studiot

I don't know if there is also a language dimension to this. Germans tend to use lots of synonyms when a person has many 'laws' to her or his name Eg Gauss's Law, Theorem, Principle, Method, Equation........ Compare with the English use of a qualifying phrase Newton's Law of cooling, gravity, refraction etc. The French, I think, were to first to go in for Principles eg Le Chatelier,

LOL There are two professional Physicists helping you with your Mathematics and here am I a (retired) professional Applied Mathematician trying to help with some basic Physics that they have even acknowledged modern physicists take for granted so never mention. I would also like to point out that the 1905 SR paper is not like a computer program. You cannot parse it line by line. It has to be taken as a whole. In particular it is customary today to state that one postulate is that "The speed of light is constant for all observers" or words to this effect. Einstein did not write this. He postulates for the source only. Compare this with the actual postulate 2 as it appears on page 1 Not only does he acknowledge that the onus of proof is on himself, but he also acknowledge another important issue that I have not yet raised. There are two postulates involved, so are they compatible with each other ? If so under what conditions ? It is such deeper considerations that make Einstein's chain of reasoning some much longer and more complex than the modern slick versions.

Thanks, I'm sure Australia is a great place and it's very useful to take note of the time difference. We have quite a few members in Australia, some are also retired.

You mentioned China. Are you perhaps staying up late in HK ?

+1 for an honest answer. In the words of Thomas Malory God hep Mordred! I think that neither you nor Mordred has English as a first language. Please Correct me if I am wrong.

This is a grossly unreasonable and a violation of the rules of this forum. All the greater pity for yourself because you appeared to have started listening. I offered you a Physics discussion of what is going on with Relativity, and you threw it back in my face. There are some words you misunderstand and this misunderstanding is blocking your progress in considering Einstein's 1905 paper. 'Relativity' and the phrase 'relative to' are examples. But you have to look further back to properly clear up these misunderstandings as your usage is so very clearly different from what Einstein meant then or Mordred or Swansont mean now. For myself, these days posting involves me in some considerable effort and inconvenience so I am less inclined to try to help an unwilling audience. Here is a sample of what I mean In 1905 the complete nature of light was not known. It appeared to have some mutually conflicting properties. The only known waves prior to this were mechanical ones and these had already been studied for about two centuries. All such waves were known to have the following characteristic:- The speed of any wave is independent of the motion of the source. It depends upon the transmission medium alone. It is essentially Einstein's postulate 2 that light also obeys this rule. There is much more to discuss in a similar vein before proceeding to the consequences, which is what the 1905 paper is all about. I have chosen postulate 2 as it is simpler and much shorter, that the more important postulate 1.

Nice Topic +1 Off the top of my head Bragg's Law was also 1913. The most recent I can quickly think of would be Moore's Law (1965) closely followed by Drake's Law, also called The Drake Equation (1961)

Actually you have completely ignored the material I offered you, whilst loudly shouting about people trying to disprove your case or simply just dismissing it. Please quote anywhere I actually said you were wrong. In point of fact I stated a comment of yours I agreed with. In your last few posts you have also correctly identified the very tricky part of Einstein's reasoning, but be careful you find out exactly what is being referred to by any symbols he uses on pages 2,3,4 & 5. It is very easy to mix them up. Both Observers? Einstein has only mentioned one observer in the singular, by the stage of the paper reached in your quote. He further goes on to to introduce multiple observers at a later stage for different purposes and also make further predictions to be proved (he uses the phrase "we shall find"). There are several such instances of why sorting out the order of steps in his chain is reasoning is important as I have already told you. I intended to start right at the beginning with the two postulates. Their order is vital do you know why this is ? In fact both postulates were not necessarily new so do you know what the revolutionary step Einstein took in writing his paper?

In my humble opinion the time has come to put an end to this charade so I am formally reporting this direct refusal to engage in good faith discussion when I have offered exactly what you made such a strident and offensive extravaganza of demanding.

