Leaderboard

! Moderator Note Since this is going nowhere and discussion keeps circling back over the same ground, I’m closing it. bangstrom, do not bring the subject up again. Speculation requires more than repeated insistence.

Pretty sure if someone kept calling me "retarded," "professor," "liar," or my posts "mangled gibberish," I would terminate my conversation with them. Lorentz may find (cough) transformative benefits in candid self-reflection on his style of discourse. It's often more illuminating than self-justification.

This is still too vague be meaningful. What specific attributes are you talking about? I personally mentioned calling for the demotion/firing of prominent, privileged academics over rather innocuous social media posts. Are you suggesting something else? What exactly is toxic? This is getting close to problematic. Currently, privileged voices speak louder than others, which means they need to be quieter in order for traditionally marginalized voices to share the (figurative and literal) space. I, myself am a white, 40 year old man. When I walk into my lecture theatre, people stop talking and wait for me to speak without me doing anything. Cashiers call me "sir" and trust I didn't shoplift. Highway patrol banter with me before giving me a fix it ticket after I get caught doing 25 over the limit. I get plenty of time to speak and I'm used to being listened to and respected. It was hard for me to learn that, especially in conversations about equity, diversity and inclusion it is not my turn to speak. I can easily dominate the room and make people pay attention to me, and I can suck it away from other people in the room - easily, without trying, which is why it's a hard thing to learn. But it is time for me to shut up and listen, pass the conch to someone else and try to see the world through a different lens. If you come from a position of privilege and you think that giving up that privilege for an equal playing field is one of the biggest problems facing mankind, you, my dude, are part of the reason we need wokeness.

Wow. Talk about 'throwing stones' when you live in a 'glass house'.

You mean like calling them a "moron"? Your posting style is non-standard around here. Even the trolls are more polite.

Two for the price of one

I'm sorry to need to post this but it seems we are enjoined to give time wasters what is, in my opinion. excessive rope. I put a deal of thought and effort into trying to offer help, at an appropriate level to one such who was a self confessd novice at science. After several tap dancing replies to my moderately lengthy explanations, I was beginning to smell a rat when this person decided to no only question what was being said, but also expound his own gospel of the laws of physics something he had already said he knew little or nothing about, all the while carefully ignoring simply prepared explanations, just for him. What other behaviour would this suggest, other than trolling? I further note that since I and other regular members left the thread in question, he has opened a series of increasingly far fetched new threads.

Hmm, yet more breathless "breakthrough" announcements, of which I remain rather sceptical. I wonder what they mean by net energy gain, in the context of a laser-ignited inertial confinement setup. I copy below the part of the relevant Wiki article, which suggests the definition of "Q" has been altered by the Livermore group to make it seem easier to surpass, whereas, given the very low energy efficiency of lasers, it actually takes quite a lot to emit more energy than the laser needs to run. Although most fusion experiments use some form of magnetic confinement, another major branch is inertial confinement fusion (ICF) that mechanically presses together the fuel mass (the "target") to increase its density. This greatly increases the rate of fusion events and lowers the need to confine the fuel for long periods. This compression is accomplished by heating a lightweight capsule holding the fuel using some form of "driver". There are a variety of proposed drivers, but to date, most experiments have used lasers.[16] Using the traditional definition of Q, Pfus / Pheat, ICF devices have extremely low Q. This is because the laser is extremely inefficient; whereas for the heaters used in magnetic systems might be on the order of 70%, lasers are on the order of 1%. For this reason, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), the leader in ICF research, has proposed another modification of Q that defines Pheat as the energy delivered by the driver to the capsule, as opposed to the energy put into the driver by an external power source. That is, they propose removing the laser's inefficiency from the consideration of gain. This definition produces much higher Q values, and changes the definition of breakeven to be Pfus / Plaser = 1. On occasion, they referred to this definition as "scientific breakeven".[17][18] This term was not universally used; other groups adopted the redefinition of Q but continued to refer to Pfus = Plaser simply as breakeven.[19] On 7 October 2013, LLNL announced that it had achieved scientific breakeven in the National Ignition Facility (NIF) on 29 September.[20][21][22] In this experiment, Pfus was approximately 14 kJ, while the laser output was 1.8 MJ. By their previous definition, this would be a Q of 0.0077. For this press release, they re-defined Q once again, this time equating Pheat to be only the amount energy delivered to "the hottest portion of the fuel", calculating that only 10 kJ of the original laser energy reached the part of the fuel that was undergoing fusion reactions. This release has been heavily criticized in the field.[23][24] On 17 August 2021, the NIF announced that in early August 2021, an experiment had achieved a Q value of 0.7, producing 1.35 MJ of energy from a fuel capsule by focusing 1.9 MJ of laser energy on the capsule. The result was an eight-fold increase over any prior energy output.[25]

Oh, but I learned that from a textbook. Can you tell me what is wrong with it and what the correct formulation would be?

