swansont

vuquta, For your scenario to to have any validity, it would have to be true that visible light could not heat water, and this is false. __ The work function is the analogue of the escape velocity of a projectile, if one were to express it in terms of energy rather than speed. An electron has an energy deficit as compared to a free electron; it is in a bound state. Energy must be added to free the electron. For a single atom, this is the ionization energy. For a material, we call it the work function.

If you are going to use that logic, you have to assume that anyone here that did not expressly disagree with jryan must therefore agree with him, which is a version of the appeal to ignorance fallacy. Pangloss was quite correct in pointing out that trying to read between the lines is a dangerous thing. Silence is silence, not assent.

Classically, "knowledge about the position" and "position" do not mean the same thing. Not knowing the exact energy of the particle does not mean that it won't travel in a circular path in a magnetic field.

The wiki page Severian pointed you to has two distinct steps in the PPI chain where gammas are produced. The other PP chains have gammas shown in the reactions as well.

Granpa said "In the new frame both will agree that B is younger." That is not wrong, and it is not claiming that B is always younger. Even in the quote you provided, he repeatedly uses in that frame to be very clear about in which frame the conclusion holds, and to indicate that the conclusion does not hold in general.

No, it doesn't, but what it does need is a nonlinear system. If you want to make the case that the Lorentz force qualifies, go ahead and try.

I'm sure if money were involved, it could be arranged. It just wouldn't necessarily be sanctioned by whatever the official track & field organization is. — In the US, this is governed by Title IX at the school level. The idea is equality in opportunity — men and women have an equal right to participate. At the level of professional sports, there's discrimination on the basis of ability, which is not against the law.

Those aren't synonymous, but yes, molecular/atomic/nuclear transitions are quantum jumps. Blackbody radiation is described differently.

Right. I think it makes some sense in terms of 19th century physics, when the structure of the atom was not known, but this still does not jibe with the claim that an IR photon, whose energy is less than the work function (or, in more modern parlance, ionization energy), somehow does more work than a UV photon whose energy is greater than the work function.

I don't see the logic here. Are you asking where the photons come from (process) or where the energy for the photons comes from? Each question has been previously answered. The energy source is the fusion reaction, which, as has already been mentioned, releases more than 25 MeV for a complete cycle. The source of the photons includes reactions in the fusion process and blackbody radiation from the scattering of charged particles.

I don't recall when the $1 million limit was passed, but I think it was Clinton or before. And the amount of compensation is not the issue. What is the issue is when an executive gets $3 million salary and $10 million in stock gifts or options, you can't turn around and claim that the $10 million was investment income.

! Moderator Note This will stop right now. ——— granpa and Janus came up with the same answer. How can one be right and the other wrong?

No, this is not clear at all. 1) You have another thread for this 2) You haven't established that this is the case

1. Yes, though this is a small amount. The positive side will have lost some electrons, and the negative side will have gained them. 2. There will be some resistive heating as the capacitor charges. I'm not sure of any other effects, and after it is charged the system will tend to cool to ambient temperature.

This contradicts the famous ladder (so-called) paradox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox

! Moderator Note I don't see how that's an example of a particle in a magnetic field, so I have to wonder why your response to my request that you stop hijacking the thread is to continue to try and hijack the thread?

Not really. There was some aspect of Brownian motion that Einstein predicted would never be confirmed, since he could not foresee the advances in technology, which were verified about a hundred years after has solution was published. Darwin lacked a mechanism to explain important details of evolution (DNA) which took almost that long to discover. Bose-Einstein condensates were predicted in the 1920's and only realized 70 years later. However, there were other tests which confirmed the validity of evolution, and the other examples are really subsets of theories, which likewise had other methods of verification. A good test might be how long we entertain string theory in the absence of experiments, before it becomes little more than a novelty.

If your combined precision of the measurement of x and p exceeds Planck's constant by a few orders of magnitude, quantum effects don't matter.

No, that's not true. Everyone has to agree if events occur, but on issues of simultaneity they most certainly do not have to agree, and I think this issue falls into the category of simultaneity. To analyze it properly, according to the question, one must do it from the perspective of an observer in the moving frame.

That doesn't apply here. This is not a discussion about thermodynamics. I explained why in that thread. Stop with the thread hijacking already. It's against the rules

What is the curl of a vector with a constant direction?

OP = original post or original poster The question was indeed about classical trajectories in a magnetic field. Penning traps have electric fields in addition, and the mention of Heisenberg and Schrödinger means you are not discussing a classical system. ! Moderator Note Discussion on trajectories moved http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/51938-uncertainty-in-classical-trajectories/

! Moderator Note We publicly log all those who are banned or suspended for infractions other than spamming (who are, alas, too numerous to deal with in this way). There isn't a single one who was banned for disagreeing with a viewpoint, it was because of rules violations, i.e. a poster who disagrees and does so with posts full of invective are going to be in trouble because of the latter, not the former.

What does this have to do with the OP?

I'm not the one making that comparison! For f*%$'s sake, go back and reread the thread. jryan is the one who said that 99.999% of terrorists are Muslim, and linked to the site that was purporting to tally acts in the name of religion.