swansont

Position and momentum aren't properties that can be entangled, AFAIK. Spin (intrinsic angular momentum) is quantized and angular momentum is conserved. I think that you need both properties (quantized, conserved) in order to entangle.

Look at the kinds of signs exhibited by chimpanzees and some other primates (e.g. genitalia swelling and turning red). The changes simply aren't present like that in humans. You can argue that they never were present in our remote ancestors either, but that's still not the same as males losing the ability to tell. I think you'd lose that argument anyway, because there are some signs that are always be present - e.g. more prominent breasts and buttocks, that simulate the estrus swelling - that give an "always ready" sign to the males, even when she's not able to conceive. I can't speak for anyone else, but I haven't lost my ability to see those signs.

I don't know about "perfectly harmless." UV radiation is tied to cataracts, and the problem with filtering out the visible is that you perceive the area to be darker, and your iris opens up to let in more light, which includes the extra UV. This is the reason that cheap plastic sunglasses are potentially bad for you and especially kids (who are more likely to be given cheap plastic sunglasses)

That's another way of saying it.

High-speed photography is neat; a plain ol' video camera won't work. I had a chance to get some milk-splatter pix and balloons in mid-pop at a conference workshop several years ago. You need a really short flash duration to get it to work. Mechanical shutters are just too slow. I imagine the splatter radius depends on drop size because surface tension is, well, a surface effect. You could measure the effect even if you can't explain all of the physics behind it, if you can reliably change the droplet size. You could also add soap to the mix to reduce the surface tension and measure if that has an effect.

The Third Law. You can't reach absolute zero by any finite process. (Nernst heat theorem)

The females stopped showing specific signs, not that the males lost the ability to check. Given the monagamous strategy and the investment in each child, it's not surprising that such traits would be selected.

It's part of the reproductive "strategy" that humans adopted, and there are a lot of factors. The male can't tell if the female is in heat (concealed ovulation in the female), so (all else being euqal) he's less likely to go running around, looking for other females to impregnate. Were he to do that, some other male might impregnate his mate, and he'd expend effort raising someone else's offspring. The female invests a lot in each offspring, so anything that keeps the father around to help improves survival chances. Also consider that once you have an organism where the children can't fend for themselves right away, or at least soon after birth, then what time of year they are born matters less than e.g. if they need to be a certain size in order to survive the winter.

It's considerably more complicated than that. You can't "monitor" the spin without affecting the outcome. If the spins of the the atoms that Alice and Bob have are entangled, and Alice knows the spin of A, then Bob's spin will have a definite value. But what happens if Bob measures first? Then the A spin will be set by the measurement of B. AFAIK, once you make the measurement, the entanglement is done. You aren't changing the spin to send information, you are encoding the spin.

My experience has been different. When I was teaching we had several math majors fail once they got into the applications part of the curriculum because they couldn't grasp the concepts. Once it ceased to be "find an equation and plug numbers into it" they got lost. I also know some really smart mathematicians who can understand lots of concepts. I think you just need to meet a broader spectrum of scientists and mathematicians.

I don't see how this applies to the situation. Bernoulli's priciple is that a moving fluid exerts less pressure. Nothing specifically about spinning, and no direct application to a cloud of diffuse gas in a vacuum. It seems like it's diffusion, and nothing more.

The energy of a level depends on the charge and the radius, which is itself dependent on the charge. If you solve the equations (electrostatic force=centripetal force, angular momentum quantized) you find that the energy depends on the square of the charge of the nucleus. Twice the charge means four times the energy. Here is a derivation of the Bohr model energy equation.

It has been argued that a 'not-trivially-small' prime number gives a good survival chance so that predators would have a hard time getting a matching population growth to take advantage of the cicadas' appearance. The survival strategy is dubbed predator satiation aka "you can't eat us all." Oh, and there are 13-year cicadas as well. more and yet more

How does spinning lower the pressure?

I think that "cockroaches are very resistant to radiation" is a well-known fact. But that's not the same as saying you can't kill them with radiation. Graphing radiation "killing curves" (Q5) implies that the researcher actually killed some roaches.

That's the relevant part of the article. All they did was reshape the pulse. The effect is no different than the anomalous dispersion experiment that's been discussed eleswhere.

Can't? I don't accept that without evidence. Do you have any? As for the ants, many of the reasons why they would tend to survive have been discussed. Add to that: as the ants are small, they shed heat efficiently (large surfave/volume ratio), so any heating effects will be mitigated.

It does? When I look in a mirror, the left side of me is still on the left side.