Cap'n Refsmmat

There is no physical way to answer that question, because it is impossible to see the motion and behavior of a single wave-particle at all times. You can only guess. Because it has spin. Physics can tell you that the electromagnetic force exists, but can't tell you how it works. I mean, mustn't there be some physical thing pushing on the particles? Physics can tell you how gravity behaves, but it can't tell you why gravity chose to behave that way instead of any other way. And so on. However, gnome physics may be able to explain spin: http://blogs.scienceforums.net/capn/2011/02/28/gnome-physics/

In what waves? In the electron's wavefunction? I don't know that spin appears in the wavefunction at all; I don't know enough about the subject to be certain, though. Other forms of quantization can be expressed in terms of the boundary conditions imposing limitations on the waves as you described, but they usually allow for harmonics and higher-energy modes. (For example, a wave on a string is limited to certain frequencies, but it can also be any integer multiple of those frequencies.) Spin does not exhibit this behavior.

...in classical physics. There is no physical way for an electron to spin fast enough to generate the requisite magnetic field. It's that simple. Quantum physics doesn't involve spinning electrons, and it does not need spinning electrons. Physical explanations of spin also cannot account for its quantization -- there are only two possible spin states for electrons. They also cannot account for protons and electrons having the same spin, despite protons being composed of three independent particles which each have their own spin. And so on. Simply put: Physics has no need of a physical explanation of spin.

No, that's not what swansont said. Just because you don't understand how something could work does not mean it cannot work. Just because you can't see how there's no physical motion does not mean it's impossible. That won't work, because orbitals overlap. You'd end up proving that atoms can't have more than one or two electrons at all. In any case, you can have two electrons in the same orbital, so long as they have opposite spins.

As far as I know, we only move electrons in metals. You can, however, consider a flow of negative charges going one direction to be equivalent to positive charges going the other direction, for basic circuit analysis at least.

A judge's decision sets precedent. Your argument has a flawed premise: that the attorney will go to court and then sit and not argue the case. I believe the government instead will simply not send any lawyers to defend the law. An individual has the right to representation in court, even if they are obviously guilty. I don't know that the same right extends to laws.

Hm. We intentionally restricted their use so that other members cannot use modnotes, meaning that quoted modnotes won't work. I don't think there's a way to keep the restriction in place while allowing them to appear in quotes.

Electrons can have angular momentum from orbiting the nucleus, which creates a magnetic field. That is indeed a physical phenomenon. The only non-physical spin is the electron's intrinsic spin angular momentum. Atoms are also allowed to spin and vibrate.

Yes indeed. As it loses its potential energy, it'll gain kinetic energy, since it's now moving faster. So, if I have two opposite charges a distance apart, and I let them go, they'll accelerate toward each other. The kinetic energy they have when they collide is equal to the potential energy they gave up while moving toward each other. Yes! (At least, I think, since it's been a year now since I did this in class.) Of course, if you have a field caused by a positive charge, and you place a positive charge in it, the potential will change signs, out of convention.

You said: Which I interpreted as a question of probability of finding it in a certain energy state, not a certain position.

I didn't. I was pointing out that you were talking about the probability of finding an electron in a certain energy state, not a certain position. They are completely different things. There is an uncertainty relation for energy as well as position and momentum.

And the uncertainty principle applies to energy as well as position, so you can't just tie them together. I never said they weren't.

But what you mentioned was the probability of finding an electron in the ground state, which is a question of energy, not position.

A member who is unable to comment on this topic (postcount limit), Gallstones, has sent me a link to this: http://www.ipce.info...dSexuality.html

I'm reminded of one of the big Canadian defense bunkers, which was claimed to just be a "communications outpost" while under construction. A reporter was flying over and noticed they were taking delivery of dozens of toilets, which would be overkill for a communications post with a few men on duty -- and hence it was discovered to be the government's nuclear bunker. It's hard to hide bunkers.

It means vector's length is 1. If you know the dot product, it means that [math]\sqrt{\vec{v} \cdot \vec{v}} = 1[/math]. If you don't, it means that if you take a ruler and measure the vector, it'll be 1 unit long. It's convenient because you can do math with unit vectors without changing the length of your original vector. For example, in physics we might do: [math]\vec{F} = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2} \hat{r}[/math] where [math]\hat{r}[/math] is a unit vector pointing in the same direction as [math]\vec{r}[/math]. In this equation, [math]\vec{r}[/math] would be a vector pointing from one object of mass [math]m_1[/math] to another object of mass [math]m_2[/math], and [math]\vec{F}[/math] would be the gravitational force between them. If we don't use a unit vector in the equation, we end up multiplying by a vector of some random length, and we make the gravitational force vector too strong or too weak.

