swansont

I recall experiments where you can have the excited atom or a photon, but that isn’t detecting the fields. That’s absorbing the photon.

! Moderator Note No, this will not fly. How this works is you present specific questions, without requiring anybody to click on links to participate.

We've had discussions here about sex and gender. I know they exist and what the conclusions are, but I can't replicate the discussions themselves. Suffice to say that I do know enough about physics and perhaps chemistry to know first-hand that these topics are far more complex than what gets discussed in high school and college, so it's not at all difficult for me to realize that biology is the same way. IOW, it's nowhere near so simple as penis vs vagina. People just act like it is out of convenience and ignorance; i.e. because they can't or won't learn more. It sounds more like a "bogeyman under the sofa" drill

Usually it's detect by being absorbed somewhere, or having some other interaction. What method are you alluding to here?

It's actually the case for most of physics. We are able to solve a few kinds of problems under simple conditions. Outside of those few, complications are legion.

We don't have consistency now in other areas as people transition from schools to the pro level, and international competition, so this doesn't seem like a reasonable standard.

Or not, since that's a made-up example, not so different from the Mike Tyson example used in the OP. There is no evidence that Bolt is transgender, so they should not be used an example of someone who is. This smacks of the tactic of appealing to emotion to scare people into a political position, seen in other arguments (I think we covered the arguments used against integrating sports in this or a similar thread) where you use an extreme case and offer it up as if it were typical.

I'm not the right one to ask. Never did delve much into field theory and second quantization.

As was I It's the distribution of the electric and magnetic field, to name two things. The classical wave.

Then provide examples of professional athletes being impacted. And also where they bring "fairness" into their rules. If a basketball player is 7' 4" how is this "fair" to someone who is 5' 6"?

No. Waves are waves and particles are particles. You can have a hydrogen atom that's just of order 0.05 nanometer in radius (the most probable electron distance, i.e. Bohr radius) and yet it will absorb light that's several hundred nanometers in wavelength. The wavelength is not the location of the photon. You can't equate the two.

Not observable with photons. The Cosmic Neutrino Background would take us back to about one second, but neutrino detection is much, much harder than light detection.

Yes, probably. Until people who know little about Critical Race Theory start talking about Critical Race Theory.

And so, most likely, is the air in between the dishwasher and the cupboard. The humid air mixes with the dry air, making it less humid. The water evaporates in the dry air. Water is going to condense on surfaces below the dew point, which the glasses probably aren't, or if the air is saturated with water. The latter condition is true in the dishwasher, but not outside of it.

Well, you failed spectacularly. Why wouldn't "housewives" have sleep disorders? Thinking that "worry" is the only cause is rather simplistic. Perhaps investigating causes of sleep disorders would have been a better approach.

Convex and concave mirrors give very different results. Of what utility is a mirror — quite far from the earth — whose magnification is less than 1? Also, getting the surface smooth enough to be a substrate for a mirror isn't going to happen.

I thought we were discussion science. Maher will never be confused with being a scientist; he's more of a crackpot. To support an hypothesis you need evidence rather than innuendo. Wouldn't one expect biases to get cancelled to at least some extent if funding comes from multiple, independent sources?

If by this you are referring* to China, I imagine it was China's. Which, as a sovereign nation, can choose to do what research it deems appropriate. (*The US has its own history of tainted baby formula and other foods, so I'm not sure) ! Moderator Note I should also point out that slurs against people are not only bad form, but also a violation of our rules (2.1. and 2.4, since this is an ad hominem) Please stop doing that.

And these were actual promises and not hyperbole? Popular, eh? Then providing citations to several of them should be no problem. You give one example, which is a coastal city so the overall climate is tempered, and not representative of Canada as a whole.

You quoted me, but I don't see how this addresses any of the points I made

Andrew William Henderson has been suspended for repeated and blatant soapboxing and failing to argue in good faith.

You didn't show anyone's reply to be wrong. Examples were given. Nobody conceded that atomic particles cannot be identical. You're just making all that up. Or is it that you just didn't understand the answers? It occurs to me that you haven't presented anything here that's an independent thought, based on an understanding of science. You've been parroting what others have said, and quite obviously with limited comprehension. Your prowess in Googling and copy-pasting doesn't measure up to people who have actually studied science, and have an understanding of it. Things were OK when you asked the question, but to reject responses because you don't like them - they don't fit your worldview or whatever, rather than pointing to established scientific concepts - that's not OK. Oh, the hubris to think this.

There you go again, making unfounded expansive claims. You sure seem to "know" a lot of things without having much knowledge about science. People have made these measurements I've discussed, so "never" is just flat-out wrong.

Can be different if they are in different states. Which what I've been saying. What Dr. Baird is ignoring is that a small (fraction of a gram) chunk of some material will have >10^20 atoms in it. Some will have some excited electrons, but normally the majority will be in the ground state. And there will be a bunch of excited-state atoms that are in the same excited state. Are they all identical? No. Some will be in a different state. But most are identical. IOW, not being in an identical state is an exception. That bit at the end, about the Nobel prize, is Bose-Einstein condensation, which I've mentioned. It's impossible to do if the atoms aren't identical. If you have a chance, ask Dr Baird why the electrons in any atom aren't all in the ground state, if they aren't identical. And stop cherry-picking answers (and also, cite your sources). I notice you didn't include the very end of Baird's post With that said, don't think that atoms have individual identities beyond what has been mentioned here. If two carbon atoms are in the exact same molecular, atomic, electronic and nuclear states, then those two carbon atoms are identical, no matter where they came from or what has happened to them in the past. Translation: he was explaining the exceptions to being identical (and ignoring some physics in doing so)

Two electrons can't be in the same state in an atom. Their macroscopic state of travel has no effect on their quantum state. They do not have different masses. Iron has different isotopes, which have different masses. But an atom of Fe-56, for example, is that same as any other atom of Fe-56, and if the atoms are in the ground state they, too, are identical. Atoms that are fermions have been seen to follow the Pauli Exclusion Principle.