I agree measurement is not a Law. Measurement can refute or support (but not confirm) a Law and can sometimes lead to a new Law being formulated. I am using your terminology here, although personally I don't like the term Law, it is very short and therefore convenient. Mathematics has Axioms, Physics has Principles. Although serving a similar purpose they are different, leading to different meanings for 'true' in these disciplines. Well I hope you can be more reasonable that the other guy here, who seems to be calling white, black. So really? You are willing to honestly discuss this, and concede valid points one by one if I should make any? Then APPLY those valid points to the hypothesis? Ill start by asking "Is Physics ONLY interested in comparing predictions of Equations to observations, and any explanations of why or how the equation was derived is simply irreverent? Swansnot seems to be saying that Einstein may as well written, "Donald Duck doesn't wear trousers, and e=mc2, go check it out. (the textural explanation is not required because of peoples opinions.) Math alone is what Physics is all about. Funny, I thought Physics is what Physics is about, and Math is about Mathematics. But Swansnot is then more than willing to believe certain peoples opinions over others opinions regarding the meaning and interpretation of experiments. (which we know can not be proof of a theory) Only a couple of lines in response to my comments, plus a load of unconnected nonsense. Strange, most folks ask "What is in the box?" , when offered a closed box of something. You did not ask a single thing about what I was offering. Further, for your information. The name Swanson has been proudly held by several eminent Physicists, over the centuries, on both sides of the Atlantic. About Einstein’s thought process in the1905 Paper. Einstein made two comments which he then elevated to the status of Postulates. First is: "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate," Second is: "and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." I want to stop here and examine the logic of so far. Please consider the words “which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former,”. So in what way is the simple statement that light has a constant determinable velocity, irreconcilable with the Laws of Physics, of the Laws of Kinematics specifically, as the study of Motion is called Kinematics and Einstein's moves on to “the Kinematic Part” of his Paper immediately after the introduction. So what is “apparently irreconcilable” about Light having a constant determinable speed with the Laws of Kinematics? (Newtons Laws of Motion to be precise) Pause for your consideration and reply. But Einstein actually spelled out exactly why he believed there was a conflict. Because the Purpose of the whole paper is to SOLVE this conflict, thus opening the door to new explanations for other related "problems" such as Maxwell's work and Observations such as M&M interferometer. So what is the answer? The answers you seek are contained in the box I offered you so I will start with the first one. The Principle of Relativity is another way of presenting the homogenity and isotropy of empty space. The idea that if something works in a certain way at point A in empty space it will work the same in any other points B, C, D etc. Note that condition of empty. This simple statement can be much expanded and explained. I look forward to your honest response.

Nor does Einstein 'continue to any Math' before he presents his motivation. However teasing out his chain of reasoning is very subtle and needs to be done in the light of the knowledge of the turn of the twentieth century. It also needs to be realised that the chain of reasoning, postulates and derivation we use today in modern theoretical physics is different from that of Einstein. At the very least you need to study and correlate carefully the hints he throws out on pages 1,4,5 and 8 of his paper as collectively they identify his chain of reasoning. I see you also have issues with light clocks. Again it is worth noting the historical context, because the 1905 paper was produced at a time when the nature of light was still in contention. Einstein's approach managed to be independent whether light was is a wave or corpuscular or something else entirely. I look forward to honest discussion but I fear this threads is degenerating into irrelevant personalisation.

Yes your reasoning is essentially correct. But it will be a much smaller effect than I expect you are expecting. Remember that the fluid column moves upwards about the diameter of the ball in the same time as the ball falls the whole depth of the colum. Ie the fluid velocity relative to the walls is much slower than the ball's velocity relative to the fluid.

Sorry I didn't make myself very clear. Firstly let me repeat You cannot get acid ar basic consitions in pure water, you can only get neutral ones. You can get acid or basic conditions only by adding something. If you add something that is ether acid (eg sulphuric or hydrochloric acid) or basic (potassium or sodium hydroxide) you will get and acidic or basic mixture that now contains other ions than OH- or H+ If, as you suggest, you add a neutral salt then you will also change the pH according, more or less, to the solubility and the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation Either way you will have additional ions in what is now a solution. How would you use the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation to calculate the pH of a solution that is 0.120 M in HClO and 0.185 M in KClO? | Socratic To then get to the effect on the cell potentials you then need to apply the Nernst Equation What is the equation that connects pH and its effect on electric potential of an electrochemical cell? | Socratic

I see you have studied on this somewhat. So I will give you a pointer to help you answer your own question, beforelaunching into any detail. Pure water has a very low conductivity on account of the very low concentration of ions, both hydroxyl and hydrogen (or hydroxonium). Pure water is neutral, and there are no other ions present. In order to acidify or alkify the water (ie change the pH) you have to add other ions. These afect the half cell reactions.

