Severian

A universe with integer dimension would be one that had either 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 ... and so on dimensions. A universe with no-integer dimension would have a number lying between these, such as 5.9, or 3.2.

Where do these crackpots come from? What attracts them to science? Do you think they really believe the things they say (is it a mental health problem)? Or are they just deliberately trying to mislead and confuse?

Absolutely!

Not quite. The correct expression would be: Joules divided by Kilograms are equivalent to metres-squared per second-squared.

That isn't even a sentence.

I do think that the OP makes a valid point. If you take the simple minded extrapolation of GR as a description of gravity and wind back the clock to the big bang, you will indeed find that you get energy densities large enough to create a black hole. So it is not a very consistent theory. The crucial point in the above though is that this is a simple minded extrapolation. GR is a classical theory with no quantum mechanics in it. As things move towards a point (going backward in time) we will eventually have to take quantum mechanics (the physics governing things at very small distances) into account. Unfortunately, at this time we do not have a working theory of quantum gravity, so we cannot do this yet. Having said that, this is not really what the big bang model is about. The quantum effects are only relevant for the first very very tiny time interval, and after that GR is a good enough approximation to gravity. The big bang model is really describing how things happened after this initial period of uncertainty, and it does a very good job. Indeed, that is really all we can do. At this stage, any speculation as to what came before is just... speculation.

You can see them in sunlight too. The atmosphere absorbs very particular wavelengths leaving very distinct absorption lines in sunlight. They are known as Fraunhofer lines, and were seen long before they were explained.

Groan

Severia

OK - I have now purchased this universe. Your rent is due on Monday.

The lines that you see are either emission lines or absorption lines - they are the at the wavelength of the photons which are absorbed or emitted from the atom. The boundary conditions on the (single) electron in the atom insist that the possible energies it can take are quantised, and the emission of a photon comes about by the electron falling down from one energy level to another. Since there are multiple energy levels (though only one electron to fit in these levels) you will see emission lines corresponding to all possible differences in the levels.

Its not unreasonable. Give them seven weeks to cool down. If they still want to get rid of him after seven weeks, then they will. Sometimes important decisions should be taken with care, rather than on the spur of the moment.

In my opinion, we should simply regard space and time as a "rule" for determining a "distance" between two events. So all events have a particular property with respect to any other event called "distance" and how these distances are related is give by the "rule" of space-time (e.g. a Minkowski metric). The bending of space-time is then simply an alteration of this rule.

Incest has no genetic consequences if one of the parties is sterilized. I also don't see the problem with implicit bias in laws. We do that all the time. The example I gave earlier was public nudity, which is implictly biased against nudists.

It is directly analogous to same sex marriages. Notice that there is no ban on gay marriages - just same sex marriages. The entire population is being denied the right to have a same sex marriage, not just gay people. Two straight men can't get married either. In fact, you are being implicitly prejudiced in your viewpoint, because you are assuming that same sex marriages would only be taken up by homosexuals. So would you be OK with brother-sister marriages if they opted for voluntary sterilization first? Well, I am not American (and I realise this is a discussion about US law), so maybe my opinion doesn't count, but, in my opinion, that is just bullshit. Marriage is a completely artificial societal construct. Fair enough to enshire the right of association and possibly long term monogamous relationships, but marriage and all its associated cultural baggage is going too far.

A more interesting question would be to do it quantum mechanically. Set V=0 in the sphere and V infinite outside the sphere, and then enforce Schrodinger's Equation on the wavefunction. Off the top of my head, the angular distribution will be spherical harmonics, while the radial equation is just like the 1-dimensional infinite square well, but with a centrifugal barrier (which depends on the angular momentum of the particular harmonic).

That is not what chiral means though, at least in the parlance of particle physics. Chiral means that they have different interactions based on their spin (in a particular direction). Photons are not chiral since their interactions (electromagnetic) treat all polarizations equally. In contrast, all known fermions are chiral since the weak interaction only couples to left handed particles (and all known fermions interact weakly).

I don't see how that is any different to many illegal acts, such as public nudity. How does public nudity cause harm? Or for that matter, incest. Why can't a man marry his sister? (The argument that the union may create a child with genetic disorders is invalid since a yet-to-be-conceived child has no rights.) Or polygamy? I also don't think marriage is a right at all. How I consider your relationship is my business, not yours. Consequently, I consider it a violation for the state to recognize any relationship on my behalf. (That of course includes heterosexual marriage too though.)

Quantum mechanics tells us that the position state wavefunctions of all the particles making up your body have "tails" which are on the other side of the wall. So if you wait long enough, you will just spontaneously appear on the other side of the wall. Try it! It's fun!

How do you know? It might well do. It would be very interesting if it does.

Ah, but do they get a tax break?

I am not interested in the legal definition of harm, since it has nothing to do with this discussion (it is a straw man). Look at it this way. Legalizing gay marriage changes society. Now either you think that change is a good thing or you think it is a bad thing. If you think it is a bad thing then society (the world you live it) has been "harmed". This is so self evident that we shouldn't even be discussing it. The only question is, should the "harm" of a bigoted intolerant individual be preferred over the "harm" of a gay couple?

No, it was just a random post.

Well, harm is a point of view. Acceptance of homosexuality obviously alters our society, and if you live in that society and think it is the worse for it, then it is harm.

That should not be used as an argument to promote (or even condone) homosexuality (not saying you are though). It is a bad argument. We are all members of the same society, and no matter whether you like it or not, whatever I do effects you and whatever you do effects me. If you want to argue for tolerance of homosexuality you should do it from a standpoint of love, tolerance and human liberty.