studiot

Yes there are several differences between the the quantum wave function and classical travelling waves. Understanding the Maths is good but also needed is a mental picture of the Physics and making sure they correlate. So classical waves are distributed in space and time so that they interfere at a point in space when two interfering waves meet at the same place at the same time. Two plane waves can interfere, as happens on the surface of the oceans, and you get diagonal patterns depending upon the angle of incidence of one wave to the other. These appear as diagonal stripes on an intersecting surface. They do not build up in time as a quantum wave does (see below) Two circular waves can also interfere and you get segmented radial and circumferential patterns which intersect a screen in the familiar 'two slits interference pattern' Again these are static in time. Quantum 'waves' on the other hand are not travelling waves insofar as they extend to the boundaries (or infinity) at all times. It's just that the amplitude of the 'wave' may be very tiny indeed in some places. Travelling particles, such as electrons may be modelled by neoclassical 'pilot waves' in some versions. In any event they are travelling disturbances in the quantum field which exists all around Interference happens slightly differently in that you need a 'timed exposure plate' to capture the hit pattern of say electrons fired through two slots. This is what I mean by the quantum interference pattern builds up in time as a result of many electrons passing through. One or two electrons will not give you an interference pattern, (I know there are some experiments where the observer can look for quantum or look for particle solutions), but many electrons will.

Mathematical equations may or may not correspond to physical situations. Unfortunately they seem rather disconnected in this thread. So I am at a loss to know where you are trying to go with this. I will wait to hear the result of your 'assimilation' before commenting further.

Thank you for your interest. Really ? look here for the first fully documented event in 1859 when the 'shield' was up Mr Sulu https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=B5ffXaGJJMXTkwXb86fABQ&q=the+carrington+event+1859&oq=The+carrington+event&gs_l=psy-ab.1.2.0l10.2088.5776..9326...0.0..0.630.3502.3j4j1j2j1j2......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i131.VF7aCOQuJXI And the recent near miss in 2012 https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=solar+storm+of+2012&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjU7K-3z4zmAhWPTsAKHWBbCW4Q1QIoB3oECBIQCA&biw=1366&bih=646 Perhaps discussion of the Earth's magnetic field is taking the thread off topic. If so my apologies to the moderators, perhaps they might consider splitting the thread ? Meanwhile to answer the title statement in this thread. Yes any climate model that omits (serious) consideration of magnetic effects on climate will be in error possibly serious error. The electric storm of 1852 (reported by Sir Edward Sabine) The Carrington event 1859 The Quebec storm 1989 The Halloween event 2003 The 2012 event

Depends upon who is looking at them. And all inertial frames extend throught all space. i.e. they cover the same region.

Maybe, but I think there is something deeper. See what you make of Petrucci's figures.

Do you have references for this? Apparently we have assumed this since the first measurements a couple of hundred years ago. But the latest figures show that full reversal could occur in less than 100 years. The short answer is - we just don't know. But we do know that the magnetic field is currently declining rapidly. Reead this book, just published. The Spinning Magnet Alanna Mitchell. It's not perfect but she has done a lot of work researching the history of human research into the Earth's field and has lots of references at the end.

I'm not sure about boiling down but to answer this question, Superpositions are combinations of possible solutions to the quantum wave equation. Because this equation is a partial differential equation its solutions contain arbitrary functions (not constants like an ordinary differential equation). Possible solutions depend upon the boundary conditions as well as the equation itself. The equation itself does not change so the boundary conditions must change.

Thanks for the data so far, what were the concentrations you used? I have been working through your figures. No you have not made an arithmetical error. But the slope of your graph is 0.026 and it should be 0.012 I haven't figured out why yet, but I'm working on it. Meanwhile here is some data from someone (Petrucci - General Chemistry) who has done your experiment. Note that he changes from naperian logs to base 10 logs and also has a much wide range of concentrations. Also example 19.5 in the middle of the page is nothing to do with the rest of the page.

It is often better to use a term like 'sense' or 'polarity' or even just 'sign' for positive / negative rather than 'direction' in technical stuff. Especially for those objects that have a built in use of a particular meaning of the word direction.

Well even in classical physics no screen is 100% opaque however thick the screen, which means some photons will pass right through. The problem with moving the screen back and adding new slits in front is that you need the screen to observe interference. Also the wave approaching the first set of slits approximates a plane wave, whereas the wave after the slits approximates a spherical wave approaching the second set. So you have already changed the conditions of the experiment. Further in a quantum experiment you have the added complication that the quantum wave function extends to infinity beyond the screen, even if the probability is very very tiny. This is, of course, fully compatible with swanson't earlier comment that it is the state not the wavefunction itself that disappears.

Well I would hope for more. We can't fix the results of being struck by lightning, but we would also be foolish not to take shelter from a thunderstorm. We can't stop geomagnetic reversals but we can take cognisance of the real and present danger to our whole society the scientific measurements suggest, and start to build in safeguards and contingency plans.

