studiot

+1 What the difference between crude oil and refined oil ? Crude oil gushes out of the ground screaming "knicker. knickers, knickers" Refined oil gushes out of the refinery screaming "panties, panties , panties"

Hear hear. +1

Thank you for your interest. +1 I have not read just over halfway through the book so I am no expert, but here is what the lady says about quantum entanglement, including the difference between quantum entanglement and classical entanglement. Halfway through and my impression is the book contains too much chit chat. So ideas behind it seem to get rather lost in the noise. Also there are some non intuitive definitions (as always seems to be th case) to get one's head around. Factuals and counterfactuals are a case in point. They seem to be defined as follows Factuals are statments, backed by obervations, of physics phenomena that we know have actually happened/ can actually happen / will actually happen. So yes they could be conservation laws. So I suppose they are direct staements about a phenomenon. Counterfactuals come in two formats. They are statements that are not forbidden, but have never actually happened ie they could happen, given the right conditions. Or they are statements expressly forbidding something for instance the impossibility of a pertual motion machine. So I suppose that they are indirect statements about a phenomenon. The claim is that current Physics is heavily slanted towards factuals. But (in some cases) it is easier to work in terms of counterfactuals. I am not sure about some of the examples given, but it reminds me of the fundamental theorem of calculus that relates interior properties of a region to the boundary properties. Here is my simple example Factual To draw a circle, fix one end of a string at a centre, pull it tight and rotate the other end about that point. Counterfactual. Use the string to do some curve stitching of the tangents and the result will be a circle

No. You offered a link to another website. The rules here explicitly state that matters fundamental to the discussion (for example basic definitions) must be posted here. Members should not have to go offsite to find information. It is OK to provide links to further develop the subject for those interested enough, or a link to something like a table of scientific facts. Such a table that for instance would tell me that there are two protons in a helium atom or the charge on the electron in coulombs. Here are a couple of such scientific facts. Our best estimate of the age of the universe is currently 14 billion years or 4.5 x 1017 seconds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe Our best estimate of the time after the initial detonation of 'the big bang' during which there may have been not even fundamental particles is 10-43 seconds. https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_timeline.html Note these 'facts' are less reliable than my first two examples, but let us run with them in relation to complexity. In addition to scientific facts we have scientific observations. One such is that, as far as we can see the Universe looks pretty much the same in all directions on average. Now we know that because light takes time to reach Earth, the further away in distance we look the further back in time we are seeing the universe. This tells us that all those atoms, molecules etc existed as far back as we can look in time. So for the first insignificant time of 10-43 seconds the universe had no atoms etc but for the rest of its history there has been little change in composition and therefore complexity. I am only continuing this because there is a germ of a really interesting topic involved, but feel free to ask for more information. That process is called discussion.

Poland stokes fears of leaving EU in 'Polexit' By Adam Easton BBC News, Warsaw Published 21 hours ago https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58840076 Tensions between Poland and the Eu escalates and the BBC article examines the possible eventual outcome>

I asked you two clear questions, both of which you have ignored. When pressed for answers you resort to personal insults. How is this not trolling ? I find this a great pity since the development and meaning of complexity could be a very interesting and fruitful topic. Good night all.

This is the third time I have asked for supporting information, in the form of your definitions or supporting rationale of simple terms you have introduced to the thread. The fallacy of appeal to authority in not acceptable support. Reported for trolling. Reported for trolling

But the OP was specifically referring to lots of specific objects ?

You heat me to it, and you expressed it better. +1

Once again a masterful summary. +1 I can only add my comment that trying to deduce facts about 'free will' from the separable actions of single (elementary) particles and transferring these observations from systems of the order of 100 particles to systems of the order of 1025 particles is about as sensible as arguing over Schrodinger's Cat's Tale (Which tail(pun intended) is based on the same macro v micro difficulty)/

Thank you for your well reasoned reply. +1 Have you heard of counterfactuals ?

I can't tell if this is a single quote or a pastiche of quotes or if it is your own work with references. (if it is your own, although misguided its good work). A bald statement that something does or does not obey the Second Law is not sufficient. We need a chain of reasoning, starting from agreed known facts, leading to the claim as a final conclusion, all stated here. I asked you to define your version of complexity. Instead of an answer you have introduced more new words such as order and disorder without definition. Please discuss this properly. According to what I know about Plato, he was about simplificaction not complexification. He believed in so called perfect or ideal systems, the simpler the better.

I don't see anything funny in this. I am glad you decided to take things more (scientifically) seriously though. So your speculation is that increase of 'complexity' (depending upon how you define the term) is a driver of processes in a similar way to those of minumum energy or maximum entropy ? How does this work with the Second Law maximum entropic 'hot death' of the universe ? Maximum entropy is often aligned with minimum complexity.

+1 for putting lots of good things into this thread.

I'd like to start my response by stating that the first time and only I have heard of Jordan Peterson, let alone his ideas, was in this thread. I can't say that what I have learned has led me to want to know more. I note that no one has introduced the issue of 'nature v nurture' here in this thread. I consider this aspect of vital importance to the question. I understand Jordan is a professor of Psychology, which makes his stance all the more surprising to me, as it only addresses nature. Human beings are amazingly adaptable creatures, in no small part as a result of their powerful ability to learn. In other words humans can be programmed and reprogrammed - this is the nurture part. Obviously they can only be programmed to think and act according to their capabilities and capacities. But we know that some ordinary citizens (ie those who would not ordinarily even dream of doing such things) can be programmed (taught) to sneak up behind someone and strangle them with a garotte wire.

