studiot

Sigh I had really hoped that you would become a solid contributor. Sadly it seems I was mistaken. Been nice talking to you

I understand, thanks but no thanks.

Actually you did since you claimed simple 'the laws of Physics'. Since you made no exceptions or distinctions it must include all laws, including the conservation laws. A couple of years a go now I posted here a derivation of mechanical energy and momentum conservation laws based on the fact that we can arrive at an equation for an isolated system where these conserved quantities equal a constant. This is not proof by induction. If anyone can remember that that thread I would be grateful for a link.

First let me state quite clearly. QM and GR are not necessarily incompatible. Indeed they work quite well together in some cases. But as you point out they are different systems of thought. Now I digress a little to quote from your excellent thread in the science education section. I do not know what you mean by technology, but if you mean IT then you may find my offering easier to follow. Eddington's book S, T & G is an excellent book and you will find nothing actually incorrect in it. But it is almost one hundred years old now, and predated modern QM by a couple of decades. Up to the 1930s, work on QM was based exclusively on extending classical non-relativistic mechanics to derive mathematically the observed phenomenon of quantisation. Then in 1928 and through the 1930s Dirac introduced relativistic wave equations to replace the schrodinger equation. Developments have gone on ever since. Now quantisation arises quite naturally in the solution of energy equations like schrodinger, which ignores gravitational forces as small compared to the electrostatic ones operating inside the atom. But there are no (known) relativistic equations operating under gravity alone that result in quantisation in their solution. So the big question is Is gravity quantised, which under GR is effectively asking are space and time quantised or to put it another way are they granular? Moving on a hundred years form Eddington we are still asking this question. And an interesting modern book edited by Professor Shahn Majid explores where we are with this question. If you understood S, T & G you will be able to follow this. On Space and Time Shahn Majid Cambridge University Press 2008 Now asked if you were in IT since they have moved from the classic mathematics of continuity (analog computers) to discrete systems (digital computers) Which is a parallel change. The other big difference between QM and GR is the introduction of probability. GR is a totally deterministic system of 'continuous' mathematics, using all the apparatus of topological continuity. QM has a (highly successful) interpretation in terms of probability theory. although it is often misapplied. There are no probabilities in GR Does this help ? If you need clarification of anything (in particular I assume you understand when I say quantisation), please ask.

As a matter of interest I always preach the gospel of cooperation over confrontation. I try to practise it as well. Nobody knows everything or is right all the time. Clever people putting their heads together can demonstrate the old adage Two heads are better than one. Since I started this you have added confrontational material to your last post. I can be a smart ass too. How is cooperation to be achieved between two people speaking different languages ? Surely it is better they use the same 'dictionary'. In the interests of a level playing field I recommend a 'standard' written by a third party. Since you make unsupported claims to know the derivations of 'the laws of physics' I would be grateful if you would display or refer me to the derivations of the conservation laws for mechanical energy, linear and angular momentum. I have no idea of the relevance of the quote you append to your reply to me as it does not address anything I have said.

+1 I will add flagrantly flouting the rules here to that

It seems a pity that no one has mentioned direct interaction between (inspiring) people. When I was around 11 plus age I wrote to Patrick Moore (not Sir, just plain in those days) about the greenhouse effect and ended up with a very illuminating and inspiring correspondence.

I must profoundly disagree with you here. There are no axioms in Physics, theoretical or otherwise. In Physics you will find Principles, eg 'The Principle of Relativity' Principles are the nearest Physics gets to axioms. But then Physics is quite different from Mathematics (and Logic) which have axioms. Axioms cannot be derived or proved. The best one can do is to establish self consistency with other axioms and derived lemmas and theorems. That is how they work in Maths and Philosophy. In Physics the equivalent of derived theorems are derived laws. For instance 'Conservation of Mechancial Energy' can be derived from the Principles of Mechanics. This derivation can be achieved in more than one way, not all of these ways having an equivalent in axiomatic systems like Maths.

Gosh can you not read ? I said before that it depends upon the conditions. So I posted conditions where they are the same and conditions where they are not the same.

There you go again laying down the law about something you do not properly understand. I already offered you proper scientific discussion about this in the other thread you started this morning, but you appear to have declined. It is instructive to consider the following chemical compounds. 1) CH3.CH3 and Ch3.CH2.CH3 and 2) CH3.COOH and CH3.CH2.COOH In the first pair the carbon atoms in the first molecule are chemically 'the same' but in the second molecule the centre carbon is slightly different from the other two. In the second pair none of the carbon atoms are 'the same'.

Do we need two threads (or is it three if we include the closed one) on this subject from the same author ? What makes them different ?

You are becoming a useful member, keep it up. +1 🙂 'The same' is too vague an expression to be useful. It depends totally upon circumstances. So the answer is not always. Try indistinguishable or interchangeable as the most useful. I am perfectly happy to hold a meaningful discussion on the whys and wherefores of this, but I will not participate in a repetition of the last thread.

Discussed but not answered. (I am still waiting for an answer to when I put this question)

Just looked in at half time. Lots of replies I see, but the score on my simple question (which is the key to whether or not a chemical outcome will repeat) remains stubbornly like the England - Germany score nil - nil.

+1 I also would to know why expressing a hope that something helps is considered sarcastic as I often append such a statement following an explanation because I consider it encouraging.

Yes thanks for sharing +1 I guess that there have been many routes to our present situations. I rather breezed through the low quality and frankly boring science available a decade earlier It was not until upper high school that I really got going with the physical sciences. The culture in primary and lower high school and the wider society in southern England at that time was not exactly anti-scinece, just disinterested in the subject. I only really got enthused by the physical geography we covered. Outside school I had the public library (I could borrow my mother's adult ticket) where most of the 'science' sections consisted of biographies and the Odhams children's encyclopedia, which I can't praise enough. and Leonardo de Vries' Book of Experiments.

I agree +1 @Andrew William Henderson Do you know what a complex reaction is and the difference between a complex reaction and a combination of reactions ?

Further hard information available here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57651025

Sure A simple typographic error due to haste. Apologies. This should read A material process couple can be conceptual only.

More deflective smoke and mirrors. Where exactly did I say that science demonstrates the proof of some claim or indeed anything about 'truth' ? Not so. A material process couple be conceptual only. I made no such claim, however (as I do not live in Alaska) when I 'cook' ice cream I remove energy I do not supply it.

So you can't support your claim and mentioning conservation was just an attempt at misdirection ?

Why not ? I could split water to get hydrogen and oxygen and then burn them together to get water and then split the water to get hydrogen and oxygen... in an endless cycle. It would require (generate actually) exactly the same heat each time I did it. And the result is exactly the same every time I do it - Nature is more consistent and accurate that human ropemakers. And you still have not responded to my much longer comment, do I need to report this rule breaking to get an answer ?

1) Which conservation law ? 2) So in your estimation anything at all does not include immaterial objects, such as shadows ?

That may be so (although you haven't demonstrated it). However it does not follow from this that immaterial processess require the material objects.

Since you have been rude enough to ignore my comment and question, I will be forthright. This is a complete falsehood. Every time I burn hydrogen in oxygen I get water. Physics and Chemistry tell me that I cannot get any thing else. However you are correct that some actions cannot be repeated. For instance If I measure the breaking load of a particular piece of rope, by breaking it, I cannot repeat that exact measurement, but only make similar ones, just as you say.