studiot

So how would that work with say this number 9,991,991

And antigens and .......... Yes the list is quite long.

I understand all this, and there may even be a part in the overall scheme of things to come for this but I don't see the manufacture of what amounts to artificial coal as being a big player. Firstly there are better alternatives than forestry for fixing carbon. We recently had a thread noting that sea grass is up to 30 times more effective than the amazonian forests. Recently there has been much interest in spagnum moss as it is apparantly something like five times as effective for boggy areas, where forest will not grow. Talking about areas where forests will not grow, Why do you think vast areas of the Andes and Rockies and Himalaya etc poke out above the forest ? How much forest can you groe in the tundra or on Shetland, where there are no trees because the prevailing winds are too strong for them ? What about the Sahara, gobi, atacama, Kalahari, Australia etc ? So where exactly would you grow these trees ? Spruce will not grow in the Amazon and tropical mahogany will not grow in Alaska. The sea grass and moss have another advantage. They are immediate. You do not have to wait 50 to 100 years for carbon sequestration payback. Talking of immediate, the main thing we could all do is change our ways to create less waste. To make things last, not have extravagant ways.

Yes many things come in pairs. I have no proof that everything comes that way however. Partly because for any X you can divide the universe into that which is X and that which is not X. But elephants are not anti-dolphins, they are something else entirely. The 'anti' bit is a special relationship.

That date thjing is interesting, thank you. +1

You are very welcome here. Your questions are good technical questions. Your written English is quite good. But can you read English, or are you using a translator ? As already said, bu others it is a matter of sign conventions. Sign conventions are very important - Have you heard of them ? They are important partly because Physicists and Engineers use a dfferent sign convention compared to Chemists. So help us to help you by answering some simple questions about your circumstance. We don't care what they are. But we can then understand how best to help.

Further to this I also asked what are studying, without an answer. What I also don't understand is why the bonding in C2 is so important if as it appears you are still at the elementarty stage and this bonding has not yet been resolved (as of 2023) as far as I can tell. As a species, C2 has definitely been measure by traditional chemical means (molecular weight), But there is also evidence of other bonding schemes given by spectroscopy. Traditionally we have unravelled the molecular orbitals for ethane, ethylenes and acetylene by considering appropriate hybridisation schemes. These are, in fact, often used a standard examples.

Like you I will wait for the cosmologists to answer.

See -You can hold a conversation, and hopefully get something out of it. I am glad you know something about electron - electron repulsion, but that is not the reason why you are most likely to find electrons in these orbitals. electron-electron repulsion is the reason why things are so complicated however. I also note that you and exchemist have been having a conversation about bonding and anti bonding orbitals. I can't remember if I have said it to you but I am always saying this. A system, in this case of particles, attempts to minimise its energy on account of the Principle of Least Energy. So if we write an accounting for all the energy of such a system and try to find the places where it is at a minimum we find that this gives us the shape of the orbitals in space. It also gives solutions that are quantised - that is offers certain 'preferred' energy levels. However - and this is where electron-electron repulsion comes in - We have only been able to solve this equation (known as the Schrodinger wave eqaution) for the case of a single electron - that is a hydrogen atom or Lithium ion or Helium ion. To take account of multi electron atoms we use a special model, which is a modified hydrogen atom. All the pictures you see actually refer to a hydrogen atom and sometimes they tell you this in the small print and then move on quickly. We know it is a sufficiently good model because it works in general and its predictions match observatiosn quite closely. So - bearing this in mind - would you like to look further into the how and why we turn this model of isolated atoms into a model of chemically bonded molecules ?

Please just take note that Carroll's master quantum field is quite a different sort of field from the force field being discussed in the spacetime thread

Actually I don't exactly mean atoms either. And do you know why electrons are likely to be found there ?

In one of your earlier threads I asked if you understood orbitals and advised to to take a couple of steps back to full understaning. I did not receive an answer to this. Do you understand that s, p, d etc orbitals are just a convenient fiction (model) and do not describe what is actually going on in molecules ?

No one knows how the Higgs field works or has actually detected it, only that if there is a field with certain properties, there is a recognisable mechanism to acount for mass ie the massive higgs particle. I think we also have to be more careful with energy as opposed to force. Most fields in question are fields of force and no energy needs be extended to maintain or exert said force(s). Lines of fluid flow that end at stagnation points have a residual stagnation pressure, unlike lines of electric force that end on a charge.

Well you got one from me +1

We seem to have reached a religious style impasse with the promoter falling back on a belief system creed whenever faced with the facts. Thank the Lord that the creed of Pope Clement no longer holds sway. @AThinker1 Yet again you have failed to respond when I offered you an example to help distinguish between cause and reason. Since reason is associated with reasoning and rational thinking and, as you say, debate, is it not reasonable that it should be associated with thought ? Whereas a cause can simply be a real physical phenomenon, with no thought involved at all. A cause has to precede an effect in time, by the very nature of the logical proposition/statement structure. A reason may, but does not have to be associated with time at all. Last night I also wondered about trying to apply first order formal logic to catalytic chemical reactions where the catalyst actually take part in the reaction and is initially used up but is then regenerated in a later stage. So do you consider the catalyst to be an antecedent or a consequent ? I also thought we could have a useful discussion about the proper use of probability. Not here but in another thread.

Returning to QM, since this thread allegedly explains QM, What is the cause of pair production and what is the reason why it only occurs to some photons ?

Indeed I have This is why first order logic or the predicate calculus is so limited and quite unsuitable for QM. Your answer reads E if and only if C, or that E can only be the consequent of C Yet you have also told me that E can also be the consequent of D. You cannot have it both ways. Try listening to others and respecting them for also knowing a thing or two.

Then it is not the effect of C. This is not an answer to my question, I am still vwating for that.

But that is not what you said or your version of the propositional calculus says. If you wanted to have a D you should have correctly introduced it. Personally I prefer the word antecedent not cause for reasons I have already explained. And I prefer the word implies which does not necessarily mean causality. It could do for it does not preclude it either. (C ᴠ D) Ͱ E

But you said it was. as I already quoted .

Really, perhaps I misconstrued all these then Seems a pretty devastating attack on all things probabilistic to me (and I expect to others as well) Except that it is just plain wrong. Not in tune with reality, just a band aid. What do you mean by cause ? Could that E have happened or happen without C ?

Calm down Man. Scientists often have to point out that Correlation does not imply causation. But you deny the existence of probability. To me, and in this context, reason is associated with rational thinking or 'reasoning'. Reason is not, and never has been, synonymous with cause, though some use them interchangably. As a general guide a cause for an event forces that event to happen and precedes it in time even if only very very briefly; whereas a reason is a thought about that cause and may happen after both casuse and event are over and done with. So all this Is just typical AI pompous twaddle. It is not meaningless. It just goes too far and tries to do too much. As regards electronic chips, National Semiconductor introduced Trisate logic in the 1970s This was further extended to four value logic in IEEE 1364 which itself is a subset of the 1993 IEEE standard 1164 for multivalued logic systems.

Robin Hood, Robin Hood Riding through the glen Robin Hood, Robin Hood With his merry men.

I though Much was a miller. 😄

The only guaranteed test I know of is to keep an ever growing list of primes, starting with 2. Clearly your test rquirement will be for a number X larger than the largest prime on your list. So starting with 2 successively divide primes from your list into X If no prime on your list divides into X ( ie there is zero remainder) then continue dividing odd numbers greater than your largest prime but less than X until you reach X itself. If none of these numbers divides X then X is prime.