studiot

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 ?

Rather than use big words perhaps you should consider what they mean. Presenting stuff like this is likely to get the backs up of pragmatists, which in turn leads to you responding defensively. The holographic plate image only works down to a certain size of subdivision. If you go smaller it no longer works. And what do you mean by polymorphic ? and what do you mean by 'embed the laws abstractly' ? Having asked that and talking of abstract, you have mentioned abstract in a rather disparaging way before. The english language is particularly blessed because it distinguishes between abstract and concrete nouns and allows that either or both can be every bit as real or not as appropriate. Since you disparage the abstract, conside this When I go to the supermarket, I carry an abstract map in my head, in order to arrive at my destination. I don't carry the whole map at all times, I just deploy the appropriate parts as I go along. Finally you did not respond to my previous comment in this thread

How come you haven't weighed the benfits against the disbenefits ? Was this page generated by AI or is it your own work ?

I agree the ramifications run very wide. +1

If you want something more up to date than Gauss try this little book. Professor De Sautoy even delves into the connection with Physics.

I think that it is not very entertaining but is certainly a distraction. I also think you need to learn some real physics so you don't make elementary mistakes like saying They don't. If you what like to know what they actually do we can explain here far better than some journalist who doesn't understand Science.

I think the main part of the message is that a shell is not an orbital. A shell contains orbitals. And a 2s orbital can hold exactly 2 electrons (not 8), just like any other s orbital. But I am not sure if the op understands the word orbital or the s, p, d etc notation evryone is bandying about here. The question in this thread is at quite a different level from his one about oxides of nitrogen. Like you I am trying to help, but it is difficult to know where to start, without further information.

I'm sure you know this is not quite accurate, perhaps you were trying to simplify too much. It was recognized early on that the electrons are arranged in shells. An individual shell is a collective name for electrons thought to be at a similar distance from the nucleus. They were called shells because it was thought that were indeed shells in space like the layers of an onion. Later is became understood that these shell groupings are actually arranged in terms of energy not spatial separation and actually partially overlap each other. It was also realised that there are also sub groupings within the shells ie the energies of electrons in a given shell are similar but not necessarily the same. Originally these shells were also called K, L, M N and so on. (capital letters) When subsehells were intorduced the letters were replaced by a new system, using numbers instead K, L, M, N etc being replaced by 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. The subshells were then labelled with lower case letters, s, p, d, f and so on It is the shells that are being considered for the octet rule. Ammonia is a neutral molecule. Pure substances (matter) can comprise molecules, which can be further divided into pure elements. And elements which cannot be divided. An atom is the smallest particle of an 'element' of matter. A molecule is the smallest particle of a pure substance. But it can be divided into atoms of consitiuents elements.

It would be more true to say that only H sap has developed atomic weapons.

The USA was behind the UK in requiring the wearing of seatbelts, and subsequently the UK introduced requirements for placing animals either behind an impenetrable screen or in a suitable restraint harness. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing as the subject is the legal implications of AI use. Also authorities with some legal powers are increasingly using private sub contractors, who do not share these powers but sometimes act as if they do. There have been several cases recently in the news where these contractors demanded £!0,000 for overstaying parking and after loosing cases in the high court, put out statements claiming they are 'in the right.'