Leaderboard

They weren’t a problem before Trump was elected. Just sayin’

Replacing SU(3) atoms term with pixel might help improve author's concept from a holographic perspective.

Can't get my head around this. "Spin is the intrinsic angular momentum of particles. Spin is given in units of ħ which is the quantum unit of angular momentum where ħ = h/2π = 6.58x10-25 GeV s = 1.05x10-34 J s" At this stage I just want to know; 1 When it says "spin" is the "angular momentum," does it mean the speed that these particles (Fermions and Bosons?) rotate at, or what? 2. What's the h in the equation h/2π = 6.58x10-25 ?? 3. Is the funny symbol ħ to do with something called the planck constant? Cheerz GIAN🙂XXX science education age about 12½

The events might be designed to reduce the popular momentum a certain modern day Robin Hood is getting. We've been assured they aren't foreign or US military or any threat to the populace. Billionaire distraction?

from what you posted Genady the answer must be 0 ? Thank you

-4 - 4 = -8 -4 - 3 = -7 -4 - 2 = -6 -4 - 1 = -5 -4 - 0 = -4 -4 - -1 = -3 -4 - -2 = -2 -4 - -3 = -1 -4 - -4 = ?

Yup, h is Planck's constant. The symbol h with a line across, known as "h bar", is h/2π. This quantity appears in a lot of places in QM maths, so it was thought worth giving it its own symbol to simplify algebraic expressions. When it comes to elementary particles they have angular momentum, just as a spinning top or wheel has. This is often referred to as "spin", but it's not really like a little ball spinning on its axis. For one thing this "spin" is intrinsic to the particle. An electron has a spin of 1/2 spin units*, always. You can't stop it spinning or make it spin faster. The spin value it has is fundamental to its identity as an electron, just as much as its -ve electric charge is, or its mass. This so-called spin is a way of saying they have a set amount of angular momentum. That is important because angular momentum is a conserved property, like linear momentum or energy. So in particle interactions, one rule is the total angular momentum of the system, before and after, has to be the same. That has certain consequences in physics. However, because these elementary particles don't behave like little balls, one can't talk of a speed of rotation or anything like that. They have have a set amount of intrinsic angular momentum and that's that. * I had better add a bit here so I don't get my balls shot off by the real physicists on the forum - always a risk here😁. You don't need really to know this. "Spin units" is just my lazy shorthand for saying the spin quantum number, s, of electrons is 1/2. The actual magnitude of the angular momentum is given by the angular momentum formula √(s(s+1)). h/2π, which for s=1/2 gives you √3/2. h bar. However the projection of the angular momentum vector along any specified axis is a bit less, 1/2. h bar, basically because of the way Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle works for angular momentum (There's always a bit of angular momentum left over, that points in an indeterminate direction and which can't be pinned down). So particles like electrons are known as "spin 1/2" particles. The formula you are asking about is the magnitude of this projection - which is what matters in practice, in the lab and so forth.

Yes, that is exactly the problem with such standards. Therefore the physics community looked for physical phenomena that always result in exactly the same values. So my 'historical reconstruction': Once, the metre was defined as "one ten-millionth of the distance from the North Pole to the Equator, determined through measurements along the meridian passing through Paris". Not very practical if a laboratory wants to construct a precise metre. So the idea of the standard metre was born: a metal bar in Paris as standard. From there copies were made and sent to everywhere in the world. But then after a while the problem appeared as you mention here: some copies were not exactly as long as the original. Which one(s) changed? In the meantime, physical constants like c, u0, e0 were measured with ever more precision, but the precision needed in modern physics (and its derived technologies) became bigger than the deviations of the old standard definitions. However, these constants are dependent on each other: define two, and the third can be calculated. Now given the invariance of c there was a good way out: take the most precise measurements of c given the old definitions of metres and seconds, and turn the definition around: define c at a fixed value based on these measurements, and the others follow from that. It doesn't matter logically which constants you define, and which you derive there from. But practically, it is much easier to define the metre based on c, and the second on a fixed natural frequency. As said before, every sufficient equipped laboratory can now 'construct its own metre and second', and it will be exactly the same between all laboratories. Now the other constants can be either derived, or measured according the new units. Your 'problem' simply does not exist. In Cramer's TIQM and similar models, it is an information exchange. An electron in one atom is allowed, by its nonlocal resonance with an electron in a remote atom, to drop to a lower energy orbit while simultaneously an electron in its entangled partner atom rises to a higher energy orbit. Energy disappears from one atom and remotely appears in another atom without passing through the space between. One electron goes down while the other goes up. Nothing passes through the space between but information. This is a stronger correlation than can be classically explained. Nope. What this is about is that it makes no sense to ask 'which path information' between the 2 events. So yes, there is information exchange in this example, and energy is sent from one atom to the other. But this is not entanglement. It is simply the QM description of how a photon is emitted by one atom, and absorbed by another one. Imagine the absorbing atom behind a double slit: we cannot say through which slit it went. And as Swansont also remarked: if you block EM radiation completely no energy, and so no information will arrive at the absorbing atom. In entanglement however, after the photons have passed, you block whatever interaction, it makes no difference, simply because there is no energy exchange, no information exchange, between the distinct detectors. One can even turn e.g. the polaroid filter(s) afterwards, you will find the correlation that QM predicts. Then you have always been wrong. It is not an interaction, it is a correlation. So no violation of causality. No information or energy exchange. Wot? This is energy transfer (see above). And instantly? How so, when we could measure that there is a time of d/c (d=distance between the atoms)? How does SR account for that, where in fact it forbids energy exchange faster than c? Below the ground state? How is that possible?

