MigL

The highlight of my summers, as a kid, was going to Niagara-on-the-Lake to watch the air show. I would eat ice cream at Avondale Dairy and watch the small planes. Then a huge shadow would cover us as the Avro Vulcan made its yearly low level overpass. Fantastic. V Putin should be worried if Europe finally decides to grow some balls and say enough is enough. Russia has the equivalent economy of Spain, have lost close to 700000 men, through killed or injured in action, still haven't taken Ukraine almost three years after the two week special operation was supposed to end, and had to call on North Korea for help. I would think Germany, England, France, or even Italy would have taken the fight to Russia so that their citizens could see what is really happening. I realize Ukraine won't do it, but a few Storm Shadow cruise missiles into the heart of Moscow would wake a lot of people up. They fire an 'experimental' IRBM and everyone is wringing their hands; how many more do you think they have ? And judging by the 'capabilities' of their Armed Forces so far, I would imagine their nuclear arsenal in in a similar sorry state. Do you think V Putin and his generals don't realize this ? All Russia has left is boisterous bravado.

Or, if you're a tyrant who doesn't want to leave Office, after being soundly defeated in a fair election, you may think you're justified to stage a treasonous violent coup on the Capital.

Naming conventions like technical/applied/engineering Physics are essentially engineering. As I like to tell the ring wearing engineers I work with ... "All those fancy equations you work with, for heat transfer, flows, stress/strain, etc., I once used to derive from first principles."

No. My original post stated it was an estimate.

Some didn’t vote. Some voted for 3rd parties. Some voted Trump. Some of Joe Biden’s voters weren’t democrats in the first place. Doesn’t matter. Just found your premise misguided. Really ? Voter Turnout in 2024: Democrats’ Low Enthusiasm Fueled Trump’s Win - WSJ Maybe in 2028 they will be outraged enough to be bothered to vote. This time a lot of them simply didn't care.

In 2020 Republicans got 73 Million votes and Democrats got 81 Million. In 2024 ( votes are still being counted so just estimates ) Republicans got 74 Million, or almost the same as 2020, but Democrats got 69 Million. Why did 14 Million Democrats fail to vote in this election ??? D Trump has been election campaigning for the last 4 years. K Harris started in the middle of August, a couple of months ago. And America would rather be run by an idiot than a competent woman. What other reasons for the loss do you need ...

I hope the 'checks and balances' are robust enough to last the 4 years.

Lies, about the economy, inflation, and other things like xenophobia and border issues. No. The lies are the same as 2016 and 2020. The difference is his opponent; he lost to a befuddled old man in 2020, but managed to beat two competent women in 2016 and 2024. When is the American population going to lose their fear of a female President ?

HEY ! WHAT ARE YOU AMERICAN MEMBERS DOING AT YOUR COMPUTER SCREEN ? GET YOUR ASS IN GEAR AND GO VOTE ! ( sorry for the yelling )

It seems the problem is easily recognizable, and has been known about. We have even discussed it on this forum. Up until a century ago, Physics was done by taking experimental evidence, and 'fitting' a theory to it. Sometimes things progressed smoothly, such as Faraday's work leading to Maxwell's, which ultimately led Einstein to SR and GR. And sometimes WAGs had to be resorted to when unsurmountable blocks were encountered, such as Plank's resolution of the UV catastrophe or deBroglie's wave nature of matter that allowed progress from the Bohr atom to the wave formulation of QM. But these were still easily verifiable with experiment. Since those times, theoretical Physics has vastly outpaced experimental Physics, maybe it's just more 'glamorous'. or , maybe the cost of the experimental work has sky-rocketed, I don't know, but the costs involved with LHCs, Space telescopes, LIGO, etc. that are needed to verify our theories will only grow, and the result is theory and experiment diverging even more. We have no way of testing theories involving String theory, or LQG for that matter, dark 'stuff', nor the interior of Black Holes or the universe before the recombination era, but we might someday, and it will necessitate a possible large 're-structuring' of the Physics we take for granted, as by then, theoretical work will have gone even further. So, while we all recognize the problem, no solution is forthcoming. Should we stop theoretical work until experiment catches up ? I don't think so. Who knows, some of these 'outlandish' theories, and their beautiful math, might be 're-purposed for more 'mundane' Physics.

