Leaderboard

It's not clear to me how a superposition of quark states would affect the electron, and what the superposition of quark states actually is. To use MigL's example: what changes for the potential well created by the quarks? What quark states are in superposition? If quarks are in an excited state it's not a proton anymore "the first excited state of the proton, usually referred to as the Delta-1232 (where 1232 MeV/c2 is the mass of the particle)" https://www2.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/02/5.html IOW, you've added nearly 300 MeV to the system. Would you even have a hydrogen atom anymore? So maybe you've got a superposition of spin states. How does the electron probe that superposition?

If you were to replace the 'square' potential in the 'particle in a box' solution with a Coulomb potential, you would get the Hydrogen atom solution. The proton is not involved at all; only its potential well.

This is it, plain and simple. If you have two events in spacetime (start and finish), with initial conditions being equal, there is precisely one unique inertial world line connecting these events. This is geometrically the longest possible world line, i.e. the one that accumulates the most proper time. Formally, this world line is a geodesic of the spacetime, meaning you have \(a^{\mu}=0\) everywhere along it. The only way to obtain a different world line connecting these same events, with all other things remaining equal, is to violate the above condition - i.e. introduce proper acceleration at some point, which leads to a world line that is shorter than the inertial one. Of course you can decide to vary initial conditions as well between observers, in which case they will trace out different inertial world lines between the same events - but then you are no longer comparing like for like.

It is in the Daily Mail. I am not even going to bother reading it. You might as well use The Simpsons or Spongebob Squarepants as a news source.

md65536, So, our discussion was regarding whether acceleration plays any role in the relative aging outcome. Everyone agrees that the LTs quantify relative time by the use of velocity, everything is inherent in the geometry of the worldlines, and it is ultimately about the length of the worldlines over the interval. Camp 1 ... says proper acceleration plays no role in the relative aging in the twins scenario. Camp 2 ... says (it does, ie) all relative velocities used by the LTs are the very result of the initial velocity and all subsequent twin B proper accelerations. The twins must be co-located at the ends of the interval to produce a relative aging that's invariant. It certainly takes twin B's proper accelerations, to make that happen. The fact that we reduce the periods of acceleration to zero, does not change that. It's about "the transitioning of inertial frames". Yet, no one disputes that the relative aging is quantified by the use of only velocities per the LTs. Regarding coordinate time, we call it coordinate time because observers disagree per POV, not because the LTs produce coordinate times that are merey apparent or even potentially incorrect. Is it possible they are incorrect? Yes. However, we assume the Einstein clock synchronization procedure is true to nature and hence correct, per Occam's Razor (until some future test proves otherwise). So at B/C flyby, we assume the A clock really does then exist at 3.2y-A per B, and the A-clock really does then exists at 6.8y-A per C. Ie that that's true to reality. If a future test proves 1-way <> 2-way, well, then we'll be changing the LTs to accomodate. Certainly, the accrual of proper time always dictates the relative aging result, instant accelerations or not. Yet the use of coordinate time in the relative aging prediction does not alter the outcome, although it is a less convenient calculation. One more ... at B/C flyby, C then holds A to exist at 6.8y-A. We call that coordinate time, because other observers (eg B at B/C flyby) can disagree. Yet, 6.8y is the proper time of the moving A-clock "when it displays 6.8y". Best regards, Celeritas

I actually checked the Yang website where he proposes to reduce tuition fees, and it seems that for the most part he is barking up the wrong tree. He wants universities to reduce administrative positions, but quite a few studies indicate that while it contributes to cost, it is not the main driver and also it is not clear how he wants to force unis to restructure that way. He wants to collect additional data and somehow link tuition fees with salary outcomes, but it is absolute not clear how that is going to work. University costs are distinct from the salary potential of graduates so one would need to change uni from a teaching/research environment to vocational training system mostly run by sessionals. There a few other points which do not make sense whatsoever (wants presidents to discuss job prospects with alumni- why?). As such it is not clear how that is supposed to increase teaching quality at the same time. And the biggest missing bit is that there is no serious element of federal funding (other than investing in innovative and growing schools??), which is actually one important driver of tuition costs. That section is a bit symptomatic why I have some issues with Yang on certain topics- it reminds me too much of a techbro sales pitch- it propose relatively easy solutions often targeting superficial issues, but failing to actually address the issues it promises to solve.

I spoke with Senator Warren today. Asked about getting things done in an age of recalcitrance and how even things supported by vast majorities of US citizens still die in congress more often than not. I’ll be caucusing for her tomorrow night as we Iowans kick off the voting season for 2020. My concern is it won’t be enough. The polls seem to be all about Bernie vs Biden these last few days. My pick may not come out ahead (tho New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Super Tuesday states all clearly matter, too, so can’t write anyone off just bc of tomorrow). She’s flying back to Washington tonight for impeachment activities Monday. This is my first election cycle in Iowa. I got to meet a few US Senators and a pretty popular mayor. Unfortunately, the math didn’t work out for me to get jumped into the Gang. Regardless... This is way better than voting in Texas... and I’ll only need to wait another 1,460 days to do it again. Anyway, I even got a picture with her dog Bailey. He’s a good boi... yes he is. 🐶

You asked if your calculation is correct. I wanted to make sure that your calculation correctly expressed what you intended. Back to the calculation. Note that the current in the cable generates it's own magnetic field. But we can probably neglect that in this case unless you intend to have a large current and a weak magnetic field. And if you want to calculate the force on the cable due to the magnetic field then the E field can be neglected. If you know the dimensions it might be easier/more practical to use length and current instead of charge "q" and velocity "v". But that is just details, the formula seems ok for the force on the current carrying cable due to magnetic field. Incorrect. The purpose of the speculations section is "checking peoples work" or "have our idea checked". Unfortunately that means you are sometimes stuck with amateurs like me, the professionals seems not t be very interested. An alternative is to write a scientific paper and have it peer reviewed by professionals working for a journal.

Never said it wasn't opposite, I'm framing a picture of a force. You assume other things affect this force, cool, I want to not look at that hole you put your mind in for a minute and maybe explore weird things we see. Is it incorrect because you see conflicting forces? that's not what I'm pointing out genius. The fact that you cannot comprehend a basic ass idea like this without interception of opposing ideas makes you incapable of seeing solutions to specific problems. "Checking people's work" is only beneficial to you if you know what you're correcting and you do it correctly, you are not in a patent office. Mansplaining the lorentz force makes you look stupid due to the fact that I've been trying to get you to reference it for a few weeks and you asked if it was a dot product. I know it, my slight of hand in notation shouldn't phase a someone who knows the equations. If you don't know what I'm talking about then don't respond.

non-dualistic quadruple concession. "kisses".