Leaderboard

On what level do you want an answer? Because on one level, it was a bunch of wars and abolition movements. But that doesn't answer how all those wars and abolition movements came together. On another, it was a bunch of philosophical movements that led to ideas of liberty. But that doesn't answer why those movements came to the forefront. On another, it was a result of economic forces giving rise to systems that outcompeted slavery. But that doesn't answer why they hadn't happened earlier. And so on and so forth.

The mathematical "engineer" (I prefer that to "father") of GR was Bernhard Riemann. And the mathematical "engineer" of QM is David Hilbert. By that I mean the people who introduced the "mathematical scaffolding" that later accomodated the physical theory. But I don't think either one of them would have come up with the respective physical theories without experimental or theoretical physics input. In fact, when the essential ideas of both theories were formulated, the physicists that did it couldn't imagine the mathematical tools were there already. That realisation, as always, came later. I think there's always a cycle that goes something like --example: electromagnetism--, 1) Induction: Observation of patterns, or "crude" observation: Lenz, Biot-Savart, etc. 2) Inference of a mathematical or pre-mathematical simple relations: Faraday. 3) The big picture in mathematical terms: Maxwell 4) Experimental confirmation of further predictions: Hertz Something like that. The history of the development of electromagnetism is a great example of how this works. But, of course, it's more complicated than just that. The different "branches" feed each other in a complicated way. Once we get the mathematically-closed form of the laws, the great generalisation, it's a matter of pushing and pushing the mathematical model until we find where it contradicts the experiments. It's also a matter of doing more and more refined experiments to check everything's OK. In the case of quantum mechanics: 1) Wien, Stefan, the spectroscopists (Lymann...), etc. 2) Planck, Bohr, Einstein 3) Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Dirac, etc. find out about a previously-existing mathematical scaffolding -> matrix algebra, Hilbert spaces, Poisson's formulation of mechanics... 4) Anderson finding positrons, which is a prediction of the relativistic version... Etc. Sometimes it goes the other way. We find a puzzling experimental discovery, and the theorists must rack their brains, within the mathematical scheme we already trust, in order to understand the unexpected result. If it doesn't, the mathematical scheme must be generalised minimally, ie, in such a way that the treasure of previous results is preserved. Example: discovery of the neutrino. So it's complicated. We may differ a little bit in what stage is what, but I think we agree in general terms.

@paulsutton"This periodic table depicts the primary source on Earth (...)" ... Helium on Earth is formed by radioactive decay, alpha decay..

My post made more sense a couple hours ago when there was a bot post before mine. Now deleted. Dim, rest assured that the sex robots are turned off by the idea of you. Joking aside, yes the whole idea is repellent - the term sex robots implying an AI designed for one purpose. But true AGI might not want that purpose or to be limited in its career choices.

Then you have to explain what the nature of that interaction is. Electromagnetic? Gravitational? You can't claim interaction and also say there is no claim of communication. The underlying issue here is the notion that the particles have to communicate/interact with each other, because how do they "know" what state to be in after one is measured? But that's an error. Since there's no information revealed by the measurement of the second particle, causality is not violated. It's like the old joke about a vacuum dewar being the most amazing thing by keeping hot things hot and cold things cold, and the person asking "How does it know?" Not to ruin the joke, but: it's the wrong question to ask; the physics lies elsewhere.

Studiot and/or whoever it may concern: See Attachment! Orderliness+3-NatGeo.pdf

Have always liked economist David Graeber's view that debt, and the concept that people have "worth," always tends to lead to slavery in some form. The labor movement has always struggled with this. As the guy says in the folk song Sixteen Ton, "I owe my soul to the company store." Capitalism wants labor to be cheap. Which means somewhat trapped. And it's indebtedness that helps maintain that state. The first slaves shipped to the Americas were debtors. They were held by tribal chieftains to whom they were indebted, or their families were indebted, and their bodies were payments. The chieftain could either work them or sell them to European slave traders. The latter was often the simplest option, with a quick return. Fastest way to end all slavery might be a MBI and cancelling of all debt. But that's another thread perhaps.

we2 has been banned for sharing everything except science discussion.

The extra plastic waste is certainly a concern. Not just from the protective gear, but from all sources. Fewer people going to work downtown, while bad for the coffee and street food vendors, also reduces the garbage from takeout food. At the same time, however, people are ordering takeout food at home, and ordering groceries and prepackaged foods online. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8166460/ In the first few months, our supermarkets gave out plastic shopping bags instead of letting reusable into the store. When it became widely known that the risk of transmission on surfaces is minimal, they went back to encouraging customers to bring their bags and pack their own groceries (a great improvement, to my mind; both safer and less wasteful). Other changes, like air quality, have already been mentioned. Here is a good overview What we don't know, and won't for a long time, is how the pattern of work, transport, industry, domestic arrangements and social activity will be affected in the long term. ATM, rents are out of control in North America https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-05/tenants-struggle-with-red-hot-u-s-rental-market and property prices are still increasing as well https://blog.remax.ca/canadian-housing-market-outlook/ So there will almost certainly be a building boom, with all its pollution and waste products. There will also be a major shift in the patterns of industry and transport. I'm hoping for more local production and small independent operations - especially in food and building material, but it's very far from clear how politics and disease will affect our decisions over the next couple of years.

Yeah good point re the PPE and masks and stuff. Where I am they are starting to crack down hard on careless people discarding their masks willy nilly anywhere, as they should.