Not quite. Yes binary is a base 2 number representation system. But no, it does not use 2 states on their own to represent a number. That could only ever represent 2 numbers. A number system are designed to represent all the numbers in its particular range. In order to do this you can either use a different symbol for every number, which is obviously inefficient and difficult to learn. Or you can repeat symbols in some way, with each repetition having a different meaning. The smallest count of symbols you need to do this is called is 2 and is called binary. 2 is then called the base. One consequence of using 2 is that it leads to very long representations of numbers, both numerically bigger numbers and fractions. In general, The larger the count of symbols the shorter the repreentation becomes. So if use use 3 symbols we get ternary numbers, also called trinary numbers So if use use 4 symbols we get quaternary numbers So if use use 5 symbols we get quinary numbers So if use use 6 symbols we get seximal numbers So if use use 7 symbols we get septernary numbers So if use use 8 symbols we get octal numbers - note this one does not follow the pattern and is abused by computer science to also mean groupings of binary numbers. So if use use 9 symbols we get nonnary numbers So if use use 10 symbols we get denary numbers commonly, but wrongly, called 'decimal numbers'. So if use use 16 symbols we get hexadecimal numbers or hex numbers. Mixed representations can also be used, such as BCD or binary coded decimal and octal. Up to and including base 10 we use the 10 digits 1 through 9 and zero as the symbols To additional obtain symbols for number systems with a base greater than 10, we use letters from the Latin alphabet, eg hex numbers use the 6 letters A,B,C,D,E and F. Does this help ?

So this is homework/classwork. So it should be posted in homework help and you should tell us what you do know about the subject and at what point you came across something you don't understand. That is what have you done so far ?

Are we talking established Science or speculation here ? If speculation what about some supporting facts, not involving fantasies like dimensions of experience ?

Where is this from ? Surely it is a trick question, I have never seen so many distractors in a question before.

You do not need a measure in standard set theory to define a point, any more than you need a coordinate system or a dimension theory. A point, eg in the Reals, is a subset (partition) with exactly one entry. But yes using using the apparatus of epsilon delta, or of measure theory leads to your definition or Markus' limit. Conscious Energy has left the room, courtesy Swansont. But it was never clear whether they were referring to a mathematical or physical point.

Is this a schoold project ? Very nice if so. I'd love to see how probability distributions are used to distinguish between a snadbag and a maracas ? OK if we are talking about sounds that can be made using granular materials, I would start but observing the difference between sounds generated by 'soft' materials such as flour, soft breadcrumbs, foam rubber chunks etc and 'Hard' materials such as macaroni, dry sand gains, hard plastic beads, steel shot, etc. A simple sound test can be made by pouring a stream of these onto a) a hard surface such as a formica table top, a sheet of steel, glass or marble etc. b) a soft surface such as a rubber sheet, a cloth over the hard surfaces, etc. For each test you may be able to distinguish two types of sound. a) The sound of the stream of granules impacting upon the test surface. b) The sound the stream makes as the particles bump together as you pour. For a maracas you need (a) in both cases. The sound is made by stopping and starting the 'stream', as it bumps agains first one side then the other of the container, followed by a trailing sound of the hard particles bunmping together because the maracas is not full. For a sandbag you need a soft cloth surface (bag) more nearly fully filled and you strike the bag, which you do not do with the maracas (which you shake). The principle sound will be the softer sound of a few of the grains rubbing rather than bumping together as the bag and contents distort in shape. There will be no impact sounds against the soft cloth walls. Sand grains are hard in both cases. In the case of flour it is the flour grains themselves whicha re soft and so capable of significant distortion when bumped against each other. It is this distortion that absorbs the energy which would be given out as sound if the grains were hard. I wish you well with your investigation, It is a fine project.

In Autumn, (note spelling) actually they don't 'turn' yellow, red etc. What actually happens is that the plant stops producing chlorophyl, which give plants their green colour and masks the colouring of any other chemicals. As the chlorophyl dissipates the green fades away leaving tthe base colour. Then the residual chemicals start to form darker sugars which make the leaves darken from yellow through orange, red and brown.

Read this (1962 edition) from Einsteins's friend ,nobel Physicist, Max Born. Sorry it's all words. No Pictures.

From the 1990s to 2016 My annual usage was 2500 to 4000 units (kw-hrs). Heating and hot water was additional by gas. In 2016 I installed a heat pump and did away with the gas. Since then usage has not quite doubled, although being home more with Covid restrictions, it was higher in the last two years. Since the national intention is to phase out gas boilers, I expect this trend to widen.

First let me say what a well presented question you have asked. Keep this standard up and you will go far. +1 Now the books. First the Physics. The original editions of this book were written by Professors Sears and Zemansky in 1949. So you see that it has a very long history and pedigree and is very well respected. Young and later Freedman joined the team and the task of keeping it up to date. The material is aimed at high school and on into first year university level and offers a geat deal of excellent explanation and promotes understanding rather than clever mathematics. Yes understanding classical calculus is necessary to get the most out of this book, but not to the level of speciality you will find in Thomas. Having said that, Thomas is also a very good book (see below). But remember that students generally learn both the physics and Mathematics in tandem. So you will lear some Physics then some Mathematics, which will enable you to learn some more Physics ... and so on. Now the Mathematics. I have already praised Thomas. It contains a thorough introduction to 'the calculus' for students but to a depth and facility greater than is required for Physics as it really is a Mathematics book. So you will only need to learn it all if you are going to do further Mathematics. It will, however, provide the understanding you need to follow the Physics in Young etc. It should also serve well as a reference to go back to as you But it is not a pure Mathematics book and would not be of much use (except as background) in a formal University course in Analysis (The posh part of maths that includes calculus). But then formal university Analysis books are not much use in Physics either. Better than that it provides an elementary introduction to some more advanced mathematical topics, used in more modern Physics. For instance it provides a useful introduction to topics such as differential forms which you might require when going from first degree Phyics into postgrad. So both excellent choices that will last you a long time to come.