swansont

Using a common language makes it better. Using terminology that you understand but others don’t is not better. English is the international language of science.

I think some printers allow you to update the firmware to modify the file formates. IIRC this was a feature of a large-scale plotter we had at work. But you need to connect a computer to it to do so.

Complexity, diversity and patterning can happen at almost any scale, but that does not mean it is invariant. Larger structures could possibly be more complex just because there are more parts that can be rearranged. Or less complex because certain configurations are unstable or otherwise not functional. For some structures, the fact that surfaces scale differently than volume will be important; it will mean that small structures necessarily look different than large ones. If there’s some overall rule about this, one can go look for it, but it’s not going to be adequately described, to the point we can discuss it, in a popular summary of the science, like the physorg article. Primary sources are better.

Evolution is a feedback loop. So, too, would be a system that can be rearranged and where selection takes place.

The measured variation was ~17 mm DBP and ~10 mm SBP.

“in patients with acute coronary syndrome” - niche group “in Elderly Adults” niche group Also, the effects are ~3mm Hg, and I don’t see what the control variation was. In epileptics, i.e. people already prone to seizures

! Moderator Note To rephrase/repeat what others have said: we expect a link and an excerpt of the article when posting in News. Discussion should center around that. Discussion of invariance of scale has been split: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/133088-invariance-of-scale-split-from-evolution-not-limited-to-life-on-earth/

We’re a science discussion site. Saying you’ve seen news stories is very vague. Where are the actual papers where analysis is shown? Where are the statistics showing these alleged increased effects?

It’s not the perpendicular flux on the LHS of the equation The surface in question. Whether it’s reflecting or radiating. I’ve not seen that phrasing; the surface is perfectly diffuse, and it either reflects or radiates. Perfectly diffuse describes reflection or radiation. There is no transmission or absorption.

Dimensions are easy to find. The trouble is there are different versions of the vehicle. https://sportsmobile.com/transit-van-info/ The license plate could be used as a reference, but since it’s small the uncertainty of an extrapolation will be a bit larger. Some image software will let you count the number of pixels in a line you draw.

! Moderator Note Similar threads merged What about them? Are there any statistics or reports of people dying while undergoing MRIs? You posted these links earlier, and they’re still weak tea. Summaries of studies saying there’s a hint of data, or effects on specific subpopulations (e.g. people with epilepsy)

You could also see if the models have consistent dimensions, and if so, use that as a scale.

For me it’s a form of Pascal’s wager

I knew people in grad school who studied adsorption on solid surfaces, and other surface effects. The forces are different than in the bulk solid, since you don’t have the interaction from all directions. The lack of symmetry makes for some interesting physics. Surfaces of the same material can have pretty strong attraction; the adhesion between metal surfaces is called galling https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galling (I “discovered” this problem putting some bolts into a frame in a vacuum system and having one seize up. Right after, I was introduced to the anti-seizing compound molybdenum disulfide)

You’d use QM if there was some interaction involved that required it. You can e.g. use frames of reference to look at what happens to muons and their decay time, without invoking QM.

Frames of reference are important in relativity, where they are tied to a velocity, not necessarily a physical point. All points are at rest with respect to each other in that frame. To rephrase your statement, can you have a valid frame that does not apply to some potential scenario? I don’t know. I can’t think of one at the moment.

I can’t parse “Does a frame of reference have to be applicable to a potential physical scenario to be physically valid?” There’s an adage in particle physics that goes “that which is not forbidden is mandatory” so I can’t imagine a frame of reference that’s valid that would not somehow correspond to a physical scenario, but I don’t know if one exists, or what you might have in mind.

No, not to arbitrary precision. Not exactly sure what you mean here. Physicists have no problem approximating things, so something can be treated as being at rest despite all of the caveats we’ve mentioned.

Yes.

You don’t know what the momentum is, so saying it’s zero isn’t strictly possible, though this might be unimportant for certain problems.

Classically, yes. It loses some meaning in QM, considering the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

! Moderator Note Rule 2.12 “We expect arguments to be made in good faith. Honest discussions, backed up by evidence when necessary. Example of tactics that are not in good faith include misrepresentation, arguments based on distraction, attempts to omit or ignore information, advancing an ideology or agenda at the expense of the science being discussed, general appeals to science being flawed or dogmatic, conspiracies, and trolling.” Unsubstantiated claims and referring to science as religion are hallmarks of bad faith arguments

At first glance it looks like no more than the expected exponential reduction in intensity with concentration of the absorber predicted by the Beer-Lambert law. Has anyone come across this being used as a counterargument to climate change science, is the implication true that further increases should have a proportionately lesser effect and what relevance does that have to the models used to predict climate change? The radiative forcing is logarithmic in the concentration, i.e. you get a certain effect from doubling the concentration. I’m not sure of the exact number in recent literature, but it’s a few watts each time you double. So each added molecule indeed has a smaller effect. I haven’t seen this as a counterargument, but dishonesty abounds in such discussions. It’s incorporated in the models, so anyone claiming otherwise is pulling a fast one

The wavelength is h/p, so yes, the wavelength tends to infinity as the momentum tends to zero. It can’t actually happen but can be applied as a thought experiment. There are some quantum implications to having zero momentum, and being in the rest frame is a useful approach to certain problems. The spin is not part of this; that’s a separate property. p is the linear momentum.

“The evolution of the individual quantum states in a superposition are accurately described by an appropriate wave equation such as (eg for Dirac fermions) the Dirac equation.” I have no interest in this because my experience with superposition is with the expression of the eigenstates, and not the wave equation or how the wave function was determined. There’s no common ground for me, and so I have no comment. IOW aψ1+bψ2 doesn’t really rely on the wave equation, so I’m not sure where you were going with your post