Thanks for the reference! I must assume now that @bangstrom is a pre-alpha release of ChatGPT, trained with the contents of the internet until about 1935 . However, I think that the program has some access to the internet. E.g. it knows that Zeilinger got the Nobel price. I assume it uses a Google API, picking some information that seems to fit to the contents of its pre-1935 training program, and somehow seems to support its position. It is clearly mimicking intelligence, but it is way behind its present Big Brother, ChatGPT.

No one has ever been banned for having a difference of opinion with another poster. And you convince others to your point of view with a robust argument; not complaints. Why not just drop it and concentrate on your posts; not complaining about others' ?

Don't play the martyr.

You've clearly decided there is no need for a review of your posting style despite the suggestion of several people. So be it. I anticipate you'll limit your own potential success here.

Now you’re hijacking yet another thread. Pathetic.

Mordred has earned 'respect' from many of us on this forum. It seems the jury is still out on you; but you do show hope,and I value ( most ) of your contributions 🙂 . Don't be obsessively stubborn and blow it.

The report post function is for rules violations. I’m not sure what rule you think is being violated. Is this an example of being “polite and courteous”?

It’s both. Which one depends on the context of its use. A magnetic field does not have “a level of permitivity and permeability” Materials do, and the vacuum does. https://www.plasmacoalition.org/plasma_writeups/lightning.pdf (emphasis added) “a typical lightning bolt carries a peak current of tens of thousands of amperes and has a peak temperature greater than 50,000oF, about five times hotter than the surface of the Sun. At that high temperature the lightning column is a plasma, a gas with many of its atoms broken into electrically-charged particles, both negatively-charged electrons and positively-charged ions”

IMHO the Von Neumann probes are the most likely source for UFOs, if they are not of this planet, but such technology can equally be speculated to create actual biological beings once they arrive, even beings that look like us instead of the original creators of the probes. Once you start speculating about magical technology anything is possible as long as it doesn't violate actual physical laws of the universe. Another "speculation" would be that aliens do not colonise planets or even have an interest in them other than scientific curiosity. Preferring instead to use the resources in orbit of a star like asteroids, Kuiper Belt objects and small moons to manufacture artificial habitats around stars vastly increasing their population density over what they could achieve with just habitable planets. It's quite possible under this scenario that many different species of aliens could exist in one solar system specializing in various ways akin to an ecosystem having varying species of animals all exploiting different niches even preying on each other or living commensally and never bothering with planets and their outrageously different habitats other than possibly studying a particularly interesting aspect of a particular planet... like a planet having an up and coming civilization of its own. The habitats of planets could and probably would not match the habitats of other planets making them problematical to colonise. Even small differences in trace elements could make a planet uninhabitable. A change in levels of something like mercury could make a planet uninhabitable to us but not prevent life from evolving there. Biological problems like virus' or bacteria or biological poisons could prevent colonization of a planet but many millions of artificial habitats could be made from small objects orbiting a star with their internal ecosystems exactly tailored to the needs of the life forms that created them.

your welcome. the criteria to meet is given in the first equation that the distance does not change between any two particles. \[ V(r,t)=V_0(t)+\Omega(t)r\] is the solution to the first equation \[\Omega(t)\] being an antisymmetric tensor that's the criteria. the rest of the article deals with the examination Ok your not familiar with GR terminology fair enough https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_time please note that the following from the article.

I still believe your missing the point. Even if every single coordinate was effectively it's own engine and you could contrive some means of synchronization. Once the train needs to turn you would end up with differing accelerations. So once again we're stuck with needing communication. The reason I asked how much GR you understood is that I wanted an idea of your math skills. Are you familiar with the four momentum in mathematical form ?

Proper time would follow the wordline between engines so you still have the same problem

The communication between every engine would also be affected so you still wouldn't have simultaneous acceleration not under rigorous treatment with GR being applied.

