swansont

A can of hydrogen wouldn’t contain all that much; it’s a gas (and I see that exchemist has just responded along these lines, so I won’t duplicate the effort) We already had wireless voice communication, decades before Star Trek, so I reject the notion that this “came from science fiction”

I found this: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/a-beginners-guide-to-baryons/ “For all baryons, nature demands that the combination of flavor and spin must be completely symmetric” Spin 3/2 is completely symmetric, and spin 1/2 is antisymmetric. Three identical quarks is symmetric. I notice that the uuu and ddd particles are also spin 3/2, for the same reason. I don’t have a clear recollection, since I didn’t dive into such discussions.

You can estimate the gravitational time dilation, and I expect it would be incredibly small. Further, it wouldn’t make a particle stable, even if it were measurable

I think it’s from Group theory and the SU(3) symmetry - a spin 1/2 sss particle is not one of the permutations of the symmetry - but that’s where my understanding gets very fuzzy. When they got to isospin and hypercharge and Lie algebra in class, my eyes glazed over.

Not my area of expertise, but I recall the “eightfold way” discussion, and the octet for spin 1/2 has strangeness of 0, 1 or 2. A spin 1/2 version of the omega would have S=3

Some (most?) of us care about facts, and when you make a purportedly factual claim, it’s not unreasonable to ask for the source of that information. Just making assertions (or worse, offering opinions as if they were facts) runs afoul of the rule on soapboxing, and possibly others. It’s not nitpicking.

u r joking.

deema78 has been banned as a sockpuppet of deema

What’s the evidence that she has an advantage? It’s not automatically the case. https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/39/10/695.full.pdf “Individuals with this condition have a 46XY genotype (the typical male chromosomal make up), but fail to develop male sex characteristics because their cells cannot respond to the circulating male hormone (testosterone) in their bodies. Although the presence of the Y chromosome makes these individuals genetically male, they are phenotypically female—that is, they have a female morphotype and physiology—and they are usually raised socially as females. The presence of the Y chromosome (and more importantly, circulating testosterone) confers no physical advantage on them.”

The governing body uses gender as the determining factor for which group one should be in, not sex. Her gender is female. According to the IAAF’s rules, she’s a woman, competing in women’s races. https://theconversation.com/ten-ethical-flaws-in-the-caster-semenya-decision-on-intersex-in-sport-116448 (sports used to use anatomical determination, which is presumably what the doctor used to assign her female at birth)

“Semenya, who has always been legally identified as female” (from the provided link; emphasis added) She isn’t transgender - as you note, she is intersex - but this is an example of the issue of only having two categories being part of the problem, why there is difficulty in classifying people, and underscores the issue of whether we are discussing sex or gender.

The Thorium clock is an interesting challenge from an academic point of view but it’s not relevant to the claims here (and is unlikely to result in a clock that’s much better than optical clocks)

That’s certainly a major issue. I don’t see where real events were cited.

I’m pretty sure nobody has plummeted to their death from trans people competing in athletics, and since they have been, there should be existing evidence.

I didn’t ask about potential outliers. I am asking, yet again, for evidence that should already exist.

And, I would add, where are these outliers?

No, I don’t. I doubt one exists.

I think it’s the use of K-G instead of Schrödinger

The whole relativistic mass explanation is a pop-sci retelling of the physics; the solutions to the equations are in terms of the energy, for which you get a correction in the relativistic case (and this is how the journal article I once looked up treated it). It’s in the pop-sci retelling they talk about relativistic mass, or take the kinetic energy and get a velocity.

So I guess it’s the middle-school biology answer.

How would that be proof? And (as I asked previously) what does make one a woman? Do you have a comprehensive set of criteria? Something that’s more accurate and precise than middle-school biology.

! Moderator Note Similar topics merged You seem to contradict yourself here. Does it explain things, or not? Does math explain what the area of a circle or rectangle is? Yes, I think it does. And I second iNow’s request to clarify what you mean by real. Math certainly exists. All those classes, books and chalk dust I experienced were not illusions.

Also some that require a certain post count. edit to add: posts here and a few other places, like the Lounge, don’t contribute to the post count total

It’s even more than that, because I don’t think anyone has shown that this is simply a case of “identifying as” in the same way as someone might identify as a cat-lover. There are studies that show genetic factors for gender incongruence, which has to enter into an evidence-based discussion, rather than just assertion and poor definitions. (though perhaps being a cat-lover is the result of some genetic influence, too)

h is Planck’s constant It is very definitely momentum. You can use light to accelerate atoms from the recoil of an absorption and subsequent emission of photons. Using that to cool atoms down won the 1997 Nobel prize.