studiot

+1 You are moving into the territory that I meant when I said Every entanglement is different and depends partly upon the conditions of the entanglement. Ghideon's example is classical. But with the wife, socks, gloves and so on you need at least the information that they are married, there is a pair of socks of gloves. Otherwise when the box of gloves is opened the discovery that it contains a right hand glove is of no extra meaning. QM is no differnt in this respect, but obviously infomation required is different. For instance in the example Bangstom wants to avoid you know that two electrons in a hydrogen molecule are entangled, form Physics theory. But how do you move one away from the other without interacting (observing) with one or both and destroying the entanglement ?

Don't ask me. read the official SI definition for yourself direct from the horse's mouth. I have given you the link. Then we can have a proper discussion about the Coulomb, which was defined nearly 100 years before the electron was discovered and longer before the electron charge was measured. The electron or proton charge is fundamental as Sensei has mentioned, the Coulomb turns out to be a multiple of this, the multiplier being another fundamental constant. So no, it has not changed.

Thank you for replying to my recent comments. I started a thread just for you and for Hoola since he seems to have been forced out of this thread and started a new one again. Have you seen it ? You need to understand that entanglement, superposition mechanics and many other phenmomena were studied long before any quantum theory arose. In many cases quantum entanglemen can be different from classical entanglement, which @Ghideon example is. This is also the case with the example of the socks or the gloves. But they have a characteristic in common with quantum entanglement, notably that the actual states of both particles are set at the instant of entanglement. Some information is also encoded in the entanglement at that instant. The entangled objects do not suddenly or randomly switch their entangled characteristics when one is determined. Further the randomness is not in the entanglement but in this knowledge of this information. Quite right not only shouldn't it know, it just doesn't. Once again thank you for attempting to reply, but you haven't answered the question. You need first to describe where and how these two electrons become entangled, and then most importantly how you separatethem without interacting with them, bearing in mind that any interaction is an observation that automatically breaks the entanglement. The whole point of SR is that you measure or calculate everything in the same inertial frame, which you are at liberty to pick. That is what the Lorenz transformations are all about.

Don't you think this statement is a little to tight ? Bodies can be in the same inertial frame so long as they are not accelerating relative to each other.

So what is a coulomb ? It is not a fundamental unit. I also think your "equation" h=? kqc is suspiciously like the second black body radiation constant = hc/k, measured in degrees of temperature. This might also help you sort out. the SI system is French and published jointly in French and English. Sorry i do not have a Spanish trnaslation, here is the beginning of the English version. The SI system is based on 7 fundamental physical properties and 7 base constants to quantify everything. The system does not include the Coulomb as a base number. The base constants are the caesium hyperfine frequency ΔνCs the speed of light in vacuum c the Planck constant h the elementary charge e the Boltzmann constant k the Avogadro constant NA, and the luminous efficacy of a defined visible radiation Kcd Here is an English language version (SI is French) of the definitions. Defining constants - BIPM www.bipm.org

I think you have this one incorrect. 1.6 x 10-19 Joules is the energy of one electron volt (ev)

This thread is aimed particularly at @hoola and @bangstrom It took from the mid 1600s to the late 1800s to appreciate the full significance of this difference and even today it is rarely brought out in courses. When schoolboys move up from the algebra of values eg solve x+3 = 8 to the calculus they are introduced to 'functions'. But few, if any, are taught that functions have an algebra of their own. And this algebra is different (more complicated) from the very simple algebra of values they have become accustomed to. The function and its derivative (short for derived function) have a particular property that they exist (mathematically) whether we use all the function or not. Sometimes the function and its derivative are 'out of phase' the sine and cosine functions provide a good example, but both exist for all x. Now I see several current and past thread where members have faled to appreciate the implications and significance of this when applied in the physical world. For example entanglement, non commutative results, the fact that the solutions of the wave equation extend over all space, again whther we use them or not. This last example is the reason other members have been telling bangstrom that there is no first and last in such experiments because the wave functions are not points and should not be treated as such.

Now you are making me hungry. +1

I'm sorry Have you come across reaction-diffusion dynamics ? https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.1c04269 However thank you for the other worthwhile contributions to the discussion +1 Welcome to SF Please note you have 1 hour to edit any posting. Additionally new members have a limit of 5 posts in thier first 24 hour, which is a seriously good spam limiting precaution. If by editing equations you actually mean writing them, this is the only website (since the demise of the old all-about-circuits) that offers direct super and subscript. This is really useful. You can also use Charmap.exe (Arial) to get greek and other alphabets and quite a few maths characters such as pi, square root and arrows. The site also parses MATHML quite well enclose your code in "[math} and [/math]" tags. You can use commercial or some free online equation editors such as and copy/paste them into SF. https://latex.codecogs.com/eqneditor/editor.php or http://www.sciweavers.org/free-online-latex-equation-editor The equation editor in MS Word does not work here.

I agree this is a superb example. Thank you +1. It doesn't know, why should It ? You have placed the germ of the answer in your use of 'former partner'. Can you provide an actual example of the circumstances for these two electrons ?

So what is the question ? I am sorry that Fundy may not be the best place for a tidal station and I am certain that the author of that NYT article doesn't understand the engineering of tidal power. The tidal generator over here in Strangford Loch has been so successful that they want to install another one. And a new more powerful one has just been finished off Shetland. There are three parameters that determine the output of any hydro turbine. 1) The mass of water throughput. 2) The pressure head. 3) The water flow velocity. A successful design will balance all three of these for the best performance according to requirements. The requirements will include. 1) Peak output. 2) Continuity of output throughout day. 3) Environmental requirements such as maintenance of navigation, protection from storms, protection of marine life.

