Leaderboard

Frequencies of what? Personally I think, no. The many worlds theory is based on the metaphysical assumption that the wave function is real, and never collapses, but instead splits into so many universes as there are possible outcomes of a quantum measurement. But as there is no possibility to know anything about all these 'other worlds' (except the one you find yourself in), the many worlds idea cannot be empirically tested. In other words, it is just an interpretation of QM. I belong to the 'epistemological camp': the wave function is not real, but with it we can calculate the probabilities of possible outcomes of a quantum measurement. We have no access to any deeper reality below that. Said in other words: with the wave function we have reached the limit of what we can know. Even an explanation of why the wave function works is then impossible: for that we would have to derive it from precisely this deeper ontological level to which we have no access. That said, interpretations can have heuristic value. Without pictures of what is 'really going on', it is difficult to think about QM. So interpretations can help to develop new ideas. As an example, Bell came to his theorem by thinking about Bohm's 'guide waves' theory, which is also an interpretation of QM.

To add to that, the Journal in question also publishes experiences and method used in courses, and often looks at things like how to conduct a course (especially experimental courses), how it is received by students and so on. Taking a look at the paper proper, the intro has a lot of fluff which is unusual for STEM papers, but not uncommon for sociological articles. But the core of the course really appears to be more about historical issues in science and how they might translate into modern sciences. I.e. it seems to be a course for STEM students rather than a creating a new framework of teaching chemistry to students (I do find the paper, as a whole, to be poorly written). Topics being covered are background in feminism (take it or leave it, I guess) but more interestingly, how politics and history motivated certain types of research and conclusions. These includes many of the typical cases folks learn in bioethics, such as non-consensual experiments on minorities (whose consent matters?), social Darwinism (extrapolation of scientific concepts to benefit certain power structures), the imbalance and lack of research in women's health and the undervaluing of female researchers. I am with Arete that the framing of the course is not ideal, but the material itself seems pretty inoffensive to me and is actually critical to improve sciences, probably with some more relevance to biomedical sciences than chemistry, but there is some overlap there, too. I think the point that the authors try to make is that the frameworks develops in sociological sciences can be helpful to contextualize the information we create in sciences and to at least acknowledge that these are not pure intellectual pursuits free from our current political and cultural situation (folks working on climate change might have a word or two in that regard. Or evolution. Or vaccines.)

1) The article is unequivocally about the pedagogy and teaching of chemistry at a tertiary institution in the United States. Whatever your thoughts on its broader sweeping implications for the philosophy of science, that is clearly, explicitly the framework in which the article is written. 2) It is written in a broader climate where there is increasing acknowledgement, specifically in the United States, that traditional pedagogical and teaching methods of college teaching are implicitly biased to favour/disadvantage individuals from different backgrounds. There's currently a broader discussion of this in the literature and college communities in which this particular article is written; eg. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002210311530010X, https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.5110152, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1360144X.2019.1692211 3) The article is poorly written in the context it is clearly aimed at. It's buzzwordy and reactionary in the language it uses, rather than objective and reflective. This leads to it reading like it is suggesting that science/knowledge itself is biased (which is ridiculous), rather than the methods of teaching/communicating it, which is what the broader body of discussion on the topic addresses. 4. The language example was simply one of convenience. You can also look at the use of traditional classrooms when some of the class has spent most of their lives outside, or written vs oral exams for students who grew up in homes with books vs not, school year structure for students with unstable vs stable housing, etc etc etc. Then you can look at the impact of varying pedagogical styles, like flipped classrooms, active learning, open air lectures, etc etc etc. The article in question is attempting to speak into an ongoing conversation with many points of merit. The article in question, however, is not very good.

Storm in teacup. People devoted to Feminist or Race Studies will tend to make every issue they explore about patriarchy and misogyny and racism. As Socialist idealogues make everything that is wrong about Capitalists and Capitalist ideologues make everying wrong about Socialists. A lot of the media can't help themselves; they trawl for people saying stupid or outrageous things that press people's buttons, in order to press people's buttons. Otherwise no-one would care what those people say, certainly not chemistry faculties. Encouraging participation in chemistry irrespective of gender or race or religion is mainstream reasonable and widely supported.

