studiot

Is the inverse square law of gravity linear ? And is gravity a cohesive force ? I have started a thread about models, since you seem to be so reluctant to discuss cohesive models. Model A is a reasonable qualitative model to explain surface tension and more besides.

Well Katie did an excellent makeover on your English. I'm tempted to be a bit facetious, "What do you mean ?" Actually I'm not sure what this thread is about, but I'd like to add that there is a big difference between 'meaning' and 'information' in that meaning usually includes things like implications and connections to many other factors and pieces of information.

I presume you mean excerpt ? Yes there are dissenting voices, but your article confirms that the situation (in England) is still a 'compulsory' one. However I would recommend you read more widely than the Guardian, with its sensationalist style and agenda. For my part I note that here we have a classic tussle between the competing requirements of rights and duties. Every 'right' comes with a limiting duty to use that right or freedom properly. In this case I think the balance is on the duty side of the scale. I doubt that there is anyone at all who could literally do any job whatsoever. We all have to accept there are some jobs we would not be able to do for one reason or another. Much as I support helping blind persons, I would accept being driven by a blind taxi driver or airline pilot. An extreme situation I know, but illustrative of the tussle I mentioned at the outset.

The UK comprises four nations or countries and some islands, each with their own government. In Wales there is no such mandate proposed or in force. In England the mandate is already in force, but takes time to implement as might be expectd. I do not know the situation in NI or Scotland or the various islands. Do you ? I appreciate you wish to discuss the ethics of this 'mandate' , but I would also appreciate you getting your facts straight beforehand.

I note you are so busy correcting others that you still haven't bothered to correct your own false statement. Vaccination is not mandatory in the UK NHS service.

It is not a question of agreement it is a question of understanding QM and its definitions. Entanglement is not a state, which has a particular axiomatic definition in QM. Again it is not entanglement that says an observer does not know (in fact cannot know) exactly where a particle is, but Heisenberg. But this veering off topic now. In order to have a contradiction, it is necessary for the equations that define and measure relativity of simultaneity and the equations that define quantum entanglement to have at least one common variable that produce different contradictory results when some common variable is calculated from their respective defining equations.

So you consider N3 as a model ? I rather read a greater requirement into your original answer. Below are two models. Do either model N3 in your opinion ? How about models A and B below ? Do they meet your standards ?

Really ? Well you go with your Physics and I will stick with Schroedinger and Pauli. I look forward to your mathematical derivation of this fanciful description. S and P and many others have already provided many different derivations of their version to the world.

What about Newton's 3rd Law ?

I can't agree with this.

A very popular phrase in this website is in the words of Dr Swanson. Another member's longer description of a model is also quoted here The purpose of this thread is to arrive at a robust definition/description of a scientific model by discussion. Perhaps a summary could then be pinned for future reference as the same issues come up time and time again. To kick off I note that using just model by itself can be unhelpfully vague and there are many descriptors/qualifiers available. Models can be ( in no partuicular order) qualitative; quantitative; illustrative; comparative; graphical; analogue; digital; expressed by a process; expressed by a formula and so on. Since no model completely describes the subject, additional information is needed about the actual qualities described and any limitations imposed.

You've met our Prime Minister then. +1

Don't be sorry for being honest. +1 What is wrong with a qualitative (=schematic) model ? Phi actually suggested this. Newton's third law for instance is only semi-quantitative for instance, yet it is a very profound law about understanding the Physics. So don't be afraid of examining your idea that the mechanism of your 'cohesive force' is similar to the mechanism of surface tension. This can be done successfully with purely qualitative modelling.

I don't think so. Entangled electrons in an orbital are most definitely in one quantum state or another prior to observation, according to QM. However prior to observation the observer does not know which is which.

Glad you reminded members of the actual question in the OP. However it is a flawed question since you implied that it is mandated everywhere in the UK. This is just not true. Over the weekend, the BBC published a report suggesting the Welsh NHS is preparing to recruit many or all of the personel displaced by the English mandate. As to my answer to the question, Surgeons are required to be free of hepatitis (I understand throught the UK). Vaccination is not enough since it is known not to produce antibodies for some people. Is the mandate any different ?

Welcome. As to your question Some folks don't know enough to know that that they don't know enough, but scientists know enough to know they don't know enough. So they are always asking questions to make sure.

It's a soccer reference about netting the ball.

Nice one Cyril ! +1

Thank you for your answer. This is true, but there is much commonality between Physics and Mathematics. My particular example of bifurcation occurs in both purely mathematical analysis and in observable practical examples in mechanical dynamics, which was part of Physics, last time I looked. I really don't think any of those 3 conditions are always met because examples are not simple. For instance until radioactivity was discovered experimentally, no existing theory either confirmed denied or predicted it. Yet those existing theories were correct within the bounds of their applicability. On the other hand, new theory, beyond any existing, led to the search for and final discovery of the Higgs boson. You cannot simply take external conditions like your 1,2 & 3, and apply them irrespective of the particular conditions of the theory you wish to apply them to. Conditions sometimes interact in a most unpredictable and unruly way.

That question on spin might make sense if you were talking about classical mechanical spin. But quantum spin is quite different and has no components So your highlighted question has no meaning. I see that you have already tried to circumvent the 5 post rule and annoyed the moderators. I hope this is not a portent for things to come as I would prefer a mature discussion about this point.

When was this broadcast please ? I ask because we should perhaps be discussing the mathematical validity of all 3 of these requirements. Set theory violates both (1) and (2) on your list, and yet is said to underlie all of Mathematics. Bifurcation theory contradicted existing theories of dynamics when it was broached in the 1960s, contradicting (3).

I can't see beauty or its opposite having any bearing on the scientific subject we are trying to discuss. I think Phi has made a generous offer that other members may help you recover some of your lost knowledge and perhaps even add something you missed out on in the last 40 years. In order to follow this offer I suggest we step aside for a moment to discuss 'surface tension' , which is not actually a conventional force at all. It is indeed the result of the balance of cohesive and/or dispersive forces which produces that remarkable phenomenon we call surface tension. Discussing the model of how surface tension comes about may help your understanding of what a scientific model is and the grades of model that might be offered (again as Phi noted). But until you understand surface tension, I don't see how you can say it is or is not an appropropriate basis for you proposal.

Sadly I see that the original Futurscope (near Poitiers) has been replaced with a Disney style theme park. Don't know if the original musee is still there, it is mentioned in the credits at the beginning of each episode.

As the first sentence represents a direct refusal to obey the site rules I have reported it as such. The second sentence refers to the introduction of a force into QM. But it is provided with no more support or mathematics than your other claims. QM is energy based, not force based. So where exactly does does force fit into QM and how does this force act and interact with other variables in QM ?

Well I am not going to ignore (1) and I repeat genady's valid question since you are trying to change your claim to avoid it. What does it mean? I didn't see this traditional premise of quantum theory Your reply, in particular in relation to the electron to genady requires an astounding modification to quantum theory and you have offered absolutely zero support for such a claim. I would expect some exceptional mathematical and observational support for the astounding claim that the waveform of a free electron changes over time.