Although it is not my name for the AI process, I think it is quite a good simple general one so I use it. Consider the following situation. A Turing Machine has a small defect. It does not have a symbol for the character 9 in its set of allowable characters. So it can calculate 2 + 3, 2 + 4, 2 + 5, 2 + 6 but not 2 + 7 but again it can calculate 2 + 8. Now the question arises "Is an AI capable of coming up with the deduction that 2 + 7 exists so it needs a symbol for the result, when asked to calculate 2 + 8 " ?

Thanks to all for offering some discussion points rather than taking up stances. Good information listing many extensions to a basic TM (all including a qualifying adjective) +1 However these are extensions, rather than restrictions as I don't think it is possible to simplify a TM further. It is sometimes difficult to follow your oblique thinking, but if you mean 'potential' as in the Greek's used potential in relation to infinity, then no that would not be a TM. Note that Turing did not predict his machine he specified it and finiteness is a very important part of that specification. Probability itself is philosophically problematic since TMs cannot directly handle the infinite. And the probability function has an infinite (though bounded) range. I'm not sure hot sure how many appreciate the implications of finiteness. Part of the specification includes a finite character set that can be input or output by a TM. The same applies to the instruction set and the set of operations that may be carried out. Finally there is the 'one character at a time' requirement. This is why a TM cannot fully compass a multicharacter 'message'. This in turn, leads to the probability pattern matching in use by current 'AIs'.

Practicality as mechanical engineering developed probably played a large part in this. Early machines were generally reciprocating, curiously with the exception of the first steam engine by Hero. Not only that but they were simple in that they only used one or at the most two cylinders. As machines developed, particularly the internal combustion engine, more was required than a simple machine output shaft to drive auxiliary equipment such as pumps, fans, generators, camshafts compressors and so on. All this has to work against that other mechanical beast - friction. Furthermore as engines became more sophisticated the Carnot 'hot' and 'cold' reservoirs only exist for a small part of the machine's cycle. Does this help ?

Really ? The Bureau International des Poids et Measures is not French, though its official language is? And what's this ? really ? So what is all the fuss about the difference between 273.15 and 273.16 and why did they need to redefine the value of Boltzmann's constant ?

Nice answers. +1 I would just like to add that much equipment has succumbed to the mania for chrome plating (often poorly made plating). Acids readily attach chrome plating on taps etc. An alternative you might try is steam cleaning.

I had to laugh when I saw this so +1 to John. As far as I can tell you are both a bit right and a bit wrong. The relevant body here is the French Authority responsible for Systeme Internationale, whose unit the kelvin is. They redefined the kelvin in 2017/2018 so the first trap is "which elvin are you using ?" As far as the French are concerned, the unit is spelled with a lower case k, but the symbol is an upper case K, because the lower case k is already allocated to the Boltzmann Constant, to which the kelvin is related. Perversely the English speaking world as represented by the UK and US National Physical Laboratories use upper case for both Kelvin and K. @Genady A perfect example of a camel (which in an English saying is aa horse designed by a committee.

I wasn't going to recommend any books without further discussion at this stage, but I will second Arfgen as a good choice. +1

The switch on routine in a current computer is meant to place the machine in a 'standard' state. This could be further strengthened by hard wiring to include the AI routine as part of that standard state.

Yes a Batchelors in Mathematics will certainly give you better grounding than one in Astronomy, so long as you are careful with your choice of syllabus. This should include a modern foundations of maths course, followed by lots of applied maths. But even then you would have a long way to add to that to get up to advanced theoretical Physics level. Good luck and I hope others will add useful comments.

I know the official line is that so called AI programs are nothing more than glorified TMs But is that really true ? One of the characteristics of a TM is reproducibility. That is a given input always results in an identical (and predictable in theory) output. Yet we have noted that repeating a question to, say CHATGPT, sometimes results in several quite different answers. A true TM should not exhibit this behaviour. I wonder if what is happening is that when the AI program does its data search and subsequent statistical 'pattern matching' this happens because the dataset for comparison varies each time the search is conducted or that the same dataset is invoked each time but there are additional limiting or cutoff instructions in the program to mean that each time a different dataset is actually compared.

Hello newcomer and welcome. It would be better to have started your own thread concentrating on what you want get out of the discussion, rather than reviving a short question from many years ago. Yes there is a big difference between practical engineering and thermodynamics, just as there is a big difference between practical applications and theoretical considerations and simplifications in almost any subject you care to imagine.