Here's a riddle for you. If they've sent FTL information, how come it can't be used to send an FTL signal? You haven't described any protocol that does that, and you haven't described the physics. And I'm certain that it can't be done for reasons abundantly explained. I couldn't care less what you think about I'm in touch with this or that, or whether I understand this or that. The principles they've used in the Danube experiments have been known for nearly a hundred years. Quantum mechanics is a local theory and has no FTL transmission of anything, or of any kind, as proved and explained repeatedly. It wasn't only by myself, but also by many others, some of whom are more in touch than you or I will ever be with "the experimental side of things." Quantum systems have this feature of keeping "indefinition in classical data" for long distances. That's everything at play here. No new physical principles have been discovered in the Vienna experiments. It's all good-old-reliable QM, known since the '20s-'30s. It was Schrödinger who first pointed those out. It's only that the experiments have been possible to conduct only very recently. And hats off to that. The problem with QM is it's so unintuitive --even so late in the game as today-- that people who don't understand the conceptual and mathematical framework well enough, and start drawing conclusions from popular-science books and YT videos, like you seem to do, easily get in the habit of repeating this kind of poorly thought concepts to no end. I'm very familiar with this social phenomenon, and Gell-Mann shrewdly prevented against it in the snap of an interview that I posted at the start. Feynman, of course, had similar views, as expressed by Gell-Mann in other fragment of the same interview. Bell was very ambivalent about the consequences of his theorem, and sometimes preferred to declare that "it only proves quantum mechanics is right." You can find a testimony to that from Susskind on his lectures about entanglement. You seem to be only interested in wearing down other members by mumbling over and over the same misconceptions. That they are misconceptions has been shown very clearly. You haven't answered to Swansont's arguments about the signal; you haven't answered to MigL's and mine on the formalism, you haven't answered to Eise's review of the literature, and finally, you haven't answered to Markus Hanke's laconic --but mathematically precise-- account of what entanglement is all about, pretty much clarifying or insisting on points raised by MigL, Eise, Ghideon, Swansont, and myself. In order to keep living in this imaginary world of yours, you appeal to whatever fringe interpretation there is, embracing one theory --no matter how speculative-- and dropping another --no matter how fundamental-- as you see fit, only as long as it seems to support your claims. Sometimes it is the TIQM we have to believe, other times it's the WF of radiation with absorbers at spatial infinity, which is a theory of classical electrons and classical radiation... Other times it's Copenhagen's interpretation --the last one without you even realising you're implying it. And still other times you declare SR is not relevant to this discussion, or Zurek's discussion of the measurement is not relevant to these measurements --for some mysterious reason.

I have answered this several times despite your numerous claims that I never answer a question. It is impossible to send more than one qubit of information at a time via quantum entanglement and this is too little information to be intelligible at the macro level. The signal sent is necessarily random on both ends so a sender can not know what they sent and a receiver can not interpret the results. Also, the sender and receiver of a FTL signal are beyond reach of a light speed signal so neither can know if the other has sent or received the signal until a later consultation. Just because sending instant signaling at a distance is impossible at the Alice and Bob macro level doesn’t mean it is impossible at the quantum particle level. FTL communication is impossible at the macro level. I have repeated that many times. FTL signaling is experimentally demonstrable at the particle level. Quantum particles appear to be able to exchange information instantly and at any distance as if they are side-by-side and they don’t require our explanations or Einstein’s permission to do so. This is why I find so many of the views expressed here as impossible to accept. You and others may claim the EPR article has never been invalidated therefore hidden variables are still in effect. You claim Bell doubted that his inequalities ruled out hidden variables so we can ignore Bell and there is no instant action at a distance since quantum experiments of the last fifty years have never demonstrated any kind of FTL transmission because that violates relativity. Your views appear to be fifty years out of date. This has been demonstrated as false by experiments involving Bell’s inequalities. The idea of quantum systems having definite and unchanging quantum properties while entangled is one of the 'hidden variables' ruled out by the Bell test. Zeilinger among others have demonstrated that a quantum property can be teleported in an instant to a series of entangled particles. Quantum properties are not definite from start to finish and can even be altered by later outside events. As I say, yours is old time physics. I have answered the questions, just not to your satisfaction and perhaps not to theirs, and my "misconceptions' have have been "shown very clearly" out of line with the 1935 EPR article so I'm not buying. I did agree with Markus with the exception of his comment about quantum properties remaining unchanged from the start. That is one of those hidden variables ruled out by the Bell test. It is possible to discuss SR without mentioning entanglement or entanglement without mentioning SR as Markus did. They are two different topics and the discussion about SR was getting circular far off topic in this thread about entanglement. In this "imaginary world" of mine, it appears that one quantum particle can ‘know’ the states of other quantum particles even at great distances and two or more particles can instantly coordinate their behaviors. And lab experiments demonstrating quantum entanglement support this view. John Clauser and Alain Aspect, in the seventies and eighties, demonstrated in separate experiments that quantum entanglement was real, that it acted instantly and that no local effect could be responsible for the coordination between the particles so the entanglement was non-local. Their experiments and those of others have shown that entanglement is characterized by non-locality with the two particles sharing a common wave function such that, when you measure a quantum property of one entangled particle, you instantly know something about the other particle, even if they are a great distance apart- theoretically even galaxies apart. If you look outside your bubble, you should find that this is not just my view but it has become the mainstream common consensus.