correct. outside of the above sentiment, I don't really have much to say to boosters of either side anymore, because they're BOTH presently living under some delusion that only people who work for an hour or two a day, making phone calls at an empty desk the size of a small coupe in an office the size of an average american home... are equipped to make radical financial decisions for the working class, and whoever's leftover of the middle class since reagan and his "business advisors" began the charge to send the western economies down this rabbit hole to Perdition. the democrats are also cheerfully surrendering to this same school of thought, it is why recruiting voters has literally never gotten easier. I have been trying to engage others in the political process for 25 years.... I have media savvy and experience, but I am no joe rogaine [yet proud of this fact]. I finally gave up this year- finally. the alleged "left" haven't done anything for us in this part of the country in generations either. this is why the educated working class sits the elections out along with the young. we have simply given up the faith that america has ever been or ever will be for us. I voted for Harris and Walz, yet 93% of my county did not. also I was forced to remove my face mask by an elderly poll watcher who accused me of using it to conceal my identity. I just can't afford for these antivaxxers to get me sick yet again. when pressed, I used to say "democratic socialist"; now I just say "socialist". I don't really care how we get there anymore. unless things change soon, I do not expect to ever comb white hairs. the 70 year old I care for is currently in better health than me at the moment, and they have healthcare. I haven't for 22 years. healthcare is not free, nor affordable. I worked in politics for years. I believe stalin said it best when it comes to the voters and the votes, blatant and reported russian propaganda from the mouths of our senators and congresspeople notwithstanding [the Lolita loving senator from florida didn't just retire suddenly instead of taking AG because of his sexual proclivities and love of Dionysian lifestyles, see also the bloggers and podcasters who were paid millions by kremlin assets running LLC's here in the US]. I mean.... I feel as if our courts tried, convicted, and executed the Rosenberg's for less than this. I am no authoritarian, but the ruling class needs to be made to worry about the rule of law here in the united states again, or the soon to be moribund economy [see Ben Stein's lecture in Ferris Bueller's Day off for how well those tariffs are gonna work... yet again] and the hopeless rabble of untapped and/or underemployed workers will likely make them remember their history books. [see also the one shooting in NYC this week that these sort of folks actually care about]. america is anyone's for the taking right now. the business cosplayers had their bite at the apple. we need actual leaders, not people who pretend to lead companies as "autodidactic genius visionaries" or whatever kind of insipid self-talk they use to sleep at night between their carousels of remedies. [I have worked as a personal assistant to "corporate officers". I know who does all of their work for them.] [off the rails, sorry] also to weigh in on the subject of dc/marvel and other traditional comic book media, I find it hilarious that 80-90 years ago the kids loved the free-spirited, progressive superheros who championed equality [Superman fought the klan {welll.... an obvious facsimile of it} on syndicated radio in 1949, after they targeted the families of immigrant scientists, no less] and they loathed the card-stock, gangster-like villains only concerned with money and greed.... now they root for the businessmen who resemble 20th century gangsters just as much as the early DC comic adversaries. also the Joker.... what is up with THAT...? well, likely the same reason I see so many insignias of the wehrmacht carved into mens' room stalls around here.... though I suppose they're more appropriate there than anywhere else we might see them. -le sigh-

Continuing the guitar theme, time for a bit more Bach: Prelude from 1st Cello Suite played on the guitar by the lovely and talented Julia Lange: What I like about this performance is that, unlike some guitar performers of this piece on YouTube (there are quite a few) she doesn't try to make it all about herself by messing about with the tempo and inserting dynamic contrasts all the time, as if it were a Romantic piece. It's Baroque. She allows Bach's pulse (always very strong) to carry it forward and lets his cascades of notes do the expressive work, with just a little inflexion here and there to stress key moments. Very classy interpretation, I thought. And she looks as if she in a sort of calm and peaceful ecstasy throughout, which is rather delightful.