In this context, "anything" means "any other outcome" , or "whatever truth value A and/or any other statement besides B might have". Sorry, let's just leave it at outcomes. "not B" would be excluded because it's self-referential (actually, because it's inconsistent with B), and "false" isn't an outcome.

Here is also a short article on the WHO comments on that matter: https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/01/covid-is-still-a-global-health-emergency-but-end-may-be-near-who-says/

P(B) is P(B) no matter what A, so it's P(B) = P(B|anything) rather than everything. Language can be a naughty little helper.

I've been reading the arguments back and forth and I'm still missing something here. I have to confess I need more reading. Carnot's argument about the efficiency of heat engines is, from a logical POV, based on two assumptions --correct me anybody if I'm wrong: 1) Conservation of energy 2) Existence, to a reasonable degree of approximation, of heat reservoirs, ie, systems so big and thermodynamically static* that they can exchange any amount of thermal energy necessary --or irreversible work-- for the engine to work between the higher-temperature reservoir and the lower-temperature one. As one famous argument by Sagan goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Because for Carnot's argument to be flawed it would require either 1) or 2) to be wrong, extraordinary evidence that either one of them is the case is required. It seems that the OP leans on the side that heat reservoirs are nothing but monumental abstractions with no basis on real physics. A claim that seems ludicrous to me. A further qualification could be necessary, which is the distinction between reversible work and irreversible work. Carnot's argument, AFAIR, relies only on the concept of reversible work. Irreversible work is, to all intents and purposes concerning thermodynamic arguments, pretty much indistinguishable from heat losses or gains, and can only be detected by means of precise calorimetric measurements, in principle. After a short time, any irreversible work will have leaked into the "worked upon" system in the form of heat. But --and it's a big 'but' implied, I think, by other members too--, the more a system resembles a heat reservoir, the more difficult it becomes to make precise measurements of heat loss --never mind it coming from irreversible work done. If a system can absorb or release any sizeable amount of heat --or irreversible work, like eg the motion of a blender-- without significantly changing its temperature, how can you be sure of the amount of energy it has received or released by means of calorimetric measurements based on known heat capacity/specific heat of such reservoir? What's more, how can you be sure that the conclusion to be drawn is that Carnot's efficiency formula is not correct? Wouldn't it be reasonable to demand from you that you design an engine that improves that? I mean, build a heat engine that delivers an efficiency better than that provided by Carnot's argument --kitchen availability pending. Also --and no minor point: I apologise if I've misunderstood any of the points under discussion. I need more time to get up to speed. * Both as compared to the engine.

Thrusters place it there. It was a target specifically shot at by engineers. "At Lagrange points, the gravitational pull of two large masses precisely equals the centripetal force required for a small object to move with them. These points in space can be used by spacecraft to reduce fuel consumption needed to remain in position." https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/754/what-is-a-lagrange-point/

Yes, let's assume one cup and weight at each end goes around its nearest pulley at the same time. Let's turn the belt until the tops of the cups on either side of the belt are lined up, keeping the weights locked in place. Forget about the depths of the cups. There are N other cups on each side of the belt. Each cup on the right has a mass of water above it of volume hA, where h is the distance each weight can travel in its cup (assuming the weights are held in place by pistons instead of membranes), and A is the cross-sectional area of the cup. The corresponding volume above the weight on the left side is empty. Only air or a vacuum. Each of the 2N other cups moves a distance D/N, where D is the total depth of the belt. So the work done by the weight of the unbalanced water above each cup on the right is [math]mg(D/N) = \rho hAgD/N[/math], and the total work done by all the other cups is [math]\rho hAgD[/math]. But each weight on the ends has moved up a distance h. So the work done on the end cups is [math]2Mgh[/math], but we said [math]W=Mg[/math] has to be greater than [math]\rho g DA[/math] for the weights to stay down when they're on the left side, so the work done on the end cups is at least [math]2 \rho h DAg[/math], which is twice the work done by the other cups. So the belt had to do work on the end weights, i.e. it lost [math]\rho h DAg[/math] of whatever kinetic energy it had before the turn. Now we unlock the weights that just went around a pulley so they can fall into their new positions in their cups. Water pressure on the top/right weight will accelerate the weight, but some of the resulting kinetic energy will be lost when the weight stops moving (it's an inelastic collision with the cup), so it won't make up for the loss in raising the weight as it rounded the pulley.

