DQW

Ophiolite, I wonder what you'd say, if as the police were trying to cuff the guy (after subduing him), he had pushed a button and blew up everyone in that subway car.

As long as the temperature and field are low enough that the SC is not in the Abrikosov phase; else flux pinning would slow the SC down pretty quickly.

I was going to say "hogwash" !!! But I'll be polite and so, I'll merely ask you to back up your claim with a reference to this in a peer-reviewed journal or something that may be considered a text-book.

Draw the verticalline from the top end of the scope, and call this line LM (M on the ground). Call the vertex of angle \theta Q. You now 2 right angle triangles : LMP and LMQ, with base angles \theta' and \theta. Note the following : 1. PQ = vt (where t is the time taken for the scope to move between the 2 positions) 2. LQ = ct tan (\theta') = LM/PM = LM/(PQ+QM) Plug and chug !

At 10 charges, it looks like you might have to be essentially at the center (or within a very small fraction of it) for the field to be this low. At 127 charges, I suspect you may still have to travel inwards by over 0.9R for the field to be this low. At 2000 charges, it looks like you'd get low enough after about 0.5R and at 8000 charges this looks like it happens after about 0.2R (I'm just making very rough guesses from your pictures). Could you please look up the actual numbers and let me know ?

Can you give me your best guess (to within a few of orders of magnitude) then ? Will the field be below this arbitrarily set threshold of 0.0001% E(surf) upon moving inwards a distance of 0.1R from the surface ? How about 0.001R ? And what about 10^{-6}R or 10^{-12}R ? Or might it get there even sooner than that ? I'd just like to see a number, please ! In fact, could you also tell me what this number would be for smaller numbers of charges, like 10, 100, 1000 ?

Not without math... ... but with some simple mathematical examples and comparisons...perhaps !

So does the law that prevents people from carrying knives on aircrafts.

Let me define completeness as used by you : A Metric Space is said to be complete if every Cauchy Sequence converges in the space. That (completeness) is what makes an Inner Product space a Hilbert Space, and it is in this Hilbert space that a vector describing a quantum state lives.

Re-read the original post for the convention used (which is, to say the least, non-standard). Lo is not used to designate the proper length (the length in the rest frame of the body).

If by 'unreasonable', you are refering to a characteristic that prevents the use of reason, I'd like to see some examples of this. What other ways exist ?

There is only one way to do this right (if you are a student learning Newtonian Mechanics) : 1. Draw the complete free-body diagram, showing forces on all 3 objects, 2. Use Newton's 3rd Law to identify and label action-reaction pairs among these forces 3. Use Newton's 2nd Law on each of the 3 bodies to write down 3 equations 4. Solve these equations to find the force on the egg 5. Repeat 1-4 for the second situation and compare results.

Let's see you explain completeness without math.

Pray, tell me how you isolate and trap a single atom (and confine it to a spatial width that is about the size of the atom itself) ? And how would you know that you have only one atom ? What modes are you exciting here, and how do you go about this excitation process ? Electronic transitions are typically in the far UV. If you want to see photons that are spit out by electronic transitions, you better get yourself a new pair of special eyeballs. The box called 'reality' ? Let's say you have this atom that you have somehow isolated, trapped and excited. This atom is slowly spitting photons radially outwards. You want to pass these photons through a lens that focuses them onto some kind of photographic surface (that I shall call the 'film'). At a magnification of 1, all the photons end up exposing the same molecule on the film. That'll achieve nothing. Even if you can ensure that no other molecule on the film gets exposed by thermal photons from the enclosure that houses the trapped atom, or even by thermal excitations at the ambient temperature (remember that "exposure" is simply a chemical reaction that is highly susceptible to photo-activation, so the assumptions made are already unachievable), what you end up with is a picture where 1 molecule is different from the rest. Surely, you can't see this one-molecule-difference any better than you could see the trapped atom with your naked eye. So, you must have some large magnification introduced by some lens assembly, so that a macroscopic number of molecules are exposed by these photons. To be able to see something, this magnification would have to be at least something of the order of several million (that way you an image that's a few millimeters wide). Hmm... what device achieves such large magnifications ? I wonder...

Nice discussion ! I have just one question now : Can you tell me, if there are [imath]\approx 10^{23} [/imath] charges in the shell, what distance (as a fraction of the radius) you must travel inwards before the field drops off to below, say 0.0001% of the field at the surface ?

We were talking about this, just the other day. http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=12925&page=2 The idea is to create standing waves within an enclosure. By making the enclosure be shaped like an ellipse, you make the amplitude of the standing waves be very high at the foci of the ellipse. This leads to some very neat effects like the appearance of a Kondo resonance at an unoccupied focus. This observation has lead to some speculation about a possible application as a data transfer mechanism over nanoscale distances. You'd have had better hits if you Googled "Quantum Corral", I guess ! Here's a few more links : http://www.almaden.ibm.com/almaden/media/image_mirage.html http://www.almaden.ibm.com/almaden/media/mirage5.html http://www.almaden.ibm.com/almaden/media/mirage2.html Edit : Oops, just realized this thread is a year old ! Sorry !

And you can define all those terms you've used without any math ?

deleted...(didn't read a previous post carefully)

Like this : [math]L = \frac{L_0} {\sqrt{(1-v^2/c^2)}} [/math] Click the text to pop-up a box containing the latex code (or simply hit the QUOTE button.

1. Wavefunctions are not "destroyed" by an observation; they are altered (or rotated) 2. The wavefunction that the cat uses to describe itself is independent of the wavefunction that you use to describe it.

An important bit that's missing in the Wiki article is the Henderson-Hasselbach equation. Google that separately.

Thanks ! I'm aware of the value of e. But have have no idea what this has to do with FTL and light. What property of light is found to be in integer powers of e ?

There is no universal answer to that question. It depends on the situation. If you have a high heat capacity © but lousy conductivity (K), then your heat sink will not get very warm over the long term, but over short time-scales, parts of the heat-sink can get very hot (because it is incapable of dispersing the heat within itself). On the other hand, if it has a high K and very low C, then it will quickly disperse small amounts of heat but over the long term, will get hotter faster than it loses heat (convectively or radiatively). But then again, it is important to also keep in mind how the heat-sink is made to lose heat to the surroundings, and designing this into the scheme (under some set of constraints) is part of the process.

Very simply put, what a flash evaporator does is it compresses a liquid and then heats it up before allowing it to expand from a nozzle. The sudden drop in pressure causes the liquid to vaporize. Typically, if the liquid is a mixture of two or more components, one of which is more volatile than the others (has a higher vapor pressure at the nozzle temperature), then this volatile component vaporizes out of the liquid, and the liquid gets more ocncentrated in its less volatile components.

(2) is not a problem because the existence of the shell is known to the point observer inside it only when a gravitational wave from the shell reaches the observer - before this time, the shell did not exist. Even otherwise, this "problem" can be avoided by simply stating that you must wait for a "bit" before you measure the field inside the shell. (3) I've addressed above.