Leaderboard

“Yes, everything in physics is completely made up – that’s the whole point” https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/everything-physics-made-up/ Is it ever true, then, to say that an electron is ‘real’ when it’s in motion? If we believe that electrons are real things, have we just made up the wavefunction to make the math work out? Absolutely – that was, in fact, the whole point. We couldn’t get the equations to work if the electron was a solid, isolated particle, so we made up something that wasn’t, and then the numbers started making sense. … physics isn’t built around ultimate truth, but rather the constant production and refinement of mathematical approximations. It’s not just because we’ll never have perfect precision in our observations. It’s that, fundamentally, the entire point of physics is to create a model universe in math - a set of equations that remain true when we plug in numbers from observations of physical phenomena. Another physicist’s take on physics describing behavior vs reality

Did I say anything of the sort? I enforce the rules - critiquing what is posted is allowed. Whether you find this insulting or humiliating is on you. Nobody else is responsible for your thin skin. If we’re not in a position to verify, one has to wonder why you posted here. But consider this: if the Lorentz transforms aren’t symmetrical, then it must matter which frame is S and which is S’. You must get a different answer if you solve an identical problem by switching S and S’. But that doesn’t happen - you get the same result.

I see a relation between models in physics and reality akin the relation between living organisms and environment. Models in physics evolve to fit their domains of reality, like organisms evolve to fit their environment. Models in physics don't reflect or describe the reality, but they represent aspects of reality by being able to successfully work with it. Similarly, organisms don't look like their environment, but they represent aspects of the environment by being able to successfully operate in it.

This statement I can agree with. So here is a simple observation. The ancient Greeks realised that If r is a positive number, real or otherwise, then r+1 is a larger number, and (r+1)+1 is larger still and so on. So there is no largest number. Now we also know that if we take reciprocals 1/r is greater than 1/(r+1) which is greater than 1/((r+1)+1) and so on. Since there is no largest number there can be no smallest number either. Sweet dreams everybody.

Lol. Nice^ What got me thinking about this topic was how rhythms and movement are everywhere... our heartbeat, our circadian rhythms, the day night cycle, the phases of the moon... we feel/hear within the mothers womb... the swooshing and flowing of her movements and her rhythms... it's everywhere. And I realized, this is common across animal species, and likely fish too... these cycles and movements and waves... we upon hearing and feeling these waves often dance to them, enjoy music as another type of wave. We even seek out music based on our mood, and our moods change when listening to different music or sounds. So, why not fish too? We're not THAT different in this context, after all. And this thread seems to have confirmed that, even if only a bit.

Did you pronounce it bass (as in mass) or bass (as in mace)? ... and walleye enjoy it as I mullet over? Eel take you in his arms 'cause you're the gill of his breams, and you'll blush when you see the ocean's bottom! I have to stop surfing the net!

Your point is clearly correct. I was imprecise with mine. Thanks for bringing this clarity. As Phi highlighted already, the answer depends on what it will be used for... under what conditions... will it be hung on a wall and left alone, or will it be used as a bar top with glass bottles and keys and plates of food smashing against it hour after hour day after day? Will it be used as a spoon in hot cooking liquids, or will it be supporting the 2nd story of a house? Will it be in direct sunlight where UV protection is an issue, or in a dark drawer or closet somewhere? You seem to want to keep this private, which is fine, but if you want a better answer then I'll need you to please ask a better question. I have some experience here and would like to help you.

It's piped through speakers on the Yellow Submarine.

He was from the beginning recruiting in provinces where poverty is high. Young men in poor families see fewer options.

Abouzar Bahari has been suspended for abusing the report post system.

I think one should also mention that none of the other fundamental interactions (strong, weak, EM) are invariant under rescaling, so a “shrinking matter” type of model is not compatible with known physics.