Forget about everything except the weights. Imagine that the belt turns just enough for one weight to change direction on each side, plus there are more weights in between. What effect does each weight have on the belt? They have to push on it or add energy to it if it's going to keep moving.

What makes you think that "a really evil person" can exist? The army of the righteously indignat think they're being ethical, by expressing thier moral supremacy. They're not evil, they've just been taught... wrong...

With gratitude and apologies to my dear departed father (EE in the Cold War): If you ask a mathematician, "What is two times two?", the mathematician will tell you, "Two times two is exactly four." If you ask a physicist, "What is two times two?", the physicist will tell you, "Two times two is precisely four point zero." If you ask an engineer, "What is two times two?", the engineer will look at you for a moment and then say, "Aah, I dunno, lemme google it. Where's my phone? Somebody find my phone!" If you asked the engineer's grandfather seventy years ago, "What is two times two?", the engineer's grandfather would pull his slide rule out of his pocket, fiddle with it for a moment, and then say, "Aah, about three point nine six."

That was an unnecessary complication.

If the membranes are flexible but not stretchable, it will not happen. They would accelerate until they reach velocity when the water resistance balances the gravity and buoyancy forces.

The Big Bang (BB) is a model of how the universe evolved about 13.8 billion years ago. I don't think it says anything about the current size or shape of the universe, or what the universe's future will be like, although researchers are always studying that. The point of dark energy is that it looks like the universe might keep expanding forever, but that's still very speculative. Big Bang theory also doesn't say anything about what happened more than 13.8 billion years ago, except to the extent that the BB is interpreted as the "beginning" of the universe, which would mean that nothing happened before that, or that "before that" has no meaning. Dark matter and dark energy are still mysteries to current theory, so the BB (plus general relativity and the Standard Model) can't be considered a "complete" theory in the sense of explaining them. It's also not complete in the sense that there's no theory of what happened in the first 10-43 seconds* after the theorized singularity (the Planck era), because we still don't have a theory that combines gravity and quantum mechanics, both of which were important then, according to the theory. * 10-43 seconds is 100 quadrillionths of a quadrillionth of a quadrillionth of a second.

These days im soooo busy @ work i im left with no energy to think @ all .............but dont tall the answer ill think on it more........

Yo, Moon that looks interesting. +1 Where I live we grow a lot of 'withies' . There are traditional willow slips before they get to tree status and are still bendy. We are now somewhat famous for the Willow Cathedral, which is constructed by intertwining bendy willow in the manner you describe. I must try to look out a picture.

Let's simplify even more. Let's assume that the top wheel is above the surface. Then the cups on top turn from left to right while out of water and it doesn't matter what exactly happens there as there is no buoyancy on either side there anyway.

Refresh your memory of what a heat engine is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_engine Other than demonstrate that industrial machines are tested by professionals up to their thermodynamic limits on a daily basis contrary to your claims.

