studiot

My wife asked AI for the box office phone number of our local theatre. 😄

Yes it is possible, and in fact happened several times recently in my back garden with the unusual weather conditions lately.

Not sure there ever was a 'mother' of science or mathematics. Women were very much in the minority in years gone by. Most authorities acknowledge Aristotle as the father of science, for some of the reasons others have all ready given. As regards women Hypatia of Alexandria was probably the first, and for a long time only, female mathematician but she was not a founder as such, and died a tragic death. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia Here is Aristotle encapsulated

No, c applies to a vacuum. Or are you suggesting that there is no space inside a crystal ?

First the bolded bit is not accurate. I did say in my that it is worth looking into the difference between entanglement and superposition and the connection between the two as well. I suggest a good way to do this is to study the difference between electtron spin resonance and nuclear magentic resonance spectroscopy. Both cases provide what I consider the most rock solid examples of entanglement as a result of superposition, but the Pauli exclusion principle only applies to ESR.

What I am saying with the curry and the chef is that space needs to have the qualities /characteristics/properties the users requires for his needs. But some other user may have different requirements and so will have a different meaning for 'space'. As a relativity specialist, Mordred is OK to choose space as just volume. My container and separator description allows a user to put things in and take things out of the space and not forgetting the separator function, do this in the right order or configuration at the right time.

I see my curry hasn't gained much flavour favour. 😄 Pity since no one seems to have caught my analogy. Physicists and Mathematicians have very different definitions. There are, in fact, many different spaces some real and material some abstract. So it make sense to qualify the word with additional phraseology to convey the particular description the users wishes to employ. Mordred used to say space is just volume. I like to think I can distill the essence of the idea as a container and separator. Does anyone disagree that the white space on your screen or page is real ?

So let me see the steps in your disproof of Godel. Otherwise it is just an unsupported claim.

The implications are that it would disprove Godel's Theorems. Have you achieved that ?

QM concerns material objects. I am not sure there are any non material objects subject to QM. In Mathematics we have axioms, in Physics we have principles. The fundamental principle we need here is the Principle of Least Energy. A system of material objects acts to attain minimum energy. Using this principle, mathematics can be derived to explain why fluids flow, why structures stand or fall, why hot objects cool off, why chemicals bond, why chemical reactions happen and much more. The mathematics can be used to predict what will happen (though humans do not always get if right). I said energy, but energy (which is a property of material objects) may be possessed in various ways. For a system of material objects one of these ways is configuration energy. If a system can minimise its energy by reconfiguration it will do so unless constrained in some way. It is this process which drives activity amongst sub atomic particles in a manner most readily described by QM.

This is a no then, you don't actually know what the axioms of QM are. You have stated no axioms that I can see, consequently they are all missing. But I am only looking for the main one. Einstein need two for relativity.

I agree in principle, but I think it is even more complicated than that. Here is an analogous but much easier question. What is curry ? Well there are as many answers to this as there are chefs.

Having carefully side stepped all my questions by addressing things I did not say how about answering the questions I did ask ? For instance I said nothing about probability. You claim that you are So surely you should know and be able to state what the foundations currently are ? You can't do a reevaluation without this so how will you ? You can't have a theorem until you have some axioms or principles to derive it from. You appear to be trying to work arse backwards.

Thank you for replying. I agree that tree planting can significantly affect climate. The Great Green Wall project is showing tangible benefits in subsaharan Africa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall_(Africa)#:~:text=The%20Great%20Green%20Wall%20or%20Great%20Green,from%20Djibouti%20City%2C%20Djibouti%20to%20Dakar%2C%20Senegal. This is without the need for energy intensive cooking of wood. On that energy this same region of course is ideal for using solar power as a source. Where would you plant your trees ?

1953 Louis Sokoloff 1980 Raichle 2001 Raichle and Schuman 2003 Raichle and Gusnard 2007 Malia mason Current Raichle Greicius and Buckner 2008 Source Douglas Fox The Secret Life of the Brain New Scientist Collection 2013

Luv it +1

Thanks +1

I note you haven't understood what superposition is all about as the Copenhagen interpretation (which I do not agree with either) is not required for superposition. I would be interested if you were to tell us what you regard as the fundamental basis of QM ? That is what is QM about and what is its governing principle ? I am totally comfortable with the same principle that governs non quantum mechanics and in fact underlies most processes in this universe. This leads to ready calculation in Physics, Chemistry, Applied mathematics and many other sciences. +1

Good night all I had enough time wasting.

But they haven't gone unanswered. For example You asked how can space time curve and I told you. But you have yet to reply. I find the phrase 'configuration is fine with me' rather slap happy when one considers that science is a precise subject (as far as it can be). What would you think of a doctor who gave you parabenzedrine instead of paracetamol and casually said well they both begin with para ?

Bluntly because only one of us is taking any notice of the other. for example Not quite. It means that that it may exist in more than one configuration. Configuration is a better word in this case than state. For example diamond and graphite are polymorphic forms of carbon that can exist in the same state (solid) but have different crystal structures (configuration) Edited 24 minutes ago24 min by studiot

How is it ridiculous ? You last answered one of my queries 19 posts ago, several of them yours, and I have subsequently offered you some advice on scientific terminology. Further you still haven't answered my question from my first short post on the previous page, despite being reminded of it recently.

I have offered you solid facts. You seem so afraid of considering them that you don't bother to answer my comments.

Do you understand non riemannian geometry ? You have quoted 'the rules' and I agree in this case the 'how' is because the observed (I know you don't like that word) phenomena (transformations) are Lorenzian not Riemannian. If you want MigL 's symmetries they SO (1,3) not SO (4) That's the trouble with pure philosophers. They are lost to the real world of everybody else. Actually the OP has scored a near miss with is definition. Not quite. It means that that it may exist in more than one configuration. Configuration is a better word in this case than state. For example diamond and graphite are polymorphic forms of carbon that can exist in the same state (solid) but have different crystal structures (configuration)

Do you know what these rules are ? If so, how do you know that your unspecified 'which' conform ?