swansont

But this is a business decision. I suspect Toyota looked at who might boycott them and extrapolated what would happen to sales. And Wal-Mart would do the same if they were tempted to announce some similar move.

If x = 1 meter, you have a very different situation than if x is 1 nm. And it matters very much what the mass is. There is only one dimension in your example. Not x and y, so that's irrelevant. This makes no sense. Asking physics questions is fine, but if you need help solving physics 101 problems you shouldn't be making these kinds of assertions.

But what if you look at the next level down, and so on and so on. Always more losers than winners, and you start with "people off the street" You can't win if you aren't allowed to compete.

Units matter. 1 what? 1 metric tonne? 1 gram?

And yet the number of people competing far exceeds the number who win. e.g. there's a large number of people going to the Olympics who have no realistic chance of winning, yet they go, just to be in the competition and do their best. Plus, they give out silver and bronze medals, too. Not just gold to the winners. And lastly, if you aren't even allowed to compete, you have zero chance of winning.

What is x referring to? If it's height, x=1 is meaningless in this context, since we haven't assigned values to anything. ∆x is an uncertainty in x, not the value of x hbar is really, really small, so this is pretty much meaningless for such a system. If the speed and/or mass were small enough that this mattered, you would have to treat it as a wave, and then the assumption that it's a point particle isn't valid.

It would depend on h1 and h2 v2 - v1 = sqrt(2g(H-h2))- sqrt(2g(H-h1))

You have mv = sqrt(2m^2g(H-h)) You need to divide both sides by m (sqrt m^2 is m) v = sqrt(2g(H-h)) at h=H it's zero. At h = 0 it has its maximum value

Then "speed" would suffice. p = mv, so as I said, you divide by mass and the mass term goes away. We already covered this.

I'm not unhappy with it; this isn't an area where I spend much time and effort. It's more for folks doing work on foundations of physics. I don't have anything invested in e.g. whether time is emergent or not, since that isn't going to affect how to build and operate clocks in any foreseeable future.

I'm following the description in the link I provided emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviors which emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.

That's a fundamental property of wave functions. I wouldn't say it's emergent. You might argue that this is fundamental, and having well-defined trajectories is an emergent property, since you tend to need a large mass (and thus a large number of particles conglomerated) for the wave nature to cease dominating. edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence#Nonliving,_physical_systems The laws of classical mechanics can be said to emerge as a limiting case from the rules of quantum mechanics applied to large enough masses. This is particularly strange since quantum mechanics is generally thought of as more complicated than classical mechanics. The later examples of phase transitions might be a clearer one. It's not a property of a single particle. It's a collective behavior where you need a number of particles in order to observe it.

“Speed of acceleration”? That’s meaningless. Which one? Speed is speed, acceleration is acceleration (which in this case is g)

No. You need to write down the uncertainty in both the position and momentum. You’re saying p > ℏ/2, which has the wrong units

What is acceleration to finish? The acceleration is g

That’s what’s being looked at, AFAIK

You will notice that the mass cancels, since the speed of a falling object is independent of mass.

Given that you have weighed in on much more complicated physics problems, one might expect you could solve a physics 101 problem At the top of the travel the KE is zero and PE is mgH, where H is the top of the travel. The sum remains constant, so KE = mg(H-h) at all points (this assumes g is a constant) KE = p^2/2m so the momentum will be sqrt(2m^2g(H-h)) The details of the collision aren't given; this solution doesn't apply to the impact itself and assumes a point particle (again, details are not given)

But you claim "the linear-fresnel lenses will greatly improve efficiency." So which is it? Is the efficiency greatly improved, or does it not matter much? You need to explain why this is so. I will note that not of these claims are quantified, nor is any direct justification given for them. Just hand-waving.

pions are bosons (they are spin 0)

They are the same thing. It's not emergent, as such.

Also the Cherenkov radiation detectors as mentioned in your other thread. Ad, as with that thread, can you point to what you want to discuss here?

From what I've read, "emergent" indicates a behavior that is seen at some larger scale but is not seen at a smaller scale with the constituent entities. Gravity would not qualify. As far as we know, even a small mass exerts gravity, even if we ignore it.

It's not the quantity, it's the scope. Which is about prediction, and still includes making and using models, which is the salient point. As I said, this is a matter of how you use your model, rathe than being in a new category exclusive of making and testing models. If I suggested that I "limit(ed) (my) definition of Science to analysis and only to analysis of what is" that was not my intent.

Climate science is constructing models in order to see the behavior of nature under those conditions. I was taking your objection to men that there were things that did not include models and testing, not the scope of the models. Yes, science makes predictions of things that could happen under some conditions. I consider that to be part of modeling the universe. We even model behaviors that we have not yet observed, to see if we've missed something.