Thank you for attempting to reply to our questions. No computation is necessary. Claiming that one is necessary is like looking around, calling the earth etc 'creation, and then claiming that there is creation therefore there must be a creator. It is just religeous cant. As an example consider a 15mm peg. It will either fit into a particular hole or it won't, and whilst it may be sufficient to measure the peg and the hole and then perform a calculation, it is not necessary to do so to find out if the peg will fit the hole. There are other ways. Since some particles can indeed interpenetrate, are you now restricting your speculation to only certain particles ? You OP was pretty general. Excellent I am glad you have learned something and dropped that previous erroneous speculation. +1 for that. Are you claiming that whichever paticular particles you are no including in your discussion are only two dimensional ? (our) Space is three dimensional. The mapping of one two dimensional space to another is irrelevant to the 3D properties of space, especially as 3D space cannot be completely described by complex numbers. The complex construction (a + ib) is perfect for such waves as voltage and current but iextending this to 3D as a triple (ai + bj + ck) only works in some circumstances but not all. Once again our space is 3D

Which means exactly what to a particle ? Are you still arguing that you can only apply numbers to a 'space point' on a one to one basis ? and what do 'space points' have to do with complex planes ? What exactly is complex about a real space point ?

This really is a difficult and complicated subject to untangle. Not least because Michael McMahon has made some quite perceptive comments as well as posting that flawed diagram. Nor do I see this as belonging in the speculations section. As a straight forward question about Newtonian Physics there is a straight forward answer to his question Yes indeed that is straight forward but the fictious force required is the radial centrifugal force, not the tangential Euler force. This accounts very well for the easily measurable fact that observed gravity is apparantly weaker at the equator than it is at the pole. The Maths of this used to be on the first year Physics course at London University, I can post it if you wish. However you have entitled this thread Gravity Mysteries and even offered some tantalising comments. which show deeper perception and understanding. When forces are first introduced in school Physics, they are defined some along the lines of without being specific about where or how that push/pull is generated. This is the level your diagram is pitched at, but unfortunately it also erroneously shows the normal force displaced from the 'gravity force' forming a couple that should not be present. But the diagram does hide some deeper stuff such as the question How does the adding the box onto the table develop into forces at a distance from the box pressing on the floor under the table legs ? Treating this question requires revisiting the basic force definition and significantly expanding it. You also mention contact forces, another part of the basic treatment, that description needs to be expanded to include th concept of 'body forces' for any sensible discussion.

Not this rubbish again please. Speculation upon speculation upon speculation upon...... BTW do you actually know what a Riemann Sphere is ?

My apologies this should read On the other hand I don't think that it is as simple as you make out.

Well I don't think this speculation should be lightly dismissed. On the other hand I think that it is as simple as you make out. We already have terminology for things which display the characteristics which define what makes a particular type of cell. But we have more general terminology starting with the word system. And cells represent particular types of system, but not the type you seem to be thinking of. The Earth can certainly (and often is) regarded as a system for some purpose or other - there are many types of system. So I suggest to you, since it is your speculation, that you consider recasting your thoughts in this more conventional terminology, so you can have more profitable discussions with others. The basic characteristics of a system is something we can draw a boundary around which divides the system from the rest of the universe, also called the surroundings. Properties, processes and objcts that are wholly inside the system, wholly outside the system and cross the boundary as a result of interaction between the system and its surroundings can then be identified and evaluated. This model is a very powerful tool.

Indeed so. In fact the naming of the equations is somewhat arbitrary and discipline dependent. Classically both the wave equation and the diffusion equation were derived from the more general telegraph equation by setting some of the coefficients to infinity or zero.

At last someone wants to discuss some actual Science. +1 What has been said is true you have to go back to the permo-cretaceous period for the continental configurations to have been clustered around the south Pole. We have a lot yet to discover but the story so far is that there have been at least four great periods of glaciation (geologists talk about glaciation, reporters talk about ice ages), thoughout history. These have been separated by periods of little or no glaciation, for isntacne during the Jurassic period. During these glaciation periods there have also been advances and retreats of the glaciers. Here are a series of diagrams that help conflate glaciation with continental configuration and geological timescale. Starting with charts of the timescales. The Quaternary cenozoic 'iceage' corresponds to the iceage in the OP.

That's good but you didn't answer my question about the model put forward by the OP for discussion. I really don't know why no one seems to want to discuss it. It is quite interesting - though hopelessly incorrect as I have already pointed out - but it does demonstrate action at a distance. The thing about models really needs another thread of its own so I will just say briefly here that a model is basically a copy of some (but not all) aspects of something. Since things - and models are things - can be abstract or concrete that gives four undelying types of model, but it is further complicated by the fact that the model may only indirectly copy the thing. This stems from its old French roots where it meant 'to draw'.

Very nicely put. +1 I would add that there are observable and measureble effects in real physical systems. as a result of of this precision tradeoff.

Are you really familiar with Newton ? I described the opening post as Do you know what was wrong with it ? And yes I realise you are not Michael McMahon and this is not a criticism but an offer to dispel some common misconceptions you may have picked up since you have always struck me as a level headed member.

If you were more specific our answers could also be more specific and this discussion might then progress.

The Michaelis (enzyme) reaction has a particular form and uses the Michaelis constant. Have you not studied this and is this homework/coursework ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michaelis–Menten_kinetics

Not always no. For instance you don't need any reference frame to work out and then predict the phases of the Moon.