The Carnot limit equation and it's resultant "efficiency", is actually nothing but the temperature difference transmuted by mathematical trickery into a percentage of the absolute temperature scale. In other words, starting out at ambient, (300°K) we elevate the temperature to,let's say 375°K (slightly superheated steam). In the process we just elevated the temperature 20% on the absolute temperature scale. Is it a coincidence that Carnot efficiency at this ∆T is also exactly 20% ? We raised the temperature 20% on the Kelvin scale and brought the "Carnot efficiency" up exactly the same percentage. This is true at any and all temperature differences. The "Carnot limit" is IS the temperature difference. Is this a measure of efficiency? The best we can do is utilize the heat we put in and in the process bring the heat back down to the 300° ambient baseline. The only "available heat" for conversion to work is that heat used to create the temperature differential in the first place. How can a percentage of a temperature scale have anything to do with the actual efficiency of the engine. (It's power to convert "available heat" into "work"). If we convert all the heat we supplied back into work we are just back where we began, at 300°K and "Carnot efficiency" falls to zero. But we have not violated conservation of energy. We have not taken out any more than we put in. But, someone at some point in history misunderstood this basic principle and took the results of the equation to represent a percentage of OUR supplied heat. As if when we elevate the temperature 20% on the absolute scale we can only utilize 20% of the energy we just supplied. The other 80% of the heat captured, stollen, by the imagined "cold reservoir". This is insane. Some professor teaching thermodynamics made a blunder, maybe 150 years ago and this nonsense has been perpetuated ever since. Some numbskull who didn't understand that the equation only represented the actual temperature difference, the elevation of temperature on the absolute scale made a blunder. Carnot "efficiency" is, if anything, just a measure of how far down the absolute temperature scale it is before you end up back where you started before adding heat to go up the absolute temperature scale. If you went up 20% of the way (on the absolute temperature scale) you can only go back down that same 20% of the way (on the absolute temperature scale). Use some common sense.

Funny how screenplay writer Elaine Morgan to this day is poo-poo'ed for being an amateur speaking up in proper company, but you just looove to listen to car mechanic Jim Moore, an amateur in equal measure. I know. You're still the master race. The peak of evolution causing your own extinction. Of course you're much smarter than the inferior Neanderthals. We all know the Earth is the center of the universe. Except for FUCKING SURFER'S EAR IN THE DAMN SKULLS!!! GO TAKE A FUCKING LOOK YOURSELF!!! THIS IS FULL ON DENYING IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE!!! YOU'RE DOING NOTHING DIFFERENT FROM CREATIONISTS!!! 'Cause baboons are smart enough to recognize the same thing, sure. Hippos aren't bipedal in water, because they don't descend from brachiating simians +25mya. Except when you pick aquatic foods for five million years.

All I will say is that you appear to me to have very poor powers of logic. Thanks for participating in my thread, it's been a slightly interesting pastime but I grow weary of it so bye.

Uhuh. Except that Homo sapiens have lost about 100cc of brain volume over the last 40,000 years. Doing with less: hominin brain atrophy I am just gonna repeat that: Homo sapiens have lost about 100cc of brain volume over the last 40,000 years. Which does coincide with the earliest true archeological evidence of big game hunting in Eurasia, of mammoths, etc. Suggesting that maybe as late as 40kya is when hominins started to let go of a chiefly aquatic diet rich in brain beneficial nutrients, in favor of a more calorific terrestrial diet lacking is such nutrients. Which is slowly costing us that big brain we're so bloody proud of. And sapiens 40kya is not even the hominin with the largest brain ever. That was the Neanderthals that they genocided. That's right. That's not being said out loud that often either. Them dumb-as-pig-shit Neanderthals that you have all been taught was subhuman had a bigger average brain than you and your direct ancestors. They were likely smarter than you and your ancestry too. In the 1990s, Peter Rhys-Evans made the testable suggestion that surfer's ear would be detectable in hominin fossils, if they had really been largely fishing apes. And OH MY!: Aural exostoses (surfer’s ear) provide vital fossil evidence of an aquatic phase in Man’s early evolution Neanderthals also got 'surfer's ear,' suggesting they liked to fish AS SOON AS SOMEONE GOT THEIR HEAD OUT THEIR ARSE AND ACTUALLY STARTED TO LOOK AT THE ALREADY EXISTING FOSSIL ARCHIVE!!! BUT GO ON ABOUT HOW THERE IS NO FOSSIL EVIDENCE FOR THE AQUATIC APE HYPOTHESIS!!! A journalist once told Albert Einstein about the publication of a book titled, "100 Authors Against Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity". His reply was: "Why one hundred? If I were wrong, one would have been enough." No sjit. That is a helluva thing: Every single ape and monkey species becomes vertically bipedal when wading through shallow water. But of course that can't possibly support the heretic notion that that's how hominin habitual bipedalism began in hinterland lakes and streams in Africa. That's because you don't read up. 'Cause you think you don't have to [Survival of the fattest: the key to human brain evolution] These have become banned volumes and Nullius in Verba somehow don't apply.