There had been reports as far as 2-3 weeks ago that significant numbers ( up to 10% ) of life-long Republicans were abandoning the party. Not because the Harris campaign swayed them, but because of Trump's ineptitude, mean disparaging disposition, constant lies, and 'open mouth/insert foot' syndrome. This last week especially may have handed Kamala Harris the keys to the White House.

Who should have children? Anyone who wants that responsibility; children tend to make people better versions of themselves. Who should not have children? Mothers whose sons post inane topics on SFn, and whose name has 'FM' in it.

But the argument was specific to the proton, and its associated stability. Are ubstable neutrons not held together by those same gluons that 'represent the unbreakable SU(3) symmetry' ???

For several pages you've been making the argument that the proton is the fundamental SU(3) 'particle, because it doesn't decay, and associated 3rd law considerations. Then you make the jump to using the volume of the proton as the fundamental unit in the calculations. What thermodynamic considerations allow for a volume to be a fundamental unit ? Certainly not the same ones that allow fir a proton to be a fundamental unit. After all, other particles share a similar volume, and they are not fundamental as they decay. If you don't quit going round in circles attempting to explain yourself, you're going to get dizzy.

There are racist and sexist Democrats also; they are, after all, politicians and human. But the Republican leader, D Trump, has normalized such behavior, and so most Republicans express such behavior, and are not ashamed of openly doing so.

OK. Multiply the number of protons in the universe by 20 ( 5 % x20 = 100 % ) which gives 20 x 1080 , nowhere near 10123 though, is it ? You are actually using the VOLUME of the proton in your calculation. And still haven't justified its use.

whoah ! When you started with I was thinking something totally different. My bad !

We understand the underlying Thermodynamics, we just don't understand the 'connections' made to other phenomena. The neutron is similar, and the same as the SU(3) minimum volume; should it not be just as stable according to SU(3) stability considerations??? So if the neutron is NOT stable, IOW, it isn't the volume that matters, but the proton itself, "Why are you not using the number of protons in the calculation, instead of the volume ?"

True. While Canada has fringe far right, and fringe far left, in the US most of the Republican party, other than a handful, are the far right. And I'm talking about the political parties, not the orientation of the general population. Canada's three major parties are essentially 'centrist', while America's are now center to far right. I can similarly name many Democrats who are considerably 'right wing'.

Then why are you dividing the volume of the observable universe by the volume of a proton to get the vacuum energy adjustment ? Why not divide by the number of protons in the observable universe ? What justifies the volume consideration ????

Canadians like the Confederate flag because it looks 'cool', most have no idea what it signifies, nor do they care. I don't like PP either, a little too 'slick' for my taste ( would love to see Peter MacKay as PM ), but keep in mind that Canadian Conservatives are more liberal than American Democrats

Neutrons, being composed of the same building blocks as protons would seem to have as many states as a proton, except a much much longer lifetime.. You are using the fact that we have never seen proton decay, to assume hey never do, and the further assumption that this indicates that the proton volume is equivalent to the SU(3) stability volume because of thermodynamic considerations related to proton stability. But how is this related to the SU(3) minimum volume stability ? You cannot use the same thermodynamic considerations to argue for 'volume' stability. And 'volume' is what you are using to subdivide the unreasonably high vacuum energy, not protons.

Sorry my mistake; meant to write Helium atom. Stable, and a superfluid. Observation of a Casimir effect between separations of less than the 'proton volume' ? I can't think of a method for doing this, but , it would indicate vacuum energy must be considered at much smaller scales.

You don't see that this is an assertion with no evidence, physical or mathematical, to back it up ? It just so happens to slot into your pet theory, so you run with it. Why not pick the hydrogen atom as the remnant volume ? Or why not up/down quarks as remnant volume since they are also stable, and involved with SU(3) symmetry ? I suspect it's because it doesn't produce a neat answer with numbers that match the magnitudes you require for your pet theory. Until the foundation is solid, and if you ( the author ) can connect all the dots, it is just a theory based on numerology.

That's in the standard playbook of dictators and despots. Keep your citizens ignorant, and withhold balanced impartial news, so that they can be easily controlled. D Trump has learned from the 'best' of them. But it doesn't say much for about 70 million American voters either.