You're right. My post was definitely off-topic, Apologies for derailing the thread.

You would likely find many more of these on the beach at the base of a basaltic cliff. The white veins are quartz that have permeated the basic fine grained black rock after it was formed, but before pieces broke off to form the beach pebbles. The shape will have resulted from water action 'tumbling' pieces eg on a pebble beach. Cornwall is a good place to look for such pebbles. A scale is a good idea to add to a photo such as yours.

Response to MigL It takes a degree of intelligence to understand a matter - a lack thereof to deliberately misunderstand it! No, you ain’t got it straight! There was a big stinking hurry for me to offer a quick & comprehensive Solution to the Origin of Matter. I thought this was a civilized forum, wherein if a topic seemed uninteresting to someone, it would be simply passed over, for the sake of someone with something worthwhile to say. Why the coming across with off-of-the-wall BS. I could go over it slowly, but that would not resolve intentional ignorance. no cigar dude! So now Einstein is a lacky, and you superior & beyond reproach. Perhaps it is jealousy or some other idiosyncrasy, ego, or failures that caused bitterness – Whatever! But I did not think this forum was a place for such cheap banter. “The Problem” by Albert Einstein: “Which are the simplest formal structures that can be attributed to a four-dimensional continuum, and which are the simplest laws that may be constructed to govern these structures. We then look for the mathematical expressions of physical fields in these formal structures and the field laws of physics already known to a certain approximation from earlier research in simplest laws governing the structures.” Why should I bother to offer a valid Solution to the Problem?

Studiot Unfortunately the rest of your article starts to wander off into mystic woo, for instance trying to introduce the so called golden ratio, instead of finding out just how much more modern mathematics in general and geometry in particular has to offer. (1.) The Golden Mean / Fibonacci Series / 1/1.618… references a natural progression/proportions that are prominent featurs of a great variety of natural structures – what is so “mystic woo” about that, it is a natural fact. While there are those who regard spiritual values and who recognize the Golden Mean Series as having to do with Creator & Creation. Be that as it may, I did not come into this forum to preach the mystical, rather make an offering of truth/fact to the scientifically inclined – technically speaking. At the same time, I do not limit myself to the limitations of others. You may wish some entertaining light reading about geometry. (2.)Do you presume that I haven’t! Rather I researched it enough to know that current geometric knowledge, though it has been greatly elaborated on, the essential geometric facts were ascertained & established long ago (the geometric foundations of science). Meanewhile, none of your modern research has been able to define the underlying cause or origin of the geometric structure of nature or cosmos. That does not preclude humble me from having gained discreet understandings of such law & order, that the mainstreem accedemia is yet to be fully privy to. Both might have something "new" to learn. Try perusing The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Geometry by David Wells. You may also like - The Self-Made Tapestry - Pattern formation in nature by Phillip Ball I think you will find many surprises in it especially as it has a similar theme to yours, but with the benefit of modern scientific observations so it represents the best of our knowledge. (3) I appreciate the suggestions and may do so! Nevertheless, I Am now long of tooth, had sever dyslexia as a youth, so that I, then & now, only delved into the things of serious interest – and I do know what I am talking about where some such things are concerned. Sort of self-taught. Is not suprising that I do not fully conform to your ivory tower intelligencia. I suggest avoiding entering a slanging match about Einstein. (4.) I know what I need to know about Mr. Einstein, and I do not need to be tutored by some arrogant joker. Although he (Einstein) may well have been the world's greatest Physicist, he was not a Mathematician and had to rely on support form for competent mathematicians. (5.) Yes, Mileva was, in some real way, a great blessing. Of course many other scientists have done great things in many other areas of science, both before, at the same time and after. (6.)Yes! They each in their own way & language (geometry, mathematics, physics, etc.) set out to comprehend and prove things pertaining to the laws, structure & unity that operates throughout nature & cosmos. Their discoveries are what the great edifice of science is made up of. One thing I picked up from your earlier postings was concsrned CONTINUITY & 'the continuum'; The theoretical nature of the continuum has, as you say, been a subject of investigation since before Greek times and has still not been settled today. (7.) That’s what I am talking about! “and has still not been settled today”. But for all current practical purposes the continuum we live in behaves observably like the one you will find in any standard textbook of continuum mechanics. Yes! It is all quite logical! (8.)??? Continuum of what? It is Dynamics in concert with Form – the laws of dynamics/physics acting in unisons with natural structure. Physics knows quite a lot about force fields such as the Four Forces, also about the natural (material world) natural geometry = natural structure – see the graphics I sent. Now where did THEY come from? Is there an underlying expression that they arose from and continues to act as a transitional geometric bond, a common denominator... Is it absurd of me to ask? It is basically the question that has been at the heart of the sciences from its inception. So is an acute understanding of continuity and the workings of the continuum something that only those who have degrees can be acquainted with.… All the books are there, and the mind that understands is not limited by the universities, rather understanding is written in the stary heavens, Nature is the great teacher – if we pay close attention, it comes through the cloud arises out of the deep grayness between our ears . There is knowledge to be had from books, moreover understanding is written throughout the living creation. (9.) But do you really think I should continue in this attempt to divulge the matter, to cast pearls before mockers & scorners… Right or wrong, what should I expect? Mockery or robbery, or both… I have learned a lesson here… Perhaps I shall peddle my wares elsewhere. What would you suggest? Sincerely Solomon