swansont

Floated this by my colleagues this morning. The quick guess was that they are related, and perhaps it can be thought of this (hand-wavy) way: Noether's theorems are classical, in that the variables are continuous and well-defined. In a quantum context, you can't say that momentum is conserved below some scale of ∆x, so you can't ensure there is symmetry on that scale. So if you violate spatial translation at a scale of ∆x, you can violate momentum conservation by ∆p. You'd need to do some actual analysis to see how and where the h-bar shows up in the formulation. My take is that Noether's theorems are math, and the HUP is physics, and nature is what dictates the scale of the potential violations.

Thermal energy is not KE of the object, it's vibrational and rotational KE of the constituent particles. The center-of-mass does not move when considering thermal motion. That's what matters in determining the KE. I have pointed out before (and even before that) that the distinction is with the motion of the center of mass (CoM).

No, that's not sufficient. Something can provide food, but that does not mean food is not a problem if you have to change the effort required to obtain sufficient food for survival. You can die of malnutrition but still be getting some food. Exactly. They needed to forage over a wider area in order to get the same amount of nutrition. This means there is an advantage to walking upright, which is more energy-efficient. And it has nothing to do with holding a club.

"Solar panels might seem like they’re in direct competition with plants. One is catching sunlight to do photosynthesis, the other wants to take it to push electrons. Surely Highlander rules apply, and there can be only one on a plot of land, right? In reality, it’s not a zero-sum game. Some plants will burn in direct sun, after all, and so there are plenty of food crops that would be happy to share their space with panels. And as a new study led by the University of Arizona’s Greg Barron-Gafford shows, the combination isn’t even necessarily a compromise—there are some synergies that can bring significant benefits to a solar-agriculture." https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/09/crops-under-solar-panels-can-be-a-win-win/

That's the Sagnac effect. As seen in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer or laser gyroscope, among other places.

You have to separate the inherent behavior from our ability to perceive. The eye's response has limitations, which is why we perceive a series of still images as motion (i.e. it's why we can appreciate movies) So you need to distinguish "People can't see it" (i.e. invisible to the naked eye) from "it can't be seen/detected" (and can sometimes be applied to specific wavelengths/frequencies of EM radiation, e.g. "invisible to radar") Are atoms invisible, just because they're small? Depends on which definition you use.

A void in what? You can't have a void unless there is something there as a contrast. (there is no hole if there is no dirt) ! Moderator Note ...technically a hijack. Split from https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/120000-something-from-nothing/

So it seems your contention is that a tree, which is very tall and has lots of surface area (lots of bark, leaves, twigs and fruit/nuts) for the ground space it takes up, contains less food than the equivalent space in the savannah. And I am not convinced that this is true.

No. KE does not contribute to rest mass. If one has a greater KE than the other then it means it's moving faster in the frame of reference being used. One must be careful in identifying which mass is being used. IMO relativistic mass should always be identified as such, and using "mass" should mean rest mass. When you don't, as in this case, it looks like our answers contradict each other (I said no and you said yes), when they are pointing out the same thing. The faster-moving object in this example has more energy. It does not have more rest mass.

How can you be sure that the avatar is of the user? Mine isn’t, and others have done similar things.

! Moderator Note My obtuse-ometer has pegged high. Five unsuccessful tries at “we’re talking about the surface” is a sign that we’re done.

E=mc^2 The energy content of an object at rest is proportional to its mass. An object can also have KE (or energy associated with its motion) which is not part of the rest energy. Yes No. Mass and energy are properties. Everything has energy. Many things have mass. It is a property, not a substance. Not virtual I would say that it’s a property of time-translation symmetry, but that is probably too pedantic in this level of discussion.

I didn’t ask why they didn’t move to an environment into which they did not move. You claimed that in moving to the grassland, food is not a problem. I asked for evidence to support this claim. All you’re doing is making another bald assertion. This isn’t evidence. If they can’t change a lot, how could they eat the different food from the grassland?

You have said that safety is the only problem in moving to the grasslands, and food is not an issue. You need to support that this is true, rather than to claim it. I think it is false. I asked for evidence that food is not a problem, as you have not presented anything to support your contention. Back up your claim. Don't just write the same thing.

Grasslands have fewer trees than forest/jungle, by definition. So why does studiot have to justify this, when you have already set the scenario? Repeating this does not make it true, nor does it address the objections/questions I have raised.

This has nothing to do with archaeology. what is the evidence that the paleontological dates vary widely and are inaccurate? Bollocks Why is it that when you do it, it’s “logic”? (not that there isn’t evidence of the environment; there is. Plus, you stipulated to this already) They don’t eat meat very much. Why are they hunting for their food?

So why would they be stalking prey as soon as they got to the grassland? do they live in the grassland, where bipedalism would be an advantage?

Light is comprised of real photons. Not the same thing No, they have energy E=pc No. Matter is a description of kinds of particles. Energy is a property that all matter has, but things that are not matter have energy, too

Not arguing in good faith does not necessarily mean that fallacies are involved.

Orthogonal what? QM eigenstates are already orthogonal, if you've chosen the right basis (i.e. you have "good" quantum numbers)

This is science, though. Bipedal walking by humans is much more efficient than either bipedal or quadrupedal locomotion by our close relatives https://www.nature.com/news/2007/070716/full/news070716-2.html As expected, chimps were significantly less efficient at walking than humans, using up 75% more energy, irrespective of whether they were walking on two legs or four. Actual study, actual science. Is this true? Did our ancestors eat grass? Is the edible food density as high in the grassland as it is in the jungle? Can you present evidence to support your claim? Your premise included "The ancient apes mainly feed on plants." So this was presumably the diet they were adapted to as they left the jungle/forest. How hard is it to follow a plant? Are you saying there was an immediate switch from mostly herbivore to mostly carnivore? because that seems to be required by your "logic"

A just-so story is not evidence, and the way you have presented it, the innovation happened with the tree-dwellers. If they have this new innovation, why must they leave the trees? There is at least some evidence that the forests were shrinking at this time, the habitat was becoming drier, and that's what forced hominid populations into the open spaces, for at least part of the time. Walking is more energy efficient, so you can walk to forage for food, and if you have a population living at the edge of a forest they still have the protection of the trees. http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/climate-and-human-evolution/climate-effects-human-evolution

Since there are undoubtedly new maths that will be revealed at some point in the future, I'd have to say they aren't the same thing. (To the extent that this is about whether maths are invented or discovered, as far as I am concerned that should read "uninteresting")

You said "Magnetic effects are brought about by time variation." Where is the time variation with a DC current, (which, be definition, does not vary in time)? If the current changes, it is not constant. Constant implies it has the same value. You said "Magnetic effects are brought about by time variation."

In the simplest case where there are two possible states, the no-cloning theorem implies that the best you can do is 50% fidelity in copying an unknown state, and have no way of telling which are the duplicates and which are the anti-duplicates. And the chances of a perfect copy go down with each state you are copying. 1/2, then 1/4, then 1/8, etc. It's the binomial distribution all the way down.