Fictional characters are not alive. Unfortunately that is what folks believe, contrary to all evidence but also simple logic (i.e., differences in outcomes, priorities, goals, mechanisms, procedures etc.).

Perhaps, though I doubt they will be found in time... 😉

There used to be witches, why not call her Karen?

It's practiced nowhere, followed by no one, and you don't have to do anything to be a member. Doesn't have a point of view, knows not where he's going to isn't he a bit like you and me...?

I think the tricky bit is to figure out the temperature for a volume. I think what I remember was to start with 2l per 454g package, add salt, set to high or medium high and then wait until it boils, turn down temperature to simmer and check how long it takes. Depending on how long it takes to boil I am guessing that the whole process might take up to 20 minutes, with probably less than 5 minutes of boiling. I have never tried that myself, to be honest. I have got Italian friends and I want to keep them.

I've tried cold cook with various grains. Never worked well with pasta (which sadly gave up, due to fatigue and mental fog from eating wheat products), due to the sticking. It is however perfect with rolled oats, especially since they are high in phytate which you want to get rid of. Add a lot of water, soak an hour, then pour off the excess water and leached out phytate. (I add lemon juice, which speeds up phytate removal)

Exchemist has mentioned the most important point, dropping pasta into defined temperature creates the most reproducibility. Now there is quite some chemistry related to pasta cooking and generally speaking, the first process is controlled by water penetration, starch gelatinization and protein coagulation. These steps are all temperature dependent but not all aspects are impacted equally (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2007.03.018). For example water penetration occurs at low temperatures, but protein coagulation generally requires higher temperature for homogenous coagulation. Yet, that is also dependent on the way the gluten network is developed during the production of pasta (https://doi.org/10.1080/10408390802437154). Another aspect is the rate of starch gelatinzation to protein coagulation. If coagulation dominates and is done faster than than gelatinzation, starch particles will be trapped in the gluten network resulting in more firm pasta (which is usually desirable). Conversely high starch swelling with an incomplete network allows starch to escape to the surface (and cooking water) which results in soft and sticky pasta (https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/foodmicrostructure/vol2/iss1/2). As gelatinization starts at lower temperatures, cooking from cold will release more starch. That all being said, for dried pasta it generally does not matter unless it has a large surface (e.g. fettucine) where the released starch can make things rather sticky and where cooking in boiling water accelerates protein coagulation. Otherwise, one can do the opposite for example soak pasta at low temps (before starch gelatinization, so <45 ish or so C). This takes care of the water penetration part while gelatinization and coagulation does not occur yet. You can then then just heat it up (e.g cook in sauce) to rapidly induce coagulation without the release of excessive amount of starch.

Most decent pasta (i.e. made from durum wheat) needs 8-10mins in boiling water (up to 12min for some types, depending on the shape and thickness). Normally you use plenty of water, and a rolling boil, to avoid the pasta sticking to itself. Some people add a spoon of olive oil to the water but I never bother -just give it a stir once or twice in case any of it is starting to stick together. But I suppose if you heat from cold it starts to cook earlier, so you need less time once it starts to boil. I imagine the issue with that method, though, will be that the rate of heating until it boils, and therefore the cooking time, will vary, depending on how much pasta you cook, how much water you put in, the size of the pan, the heat of the hob etc. So you may find it hard to get the same results reliably unless you are always keeping all those variables fixed: same amount of pasta, same pan, same amount of water, same gas ring. Whereas if you wait until you have boiling water first, and then add the pasta, you can time it reliably as the cooking rate will be constant - water at 100C. I'd also have thought you might have an issue with it sticking if you heat from cold, as there will be no agitation until it boils. In summary, it may work for you but I'm not tempted to try. Being in the UK, I have an electric kettle to boil the water first, so I do that, tip it in, add the pasta and salt - and check my watch.