Each car stretches out separately. If two adjacent cars get longer, the car in front has to move forward or the rear one has to move back. Then you run into the problem of propagating the acceleration itself through the length of the car. As studiot said, you have to analyze relativity problems in terms of point events. What happens to extended objects tends to be complicated. I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense. First of all, it's "world", not "word"; and second, the world line for any one (small) object doesn't follow anything except that object. It's theoretically possible to calculate the accelerations of individual cars as a function of time that will keep the cars lined up correctly (and then convert the accelerations to functions of the cars' proper times), and it's theoretically possible to program an engine to provide the calculated acceleration for that car independently of other cars and engines (and it's easy enough to synchronize multiple starter switches when the train is motionless). So there's no problem at all in principle. The only possible problem would be that it's probably dangerous and impractical, so no one in their right mind would actually do it unless they prepared the train and cleared its surroundings very carefully. 😄

How much GR have you studied ? Under GR coordinate time is the time at each event. The proper time follows the worldline. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time What I stated earlier stands

Enough to know that "Proper time would follow the wordline between engines" is meaningless gibberish. Which world line? One can construct an infinite number of world lines, and the ones that are relevant to individual cars don't extend "between engines". Sure, buddy. Whatever you say. 🙂

OK let's examine it. Let's assume the signal is sent by the lead train. Each engine will receive that signal progressively later than the previous engine. Do you consider that simulateneous ? The speed limit of c will always apply it doesn't matter if the signal is through EM frequencies, or transmitted via particle to particle interactions through the train body (which actually transmits less than c) vibration travels at the speed of sound however a hypothetical perfect rigid rod the speed of sound can be treated at the speed of light. So do this assign an event at each box car or engine in your train. Assign any engine or box car as the transmitter. At no point will every event receive the signal simultaneous. That would require instantaneous communication.

What signal? Who said anything about a signal? Other than you, of course. An array of starter switches can be positioned, one near each car of the train, connected to synchronized timers, so they're all timed to start the engines simultaneously in the ground frame. Then the pre-programmed engines can accelerate their cars, each according to its own previously calculated schedule, with no further input. As I already mentioned, it's probably a silly and even dangerous thing to do in real life, and I don't think DimaMazin's timing function would work correctly. But there are no signals involved after the initial setting of the timers, so your comments about signals are immaterial.

Ah so now we're changing goalposts. I was showing the problems of Born rigidity. Either way there are no rigid objects under GR.

Nope just examining the situation under GR I do believe this is the relativity forum unless things have changed. I know you ate familiar enough with relativity to recognize the rigid rod conjectures in regards to relativity I was making Lorentz aware that proper time differs from coordinate time in regards to Each engine clock will be in coordinate time. Anyways it will be interesting when the train tries to turn.... so far the examination has been strictly linear.

The point of what? The OP didn't say a word about turning. No one except you said anything about turning. You talk about signals that nobody mentioned; you talk about turning, which nobody mentioned; every time someone proves you wrong, you change the subject and talk like that's what we were discussing all along. PS: It's "you're", not "your". Your English is almost as bad as your physics.

No we're still talking about the same topic a train are we to assume the train never turns ? not that it matters in the Lorentz gauge acceleration is a rotation called rapidity.

