MigL

So you think 'Quantum Physics' is the new catch-phrase to attract attention to your ideas and your book ?? Your post has nothing to do with the science of Quantum Physics. Merry Christmas.

1-Nothing ???? So as soon as you get to the most distant point ( from what ? ) and cross it you have a new most distant point ??? Nonsense. 2-Anyone on this forum can give you examples of unbounded lines, surfaces, volumes or higher dimensional topologies which are finite, You made the argument that in this case there is no difference; explain to us what is special about this case. The Greeks and Aristotle for all their mathematical advancements, were also very lacking in certain areas of math such as limiting values and infinitesimal changes ( the basis of calculus since the 1600s ( Newton and Liebnitz ). If you're familiar with Zeno's paradox, you'll realise that for them, theoretically at least, motion from point A to point B was impossible,; you would never get there. And for all their Euclidian geometry, they had no knowledge of curved geometries as developed in the 1700s and put on firm footing by Riemann and Poincare in the 1800s. These ideas are extremely important to modern Cosmology, as General Relativity tells us space-time curves under the influence of energy and momentum. I don't discredit their advancements, but I don't anyone bases current science on 2500 yr old ideas. Have a Merry Christmas.

I think your perception of gluons is mistaken. That's not how they bind nucleons or quarks.

Anyone who considers the universe BOUNDED as simong does when he asks what the furthest point is expanding into needs to do two things. 1-Explain what is on the other side of the boundary. 2-Learn the difference between bounded and finite. As for Aristotle and his Greek buddies, he may have been way ahead of his contemporaries and even a lot of followers until the Renaissance, but surely we're not going to base modern science on 2500 yr old ideas.

Matter and anti-matter both have the property of mass, and since it is impossible to have negative or anti-mass, they both behave gravitationally similarily. Matter and anti-matter may ( but don't have to ) both have the property of charge, and would behave electromagnetically in a similar fashion, ie, like charges repell, opposite charges attract. Matter and antimatter, whether composite or elementary ( such as protons or quarks ) have colour properties and so interact via the strong nuclear force similarily. The only instance of dissimilar behaviour between matter and anti-matter is the weak nuclear force where chirality or 'handedness' is not symmetric.

Aviation buff ? Typhoons may not have been built in numbers comparable to Hurricanes, but the European war was nearly over by the time it entered service. It was a much more powerful machine ( size, speed etc.) and was in service in the middle east ( Egypt I believe ) well into the 50s. Britain's new protector ( and Germany's. Italy's and Spain's ) is the Eurofighter Typhoon.

And bound only by gravitation !!!

My thinking also, swansont.

Two kinds of symmetries, global and gauge. Global symmetries, by Noether's theorem, conserve currents and give rise to our conservation laws. They invoke symmetry betwen two different states. Gauge symmetries, on the other hand, are symmetries between the same state, but measured a different way A gauge field, like the electromagnetic, is any field where this kind of symmetry applies. I hope that's a little clearer than mud ( really hard to put into words ).

Or maybe I confused typhoons with cyclones. My apologies.

There is a calculation which considers each point in space as a harmonic oscillator ( doesn't everything in physics ? ) , then using suitable boundary conditions, comes up with a vacuum energy value which is 120 orders of magnitude higher than expected, Obviously something is wrong here !

Really ? Tell it to black holes .

Electrons are fermions and as such, obey Fermi-Dirac statistics. I always assumed ( ie I'm probably wrong ) that they paired up in superconductors, such that spins are additive. The paired 'particle' is then equivalent to a spin 1 boson and can follow the rules of Bose-Einstein statistics.

The modern definition of a quantum particle is given by Quantum Field Theory. It is not a classical particle or a wave, or even a combination of the two. It is an excitation of a quantized gauge field. In QCD the 'colour' field ( not sure of this terminology ) is quantized, giving rise to quarks as excitations. It would be interesting to see how confinement, such that quarks are not separable, but must be bound to two others ( in a proton or neutron ), would be handled by particles or waves ????

Thankyou for granting your permission Enthalpy. My understanding of QM is based on study, not philosophical considerations or newspaper articles. My understanding is that you would rather preach than discuss.

You still haven't grasped that there is a vast difference between classical particles and Quantum Particles. Look up the definition.

I don't think of QM as obscure nor do I wish to make it so. Classical particles and waves are in no way representative of Quantum Particles. Except in some very specific circumstances.

What are your thoughts on Mayor Rob Ford's crack cocaine scandal in Toronto Canada ? He has admitted smoking crack but hasn't been charged for any crime. City council has stripped him of his mayoral powers and appointed an unelected mayor. Has democracy and the will of the people been usurped ? Should a new election have been called instead ? With a high probability of Ford being re-elected due to his popular policies.

Yes ! Hah, if you don't need to provide proof neither do I. But if you ever do decide to, start with the photoelectric effect and work your way up to the present.

Come on Enthalpy, you know exactly what I'm talking about. The wave function gives us all the information about a quantum particle, but this information is probabilistic in nature. It may tell us that an electron has a high probability of being found here, but also a diminished probability of being found at a different location. This is sometimes used to explain tunnelling.

Well since we are off topic... At my place of employment we use parallel tube coriolis flow meters, and the deflection of the tubes is definitely not trivial swansont. It is of large enough magnitude to make these meters among the more reliable and accurate flow meters available. But what does this have to do with typhoons and galaxies ?

Thanks for the clarifications swansont and StringJunky.

Keep in mind that a wave function does NOT describe a particle or a wave. It describes a probability distribution.

I don't think he's a troll, I think he's absolutely right. A quantum particle is not a wave or a classical particle. When you do an experiment to detect wave-like behaviour, a quantum particle exhibits it. When you do an experiment to detect particle-like behaviour it exhibits it also. Is it a classical particle or a wave? It could be a 'combination' of both... or neither !

I always thought pantheory's explanation was the right one Ophiolite. Typhoons and hurricanes rotate in opposite directions in northern and southern hemispheres, just like your sink or toilet bowl, due to Coriolis effects ( radial movement in a rotating frame of reference ), hence the different nomenclature. Do you have a reference, I'd really like to know if its just an east/west thing?