Silvestru

In this case - Tolerance of what?

Do you think that in opposite land, crazy physicists are posting speculative scientific papers "proving" that God doesn't exist on christian forums? Because as far as I know that doesn't happen in our dimension (C-132).

Why is this (Insert adjective and noun here) under physics?

Thank you beecee for taking time to post new cool articles. Always choosing interesting/relevant articles. MVP of the news section.

Thank you timo . You even answered some questions that I would follow after the first ones. I love this "remarks" section for longer answers. More people should start doing this when things get cloudy. I think you forgot to add your remark for point 5 "(*****)". Was it like a "Easter egg" or a "Trailer" for your next post haha.

Who got your team (you and Porky) in this dire situation in the first place? The way I see it he is the victim here haha. All jokes aside it's kind of weird how even between animals there is a rights hierarchy based on their....intelligence I guess or how endangered they are. Too bad that doesn't apply to humans. Your knowledge on a subject, let's say IQ should be the weight of the vote that you cast in a democracy. I am not sure how intelligent a Neanderthal would be in our modern day society but they would absolutely be discriminated I think. They could not leave as equals realistically speaking.

Haha no I didn't, my parents loved me when I was a child. Now...not as much. I meant the "+" part though, now it's 1 extra step to give an up-vote.

Does John Cuthber know that his signature doesn't completely make sense anymore? Keeps me up at night

arigatou gozaimasu!

Hello forum, I am pretty new to this so I would really appreciate your help. I have the below code: <select id="dynamic_select"> <option value="" selected>Pick a Website</option> <option value="http://www.google.com">Google</option> <option value="http://www.youtube.com">YouTube</option> <option value="https://www.gurustop.net">GuruStop.NET</option> </select> <script> $(function(){ // bind change event to select $('#dynamic_select').on('change', function () { var url = $(this).val(); // get selected value if (url) { // require a URL window.location = url; // redirect } return false; }); }); </script> On my page it looks like this: My question is, how can I link this code to an image so when you click on said image, the drop-down appears. So you can only see this selection after you press on the image. Thank you very much in advance for the help!

Hawking Radiation is not "Quantum Fields"

These assertions for example. What are stars made out of if matter begins in them? Why do you associate quantum fields with Hawking Radiation (as I assume that's what you mean)

Sounds like the intro to a cheap sci-fi. Also it's BS. The problem is you are high-jacking a speculative thread that is not yours. And you are adding your own different speculation. It's very difficult to follow. Also it's a waste of time if we discuss your speculation if it's not based on anything. People asked you many times for clarification or a citation for the things you say. This is not the "trust me" forum.

The Universe is expanding. Not the fields.

The particle fields exist prior to the particles and permeates all of space time. What do you mean by the fields require greater volume? And what do you mean the fields are converted to matter? That's not how fields work.

I hope you found out accidentally as a fun fact and not from officer John while he's writing a ticket haha.

Low quality bots they are, inSe. Their feeble processor makes them unable to process bullsh**. I always had a strange feeling about these two. Making assertions based on observational evidence is so 20th century.

My username is my nickname derived from my real name. My avatar is a selfie of me taken a while back.

Hubble still doing work http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1809/

This does not make sense. Excitation, ripple, wave it's all the same thing when talking about this subject. And what has the exclusion principle have to do with the subject? Like I said, analogies are dangerous when talking about QFT as there is still controversy on the subject and of course many unknowns. For example we don't have a theory for quantum field gravity. I did not understand the rest of the sentence. what do you mean "well"? Also what do you mean "absolute"? One thing I do know is that if we go further we need to be clear that there are two very different type of fields here but we are mixing-matching information about both. To give an analogy of what you were asking is like me asking you how deep or long is the Earth's curvature of space-time? in meters preferably. Just how big is this hole?

Hmm this analogy is dangerous. I suspect the question: "How big is the ripple?" will follow.

What do you mean by range of excitation? Apologies, I want to clarify as I still think you are imagining a field similar to the magnetic one.

It doesn't work like that, you mention inverse square law but those are two entirely different kind of fields. The electron field is not the same as the electric field the electron creates. The electron field is everywhere across space-time.

Hmm, this is a complicated subject that I also had and still have trouble with. I recommend as a start the below paper. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.4616.pdf If you still want to delve deeper in the subject you might also want to read about Zero-point_energy Just to add to you post, an excitation does not create it's own field (for each particle). An excitation in layman terms is when a region of a quantum field has more than the minimum energy density and that is what a particle is. (sometimes )

I think that our advancement in technology is going up on a steady pace but our behaviour is not. We are now using very advanced technological warfare. Isn't that ironic? So if you are asking about "breakthroughs in the next 50 years which will increase our life quality dramatically" how about acceptance and common sense and then nuclear photonic rockets.