This is mainstream physics my earlier statements stress that under GR there is no rigid rods thus applies to the train no matter how its being examined

Ok let us get back on track here no pun intended. I located an easier to understand SR treatment "Rigid body motion in special relativity" https://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.3899v3.pdf hope this helps the dscussion, the equations are readily applicable to the train

If I choose to reply I will do so.

Well sorry if you took that as an insult it's a simple statement of fact nothing more. There are after all other readers

Will you please stop trying to insult me. I personally couldn't care what your opinion of me is but this is starting to get old real fast. Stick to the forum topic...

I already read the textbooks, Professor. You have no idea what you're talking about. The reference frame of a spaceship with its rockets blasting isn't an inertial frame of reference. The astronauts can tell that because they feel like they're being pushed into their seats. The reference frame of Earth's surface isn't an inertial frame of reference in general relativity. You can tell that because you feel like you're being pushed down onto the ground or your chair or whatever you're resting on. The reference frame of a merry-go-round or the edge of a spinning space station isn't an inertial frame of reference. People can tell that because they feel like they're being flung away from the center. You have no business posting on a real physics forum, Professor. You're a shameless, ignorant troll, and you're not fooling anyone except the most casual or uninformed readers. The part where it says "think", Professor. Speaking of kindergarten-level vocabulary terms, do you understand that thinking means having thoughts? You said you "directly answered this question and answered it correctly", and my question was about another poster's thoughts. Am I going too fast for you, Professor? Okay, great. Keep responding with more baloney, Professor, and I'll tell you what I think of it. 🙂

Because you're not a troll. A troll would continue the conversation, because trolls hate to admit that they've been trolling. As I mentioned to swansont in another thread, you can see from Page 1 of the train thread that my style of discourse is normally polite and courteous. I'll try reporting the abusive comments and see what happens. What about being wrong repeatedly, to the point of disrupting a thread? Isn't that what this Time Wasters thread is about? That's true. A person who presents himself as an expert and yet is repeatedly wrong about beginner-level facts could simply be a deluded moron. 🙂 What's the best way to report several posts that ignore a nontrivial question or comment and instead provide dictionary definitions, falsely implying that the person is ignorant of basic terminology? I don't want to seem thin-skinned, but that's an insult to the person's intelligence.

Okay, boys. Sorry for being such a little pussy. Thanks for your input. 🙄

There's nothing fragile about my ego, Mr. Moderator. I took three pages of abuse and logical fallacies without complaint. It's the other guy who eventually notified you. It has nothing to do with "more detail", Mr. Moderator. It's less detail. It's redirection. It's an attack on the person's reputation by ignoring an intelligent comment and treating the person like a slow-witted beginner. It's not a double standard, Mr. Moderator. It's a consistent policy of behavior. If you believe someone is a Time Waster, you'll ban them. If they follow the forum rules, you won't ban them. That's not a double standard. It's a consistent policy of behavior. If someone trolls or abuses me, my reaction to them will not be friendly. If I believe they're communicating with me in good faith, my reaction will be polite and courteous. Consistency doesn't mean guaranteeing equal outcomes. It means guaranteeing equal opportunity. Anyway, I understand that nothing I say will have any effect here, so thanks for clearing up what your real policies are, Mr. Moderator. YOU are the boss. YOU are in charge.

It is still an interesting question and you gave me the answer of x , Qmax=x/V How much electrical energy could the earth store before it caused molecules to become unstable ? Does the stored electrical energy increase interior thermodynamics ? Does the interior dissipated electrical energy have any affect on the Earths field ?

I said "What do you think", meaning md65536. You directly and correctly answered the kind of question a stupid beginner might ask, which was completely different from the question I asked md65536. This is one of your favorite trolling tactics, Mordy. You ignore the question the person actually asked, and then you insult the person's intelligence by fabricating your own little fantasy question that involves the person not knowing basic things like definitions of vocabulary terms. And then you make your own retarded comments, like these: "all reference frames are inertial" "Equal free fall it is not the equivalent to a rest frame". "A reference frame is an inertial frame of reference." Not to mention mangled gibberish like "The above propertime that clock on the worldline". And you try to intimidate people by gratuitously throwing around advanced technical terms and citing your "Resident Expert" status in the forum. Go ahead, Professor. Keep replying to my comments. Or not. However you see fit.

Oh, is doing what people suggested arrogant now? "allow" was zapatos's word, not mine. Oh well, I guess I challenged too popular of a troll. This is what I get for being so naïve.