Not all vectors have a sign, for example the position vector. Strictly speaking the vector -v is a different vector than v, if both exist.

Having a sign or not having a sign does not make something a vector, neither does it prevent something being one. You yourself have already posted statements acknowledging this, unless you can convince me that a square root satisfies the 9 vector axioms.

Energy has dimensions ML2T-2 And Mass has dimensions M So they are not the same Furthermore 'energy' has no meaning before the 'big bang' since its definition includes Time. There is a conversion equivalent, using a suitable constant (with suitable dimensions), just as there is a conversion equivalent between £ sterling and $ dollars US. But no one would suggest they are identical. I didn't say anything about energy fields. I said Fields. Finally 'absurd' is a rant for the sensationalist press, it is not a serious scientific term.

Maybe this answer was too simple, I was just hoping since you are looking for a factor of 2. I highlighted where is says the EMF of the complete cell is the algebraic sum of the two electrodes. But one is positive and one negative so the difference between them is twice their magnitude. How did you connect your measuring apparatus ? And what is measured along the bottom scale (x axis) on your graph - it is obscured on your attachment.

+1 I still like Eddington's interpretation that it is the configuration, set up as a network of links composed of invariants between points, that is important, not the frame-subjective distances and times.

There is no such thing as 'just energy'. Energy is a property of Matter and Fields; it does not exist on its own.

The deluge of papers on Climate Change v the trickle of papers on the issues I mentioned. For instance whoever supplied the information to the publication in the OP. Upon reflection, I should have said some scientists or all too many scientists, as clearly we have the hard scientific measurements obtained from the for example the SWARM satellites and the discovery of the South Atlantic Anomaly and this has taken properly focused scientists to measure and report. Sorry for the loose wording.

Since you have the factor of 2 (electrons transferred) in your calculations I wonder how you measured the voltage, ie what was your zero point since the cell voltage is double the calculated Nernst EMF, as described in the attachments.

Sadly the scientists are amongst those generating the noise that is drowning out sensible discussion on the subject. In particular climate change is not the worst or most imminent disaster we are facing. From the side of Natural forces, the Earth's rapidly declining magnetic field is more worryring and may be impossible (for us) to fix. From the side of own goals (self inflicted disasters) the destruction of arable land is also more imminent and harder to fix.

And? What is your point ?

A little bit of editing required ?

Hi Harry, It says you posted your results on Wednesday, but didn't say which Wednesday.! Anyway I haven't noticed these before but will try to look at them. I will be away tomorrow all day so it won't be befor tomorrow evening I'm afraid. Look then.

I think you will be (mis) remembering the part where Einstein showed that time dilation/ length contraction is zero at right angles to the direction of travel and increases to its full value as the direction vector rotates to become parallel to the direction of motion. I think Janus has linked to some striking videos showing the results of this effect.

I see, thank you. You have good English so why did you not say all this at the beginning? There are several things you still haven't mentioned such as where did you get this eqaution and why are you not using a simple harmonic oscillator. You say your interest is in calculating a velocity but you haven't indicated your level in Mathematics (or Physics) although you have posted this in the Mathematics section, not the Physics one. So here (assuming you know what a differential equation is) is some mathematics. Take your basic equation [math]m\frac{{{d^2}x}}{{d{t^2}}} - Kx + AK{x^3} = 0[/math] Make these substitutions for the constants m, A and K [math]K = - am[/math] [math]AK = bm[/math] Then the equation becomes [math]\frac{{{d^2}x}}{{d{t^2}}} + ax + b{x^3} = 0[/math] Rearrange and multiply through by [math]2\frac{{dx}}{{dt}}[/math] [math]2\frac{{dx}}{{dt}}\frac{{{d^2}x}}{{d{t^2}}} = 2\frac{{dx}}{{dt}}\left( {ax - b{x^3}} \right)[/math] Integrate [math]{\left( {\frac{{dx}}{{dt}}} \right)^2} = C - a{x^2} - \frac{1}{2}b{x^4}[/math] and note that [math]\frac{{dx}}{{dt}} = {\rm{velocity}}[/math] You do not have to solve the equation to find the velocity as shown above. You can also find the velocity by Physics arguments, noting that my rearrangement is basically formulating Newton's second law and that the velocity is the integral of the acceleration and at a max when the acceleration is zero. Your equation itself is knows as Duffing's Equation, which is why I wondered why you chose it. This is a non linear equation that appears in several guises, not the least Chaos theory where another form of solution is used by plotting the complex phase plane response. Further forms of solution using Fourier series are also possible and used in Mechanics considering masses vibrating against special non linear springs. It is a good equation to discuss but I think you will have difficulty applying it to Special Relativity.