I think it would be great! Having additional control over the temperatures of both source and sink to dial the temperatures up or down would be fantastic. To begin with, seems like years ago now, (July 2020 just checked my YT uploads) I just put a piece of 1/4" foil face styrofoam over another engine, recalling an "argument" on the Stirling Engine forum from back around 2012 I think (February 2010 actually, it's still there.) about insulating the cold side of the engine. I had theorized that if expansion work had a cooling effect on the working fluid. Perhaps the working fluid was getting colder than the "sink" itself (sink = ambient outside the engine) and insulating the sink could, perhaps, increase the ∆T by blocking heat infiltration by ambient heat. That is, if the engine could increase its own temperature differential as it ran, insulation might actually help it to do that BETTER! Well, this was too radical an idea for the forum at that time. Everybody basically laughed and tried to "educate" me on how a Stirling engine absolutely MUST have a way to dump unused/excess heat or it would overheat and stop immediately. But... But... I was reading books on thermodynamics, refrigeration, gas law, gas liquefaction etc. at the time. The BOOKS said having a compressed gas expand to push a piston was an effective method of reaching cryogenic temperatures. The gas would liquefy right in the cylinder. Typically at very high compression, like 100 bar or whatever to get down to -250° or whatever to liquefy oxygen or nitrogen or some such thing, but... A Stirling engine, in principle, does the same thing. The piston compresses a gas, then the gas expands doing work to drive the engine,... Just like a compressor/expander liquefies air. How could it NOT be producing a very marked cooling effect. To me the conclusion seemed inescapable. Turn the engine over with a motor and it immediately becomes a Cryocooler/air-liquefier. Known fact. There are heat driven heat pumps as well, so why is this so inconceivable? Anyway I gave up and pretty much forgot about that debate. Ten years later I'm fooling around to see how long a Stirling LTD will run on ice or hot water and what difference insulation would make, then recalled that old idea I had pondered on and argued about 10 years earlier, and with the materials there on hand already I decided to settle the argument and put a piece of insulation over the cold side of an engine running on hot water. I had cut the insulation out previously for some other reason, don't recall what. I thought, I might as well record whatever happened and post it on the forum. I fully expected that the engine would stop almost immediately. I'd go back to the forum and admit I had been wrong. Everybody was right. I was wrong. So I watched and waited for the inevitable. The engine would overheat and stop. But it kept running. ... And running. It didn't even slow down as far as I could tell. Reviewing the recording I found that instead of slowing down, the engine actually ran a little faster. Nothing dramatic, but counting the revolutions with a stop watch, the engine was running faster AFTER the sink was insulated. It also, I found, ran longer and seemed, by the clatter it made, to have more torque and power causing an audible "knock" like the piston was being jerked inward with more force. (The knock was on the contraction stroke). If the engine had just stopped that time, that would have been the end of it and I wouldn't be here now. Sorry but I just got up. I only have time to respond to so many posts, usually in the order they appear. I was responding to a post by someone else before yours. Nothing personal, but I don't have time now. What was your vitally important question/statement again? Specifically ? I did go back and start reviewing your posts from the begining of the thread. You repeatedly insulted me and said this thread was a waste of everybody's time. I'm still working my way forward. I'm not offended BTW, my character is often questioned and I have thick skin. Skepticism is a must really, and I'm not here to have my ego stroked, obviously, I should think. Keep your pants on. Have some patience and try not to act like a sniveling spoiled punk that wants to be the center of attention of throws a fit like some 2 year old and BTW some of your posts make no sense. Be glad I DON'T respond in most cases. As my mother used to say, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you think this thread is a waste of time, I'm sure there must be other threads in this forum somewhere.