I’m not so sure about this, because it doesn’t seem clear to me at all that/why there should be ‘something’ that is ontologically distinct from an interaction. If there is, then we have never observed it directly - any perception, any measurement, any experiment we can perform always boils down to interactions, at the most fundamental level. Even if there is ‘something’ there, then all we can ever see is the interface it exposes to its environment - and this tends to be highly contextual, especially in the quantum realm. Based on human intuition we tacitly and naturally assume that if there’s an interaction, there needs to be ‘something’ there that interacts, but I’m not so sure. But of course, these are just philosophical musings of mine (even if they do, as you correctly observe, gel well with Rovelli et al), so I might well be entirely wrong

This is very deep. If I understood it correctly, it's like what Swansont said about phonons. There are other examples: Defects in a crystal, different 2-dimensional modes that live on the surface between insulators (topological insulators.) These things live in a context: Surface phenomena, modes in a lattice, etc. They are not 'real' in the sense that you can take, say, a phonon and separate it from its context, and study it in isolation from everything else. You can't take any of these instances, isolate them, and study them independently of the embedding context. There are contingencies --I think that's the right word-- that define their 'being there.' If you dissolve the contingency, you dissolve the 'thing.'

S u r e l y n o t.

Not really. Ivory is a combination of mineral material (largely hydrated calcium phosphate, I think) and proteins (largely collagen). Collagen isn't hard to get; nor is the calcium phosphate. But combining them is impractical/ impossible. The good news is that the only thing that ever needs ivory is an elephant, and it can make its own.

Probably because it only impacts a minority of physicists. Atomic physicists tend not to discuss high-energy particle physics, and vice-versa. We tend to discuss topics close to our area of expertise. I’m not sure what is supposed to be surprising about this. My point is that you’re overreaching with your unsourced claims. They aren’t true. But the models are of behavior. How do you test for reality? We can think there’s something real, but physics isn’t describing it. The physics we come up with allows us to calculate behavior we can observe. The more we dive into details the more abstract it gets. Or is reality “a continuous field of operators on an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space” as found in quantum field theory? http://wwwp.fc.unesp.br/~malvezzi/downloads/Ensino/Disciplinas/IntrodMecQuant/textos/What's bad about this habit - David Mermin.pdf

Apparently our ability to have clear cogent exchanges

LOL. Cats are known to collapse wave functions. That's their job in this world.

Sodium acetate making:- Vinegar + Baking Soda ----> Sodium acetate + water + Carbon Dioxide CH3COOH + NaHCO3 ---> CH3COONa + H2O + CO2 Takes a few hours Boiling causes a lot of splashes so leave it for a few days for evaporation Calcium acetate making:- Vinegar + Egg shells ----> Calcium acetate + water + Carbon Dioxide 2CH3COOH + CaCO3 ---> Ca(CH3COO)2 + H2O + CO2 wait for one day separate the excess egg shells Boiling causes a lot of splashes so leave it for a few days for evaporation

An easy way to make hydrogen gas with available household supplies is to put aluminum foil in a strong lye solution. It produces a large volume of gas quite quickly. WARNING: lye solution dissolves people and hydrogen easily goes bang!

I was just reading a website about electrostatics (revision for exams) and there was a 'try this at home'... take a ruler and a few (quite, or very small) pieces of paper then rub the ruler with a jumper sleeve (or that's what I did) then place the ruler just above the small pieces of paper and due to electrostatic charges the paper will jump and be attracted to the ruler. Just thought it was quite cool - you just see it happend and it's like that's why I love physics! Hmmm, if you try very hard you can get the paper to float in between the table and the ruler, but it's very hard! NB: This doesn't work with ALL jumpers... for example if your ruler 'wants' to lose electrons and you jumper does too then electron exchange will not take place and the ruler will not become electrostatically charged.

You and others already have gotten your answers, scientifically. Try not to convince me by definitely WRONG statements. Λ-1(v)=Λ(-v) does not mean that two equations are symmetrical. For instance, 1/x is x-1, but it is not the symmetry of x or -x. Symmetry of signs means: x=x or x=-x. So, stop your false words. I am a nuclear physicist and work a lot with "parity" and such kind of terms in particle physics. So, please do not explain for me. I can not continue this discussion with you more, since you did not regard politeness in a scientific discussion. Please stop answering me. This is my post and I can hear from you anymore. Thanks.

Are you thinking I am crazy? As a moderator,you are supposed to regard justice, not to side a person/ group of persons. Their behavior was insult and humiliation, evidently (with no doubt). In addition, my paper has been verified already by very famous scientists like Prof. Hal Puthoff. You and the other people here are not in a position to verify my paper and comments. Nonsense, For sure.