Leaderboard

Exactly ! You cannot combine the three quark constituents of a proton without their binding. The individual masses of the three quarks would be equivalent to a couple of percent of the mass of the proton. It is the binding energy equivalence that makes up the vast majority of the proton's mass. That is what JC was alluding to.

Atoms don't think or read indicators. They simply respond to their respective fields through attraction and repulsion interactions.

Why do you think this is true? If, for example, I asked why are spaceships made of bananas and cat fur, it would be helpful to first confirm the claim is valid before we spend time thinking of reasons. The same is true with your question. If it is true, then familiarity likely aids in understanding and comfort level. It likely makes us feel more secure. For role models and people we’d like to be, that is probably more about self interest and a desire to learn how they are the way they are so we can try replicating their behavior. But first, let’s confirm your core claim is true and look for counter examples where we aren’t attracted to these types of people. With that established as fact we can pursue explanations.

It is important not to misinterpret this phrase (which was invented as a sort of advertising slogan for evolution by natural selection). It does not mean the survival of the most "fit", in the sense of the most healthy. It means the survival of those who have the best fit for the environment (ie. those who are able to survive and reproduce in that environment). All that human treatment for diseases has done is provide an environment where a wider range of people fit. This is not any different in principle from the invention of agriculture, or any other social or technological development. Also important to note that evolution does not have a direction, so there is no "backwards."

We are not so much defying as deferring natural selection. The exceptional survivability of humans under current conditions is allowing more genetic variability to become part of our gene pool. Much of that will not add to survival and will, under harsher circumstances, be selected out, yet we do not know what will survive best in the future and there could be surprises. For humans that survival is often less about individual fitness than group fitness; having allergies but belonging to a group that manages itself better may still be better than having no allergies but belonging to a group that fights amongst itself.

Why not just write "1.05" as "105/100" and simplify the fraction? I'm not sure if that's what you are asking, but if it is, from there do a prime factorization of the numbers and eliminate common factors

Random comments on your seemingly random questions: 1) Particle physics is indeed looking at debris to a very large extend. However, people are not looking for new objects in the debris. They look at the content and distribution of the debris and compare it with the predictions of the different mathematical models. 2) The reference to "statements about their encounters" does not refer to particle collisions (caveat: I am interpreting a single sentence out of context here - but modern particle physics did not exist during Einstein's lifetime, anyways). It refers to a key concept in relativity that comparing situations at different locations is tricky. It is not required that the objects in questions are elementary particles that collide. The famous spacefaring twins meeting each other after their space travel (or lack thereof) are would be typical situations that the statement refers to.

The Dirac sea was originally developed when there were only two known particles. The electron and the proton. The negative energy states which make up the sea were filled with the positive energy states. However the theory didn't consider spin zero particles ie bosons which you can have any number of bosons of the same state in the same space. This in itself meant there is no limit of bosons that could fill a hole. Some bosons such as the photon are it's own antiparticle as it is charge neutral. It was the problem of bosons and advent of QFT that made the Dirac sea or hole theory problematic and essentially became useless. In essence you could have an infinite number of bosons in every hole.

With all due respect, this is scienceforums, not yourgutinstinctforums.

0^0 is not well defined, so it is not surprising that you get contradictory results. Also, one of your derivations uses an undefined value (0^-1) and is therefore meaningless.

If 0^0=1, then 0^-1 equals (0^0)/(0^1)=1/0 and 0^1=(0^0)*(0^1)=1*0=0 Therefore (1/0)*(0)=0/0 which does not equal just 1. Showing our original assumption that 0^0 equals 1, and only 1 is a fallacy.