studiot

You always add something worthwhile to a thread. +1 Yes they can have quite a few extra properties

Nothing fancy about Hilbert spaces. They are just ordinary cartesian x,y,z... 'spaces' that have an infinite count of dimensions. So the space is not ordinary physical space - it is phase space, which is a fancy way of saying that it has as many dimensions as necessary to draw a 'graph' in.

I am not taking issue with most of what you are saying; in fact I have been trying to point out phenomena I know of that support the connections you are making. Any half way decent book on mineralogy, crystallography, solid state chemistry and some solid state physics books will show this. But I am taking issue with all embracing claims like this Clouds are pretty natural in my opinion and there are plenty of these above Earth. How do they fit in to your scheme of things ?

Thank you for your thoughts. Sadly, though I now have an inkling of what you mean by Natural Order I am still no wiser as to what you want to do with this. In my experience every time Man has tried to force Nature into one of his pigeon holes, Nature comes up with exceptions. Self -similarity is one such natural geometric phenomenon, first discovered in the 1960s. Many of the shapes you have listed have physical reasons for their natural adoption. Minimum Energy reasons that the ancients knew nothing of. There is much study today of minimal curves and surfaces. These are not parts of circular curves, as you have used, but much more sophisticated functions. There seems to be one good thing in this though. As far as I can see you are not one of the brigade determined to prove that we have the wrong value for Pi.

There were many breakthrough moments and much infilling in between. QM has always also been intimately bound up with particle physics. Quantum theory started in 1900 when Max Planck announced a mathematical solution to the mathematical problem of the 'ultraviolet catastrophe'. Einsten came next using this quantum idea to mathematically describe the photoelectric effect, in 1904. 1913 brought the Bohr atom which tried to describe electron orbits in terms of classical electro-mechanics, whilst introducing a quantisation of the energy levels. This is called the old quantum theory. Quietly Max Planck was busy during this time and introduced 'zero point energy' in 1911. This led to the old quantum theory being modified to include this phenomenon. At this point quantum theory quantum theory provided specific energy levels using 3 'quantum numbers' to describe transitions between them. This was enough for the develoipment of orbit(al) mechanics a la Schrodinger and Heisenberg. In turn this provided chemists and spectroscopists with mathematically based formulae describing their observations. However there was blurring of the spectral lines, originally observed by Zeeman in 1896, and this phenomenon was re-examined. This led to the introduction of a fourth quantum number the spin quantum number which is non classical in its physical manifestation. Pauli introduced his exclusion principle (1925) and spin matrices (1927. By this time researchers were beginning to uncover a whole new catalogue of particles. The rest of the 20th century saw the relationship between QM and particle physics develop symbiotically as one feed on and influenced the other. So we had Quantum Field Theory (QFT) in 1927 and Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) in 1973. and so on. I suggest you look at this book in your local library or even buy a S/H copy. https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Q_is_for_Quantum_Particle_Physics_from_A.html?id=rS_8BUE7eN8C&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y

I never thought of that ! +1

Does it do covid as well ?

@MigL Since we have Pale Rider in our midst, perhaps he would like to ride in and comment ? Or we could try this method of revamping old oil rigs. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-62967408 See Monster to finally open in Weston-super-Mare

Maybe, but was is smoky's work or a miscalculation by the bandit ? +1

Anyone remember Compton Mackenzie's Whisky Galore ? Here is an update. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62990366

That's the whole point, the video doesn't make this claim or even address that situation. Yet it claims to explain Bernoulli. I'm sorry if my method of pointing this out was a bit dramatic. The standard simple version of Bernoulli contains three terms. Two of these are independent of velocity and solely determine what happens when the fluid is not moving (ie v = 0) @sethoflagos introduced one of these, though he perhaps didn't explain it very clearly. So the video information is pretty deficient as it attributes everything to flow. I also note that @jfoldbar seems to have lost interest in the subject.

This looks like homework/coursework and should be placed in that section. You should start by reading the instructions. The clue is in the instructions. What trigonometric functions do you know that have an maximum and a minimum (and for the sake of learning which ones do not) ? They must be pretty simple ones since you are only told the max and min. You must have been told something else about the timing as you will need the time difference between high and low tide to match the angular distance to the time distance on your trigonometric model.

Some years ago ? It say you joined 3 hours ago. Mellor died in 1938. See the attachments for more recent history of the development of ferrocene theory including the 1973 Nobel. Apologies for the poor quality of the scans but Greenwood and Earnshaw is a very thick book.

The quote from Eddington was a discussion of why the general quadratic is not used in relativity. For those who want a modern accessible mathematical treatment I recommend MacComb. Since I see that there has been some discussion about light cones and causality and relativity diagrams that are simple here is his version. The book is great as it goes right the way through from Gaileo, Newton, Lorenz, Einstein, FourVectors, Simple GR geometry and curved triangulation, yet is rigerous enough. Some fun relativistic calculations include the relativistic Compton Effect and "When Photon meets Proton head on".

Please remember the large number of insincere would be wizz kids that post untenable meanderings on this forum, usually wihtout any giving the ir chosen subject any real thought at all. If you want to send something privately you can attach it to the site private messaging system (PM) - - It is a really good one. As regards 'The Problem' and the quote allegedly attributed to Einstein. Actually this question has been done quantitavely. Read section 2 of this extract from Eddington's The Mathematical Theory of Relativity. Incidnetally this idea of 'simplest formal structures' is not as easy as it first seems. Occam's famous razor is actually rather blunted by the fact that any eperienced physical scientist or engineer will know very well. To use another famous phrase, "There is more than one way to skin a cat". In fact there are often many ways to perform a desired calculation and usually it depends upon circumstances which one is 'the simplest' For instance in the loading and bending of beams and structures you can choose from slope-deflection; area-moment; force-displacement; Macaulay; virtual work; unit impulse; and several other assorted methods. Here is another commnent on 'Natural Order'. In elementary Physics, a force is a 'push or a pull'. Did you know that our bodies have no muscles that can push ? In order to push our bodies employ a complicated internal mechancal arrangement. I often recommend this book https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cats-Paws-Catapults-Mechanical-Worlds/dp/0393319903 The price seem to have gone up by a factor of 10x since my Penguin copy, so look for an s/h one.

This is a good balanced article https://vpnoverview.com/privacy/anonymous-browsing/duckduckgo/

I don't see the chloro unit in your picture ?

Even though you haven't acknowled it, I actually answered you question. However since I also really appreciate this quip +1 , I would also like to note that reactions in general expel photons and particles often at high speed. The expulsion KE of massive particles is variable. So be careful what is meant by the energy generated.

I'm suprised that you would actually reach 4. +1 I always thought 3.7 was the maximum. By the way picric acid is far less dangerous and much more fun.

Both.

Since you were kind enough to respond to my last post the way you did I will add to Bufofrog's excellent link (+1) for as advertised it is easy to understand. But it is not the whole story of the energy.

I thought the nazis were the National Socialists.

Hey Ho the Democrats have won the election (just about). But in Sweden the Democrats are a right wing party. How cool is that ? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62908902

A great post in an otherwise dull thread. +1