2 This is about an Irish company that claimed, back in 2006, to have a magnet-driven machine that would generate more energy than is put into it. They said they would get around the restriction on patenting their invention by splitting it into components and patenting those. How successful they were I don't know. At patenting it; at making it work, I'm sure they weren't.

As I don't disagree in the least with what @exchemist and @MigL have said, I will just add a lateral argument. Patent offices do not accept claims for perpetual motion machines. And I suggest you google for this question and learn why. This is an excerpt from an article on The Guardian from 2006: By the way, nuclear reactors are no exception to the law of conservation of energy; it's just that the energy is the potential energy stored in mass, so it's "hidden". The ultimate reason why the neutrino was discovered as early as it was is that people knew some particle must be there "stealing" the energy missing from the reaction. Even though that particle didn't interact with anything known at the time. And sure enough, there it was. That's how sure we are energy is conserved.

No sex implied. It was a joke-quiz. Both the joke and the quiz are pretty lame. It's easy if you google. The thing is whether you can retrieve it from your long-term memory without looking at the real logo.

Which one is the right cathode-anode polarity?

While watching BBC reels on different topics, I noticed that many peculiar phenomena are associated to Siberia that all seem to bear a common relationship. It drew my attention that many of these seem to be related to permafrost thawing. Siberia's exploding craters: https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p097w5p3/the-mystery-of-siberia-s-exploding-craters Batagaika crater: https://www.bbc.com/reel/playlist/ultimate-world?vpid=p08lmh55 Thermokarsts in Siberia: https://www.bbc.com/reel/playlist/ultimate-world?vpid=p08rswth The Gates of Hell https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p08vxl52/how-the-soviets-accidentally-discovered-the-gates-of-hell- The Batagaika crater and the Gates of Hell are partly human-made, but the idea that seems to permeate here is that thawing of permafrost is revealing some kind of instability. In some cases it seems purely mechanical, but in others, maybe due to release of chemically-active organic compounds... Could that be the case? Whether these are symptoms of climate change, or totally unrelated problems, I don't know. But I would like to know. Any similar phenomena in countries with extensive permafrost? I'm thinking Canada. Maybe the Gates of Hell is the odd one out.

Thou shalt not bear false hypothesis?

Same reason why you shouldn't be concerned about how much Oganesson your convenience food has.

Just one tiny pet peeve of mine. Love & Bananas a tad over the top on the sentimental side. But that's just me.