Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Opinions & Current Events' started by Novalee, Sep 11, 2019.
spooky action at a distance photographed
some now think dark matter is from a time before our universe was born
Can you at least put some effort into your posts, and copy-paste the articles you're linking to?
there is a small summary of the article and a link to the article . if you do not like that then move along . i am not here to please you . anyways have fun on ignore .
it seems there is a neutron star that is way to big .
very mind bending .
A simple "no" would have sufficed. Why the need to be so rude about it?
i fail to see how standing up for ones self is rude.
if you read the demand i answered to you would see who the rude person was. no of us are here to be bullied are we ? i know i am not as i do not bully anyone myself.
now you can join that other person on the ignore list . toodles .
back on topic which is not me or any other poster , it seems some think the link between quantum and classical physics still exists while others might have given up on it .
So the suggestion that he wants slaves is not rude?
That is utter tripe.
Redefining the definition of being easily offended. By jebus.
You just need to accept the fact there are things he doesn't want to talk about even though he started a thread specifically to talk about it.
Because he wants an echo chamber and you're a bully/racist if you voice some sort of opposing remark, or that's how it appears. I'm sure this recent attitude being shown in multiple threads will work out well eventually.
Man, I was lost. Slaves? Bullies? Then it dawned on me, someone who ignored me must be talking.
Wasn't this thread about physics?
How about this for wacky, quarks have tastes, and can change how they taste.
This is wacky.
Kinda, but not really. It's actually the same principle as an ordinary electric motor (current through a conductor in a magnetic field produces force), it's simply presented in a fashion that looks fancy.
The wacky physics mystery of how one tiny man built a huge castle singlehandedly.
Can someone explain Schrödinger's cat....
It's a thought experiment. The experiment goes like this:
You have a hollow box. You can't see into the box when it's closed. On one end is radioactive material or poison, the other end has a cat you've placed in there. You wait some time after putting the cat in.
The situation being presented is that since you can't directly observe the cat unless you open the box, you have no way of knowing whether it died or if it's still alive - so it's technically alive and dead at the same time until you're able to observe it. Schrödinger used this to highlight an issue he saw with the Copenhangen interpretation of quantum physics as related to normal objects. Specifically, where quantum superposition ends and reality collapses into one of the possibilities created by observing it.
If that doesn't make sense to anyone more knowledgeable in the subject matter, please don't hesitate to correct me.
I understand it to the bolded part.
Does that mean quantum physics is concerned with things that aren't definitive?
Quantum physics is...very confusing. I could explain the quantum superposition but it'd end up being a dozen tabs deep on my browser and a big, complicated mess of a write-up.
I can at least point you to the wikipedia page for quantum superposition.
It turns out that almost nothing at all is actually definitive. Absolutely accurate measurement appears to be impossible.
Quantum physics merely makes this explicit in a way that classical physics does not.
Before quantum there was classical 19th century physics. Everything was a billiard ball. Now there are no more billiard balls.
Sorta. I mean, classical physics is still really useful in 99% of daily applications. Most engineering is still classical physics that would have been comprehensible to Newton and Leibniz. It just turns out that at the smallest scales physics is not analogous in any way to macro scales. There never were billiard balls, we just weren't smart enough to know that yet.
I'd argue that most modern people don't even have a decent understanding of classical physics. If they can't get their heads around something that does largely behave intuitively, it makes it pretty tough to understand something as non-intuitive as quantum physics.
A fairly long article on the history and status of US research into antigravity/field propulsion technologies.
Quantum mechanics is probabilistic by nature.
Anyway, just came back to GTP after a few months off for work related reasons and this thread made me want to listen to David Wallace again on the topic. I absolutely love listening to him. Quirky but amazingly clear and entertaining.
I have a question which is puzzling me, and I can't work out the answer. I'm not trying to be thick, but I can't see why there is an issue beyond the loss of natural habitat.
Archimedes discovered that the volume of an object is equal to the amount of water displaced when partially or wholly submerged in water. I this is the case, why would melting ice caps result in a rise in sea levels, when the frozen ice is already displacing the amount of water which already exists in the iceberg, and so the melting water would only replace the displacement.
Or am I missing something in the theory?
It's not about the floating ice caps, it's about the ice that's on the land, like on Greenland and Antarctica.
Yes, the theory doesn't account for different densities.
Makes sense, thanks.
I think it's the weight of the object and of the displaced fluid that are equal, not the volumes.