Firefox is not a grammar checker. Incidentally, it says it should be "whose." I just checked. I'm just pointing this out so you'll learn something, so you don't need to justify yourself. Anyway, dreams and visions were often considered valid sources for information. Also, I'm certain the first legends were not fully-formed from the beginning. There weren't prehistoric men sitting around the fire eating dinner, until one perks up and says "Gee, I bet there's a dude named Zeus who made all of this, and he had some kids, and some other gods..." No, you start small, by supposing there must be some Creator. Then, as you see how Nature behaves, you form ideas about the Creator. ("See that tornado? He must be angry.") You gradually build a coherent religion and culture one step at a time, so each piece is not so incredible as to be rejected.

"Civilisation" is the perfectly valid British/Australian form of the word, and that should be "whose," not "who's." Just saying. If you're in an ancient society, you don't know how anything works. A magical explanation that makes sense and explains why there's thunder and rain is as good as any other explanation. Why would the people doubt it?

Perhaps you should start your own topic to discuss this? I'm not sure it's directly relevant to the OP's question. Negative voltage is not directly comparable to negative temperature. Voltage measures a comparative value (potential difference), whereas temperature is an absolute value.

What's this coming solar cycle, and when will it come?

This is not the case; every defendant is entitled to appeals in federal criminal cases and in most civil cases. The Department of Justice does not have direct control over federal justices in that way. However, if a civil case is filed against the government in federal court, the Solicitor General's office must represent the government in court. The Justice Department is saying that it will no longer defend itself against certain civil cases regarding the Defense of Marriage Act. The federal judge will still carry out the trial and make a ruling, but the government will not present a case to defend the law.

The difference is that enforcing DOMA does not involve prosecutions. What it involves is not allowing gay married couples to file joint IRS returns. That will continue to be the case until someone files a civil rights lawsuit against the IRS and wins. That is to say, in criminal cases like murder, legal defense occurs automatically; lawyers are appointed and a defense is mounted before conviction ever happens. On the other hand, in DOMA, legal defenses only occur should the affected individuals file their own lawsuit. One does not automatically go to trial when filing taxes.

From my cursory Googling, here's the General Science Journal's website: http://www.wbabin.net/ Oldman: Their policy says that authors retain copyright of their papers, so you should be free to post your research wherever you want. Also, your paper can be found fairly easily by searching "constructive model" in the search box on their site. I haven't had a chance to read through it yet.

This is most certainly cultural; I think you're projecting your current feelings back on your three-year-old self. There are a number of hunter-gatherer societies in which public sex is not a problem. There are also a number of societies where sharing spouses is not a problem. Example: There are some Amazonian groups who believe that a fetus is made out of accumulated semen. Hence, a pregnant woman must continue having sex or her baby will never be born. But of course the baby will have some of the characteristics of its father, so the woman seeks out her favorite men in the tribe -- perhaps the strong ones, and the intelligent ones, and the wise ones -- and has them make "donations" to her baby's growth. The bonus is that now the entire group feels like they're partially parents of the child, and so the children run freely from house to house, and everyone takes responsibility for their well-being. They have a specific mother, but they know that everyone in the tribe will take care of them if they trip in the forest and skin their knee. Okay. Then let's modify the OP's question slightly, then: "Is it immoral to have sex in front of your children, presuming the children can walk away if they so choose?"

Given our evolutionary relation and biological similarities to promiscuous species like the bonobo, it's likely the case that our rules are the cause of some of our problems, rather than the solution. I mean, consider how bad we are at monogamy (affairs everywhere!), and how good we are at being promiscuous (ask a fraternity member). Some biology can show how we've evolved as a promiscuous species, and anthropologically, the early hunter-gatherer societies were likely promiscuous as well. Monogamy was a later cultural invention. The book I'm reading at the moment (Sex at Dawn) has the central thesis that it's our rules which run contrary to our biological nature that cause many of our problems. Easing the rules and being more open may reduce abuse and problems, rather than encouraging it.