studiot

My vacuum has nothing whatsoever to do with QM. This is a thread about Einstein, Relativity and Pre Nazi Germany. Relativity is fully compatible with Electrodynamics (or the other way round if you prefer) when the later is suitably written. Eise did point out that this was Einstein's big breakthrough.

That is just wriggling. The basic definition of the capacitance assumes an ideal vacuum.

I agree this But not this

Really? Consider the following thought experiment. Since it is a thought experiment I have the luxury of perfect (i prefer the term ideal) components. I have two perfectly conductive metal parallel plates, each of area 1 sq cm, supported in an ideal vacuum exacltly 1cm apart. They are connected, via ideal short wires, to an ideal 1V battery. Please explain mathematically (Eise did not do this) what the capacitance of this arrangement is, if as you maintain, epsilon nought is zero.

This is an even more difficult position to defend than your last version. Especially without evidence. preferably of a mathematical nature.

I think I have heard that if there is an energetic input into an atom then a constituent electron (or electrons?) will may be able to move to a higher energetic level in the atom. The process of moving to a greater energy is called excitation. Excitation does not involve dematerialisation and subsequent rematerialisation. Note I said greater energy not a higher energy level. There is a hint of an unwarranted link with geometry using the word level and higher or lower, which can lead to misunderstandings. Don't mix up levels, energy, probability and waves. Again it's the route to confused .com Treat them separately. (My advice)

Well I'm sorry to learn of your difficulties. Is there any way we can help? Also perhaps we should continue this in another thread or PM since it is a bit off topic.

I think that is a very difficult, if not impossible position to defend. In particular it would imply the 'mathematician' accepted 'instantaneous action at a distance', which Einstein certainly did not.

Not even talking books? Now would be the time to tell us what your favourites are.

Not quite the same thing, but I wondered if there was any connection? http://www.techno-preneur.net/technology/new-technologies/chemicals-tec/sodium.html

1) This looks like homework/coursework. Is it? 2) You have not specified the domains ie what are the boundary/initial conditions? 3) Is equation 3 [math]\frac{{df}}{{dt}} = - {e^{ft}}[/math] or [math]\frac{{df}}{{dt}} = - {e^{f\left( t \right)}}[/math] 4) Why is equation 2 difficult analytically? [math]\frac{{df}}{{dt}} = 2t[/math] Separate variables yields df = 2tdt and integrate Note this site provides useful superscript/subscript. You can also use exp (..) for exponentials

Thanks for the mention, I am surprised you haven't compared and contrasted Lasker with Emmy Noether. . She faced additional barriers and moved to America around the same time as Einstein. I don't know if she made any adverse4 comments to GR. Thanks for the clarification and the info. I apologise that I must have misunderstood.I thought you were branding my contribution tangential.

1) How so? and who was Rickover and what does/did he have to do with the discussion? 2) I already agreed with this point. One part of the question appears to be Was there any mathematical justification for challenge to Einstein? Well put it another way. Was the original equation for GR the same as the one we use today or the same as the one Einstein revised and later revised again? Einstein to Lemaitre in 1927/28 "Although your calculations are correct, your Physics is abominable" This was not the first time others had found gaps (not necessarily errors) in Einstein's work on GR (De Sitter and Friedman) Hindsight has allowed time to co-ordinate the subsequent inputs and the original. It should be remembered the first third of the twentieth century was rough water scientifically for GR as well as politically/ideologically for its author.

If you mean this bit, I'm sorry if I implied that the tables suggest this. There were safety paragraphs and a video/ animation in the article about not doing mix and match, which implies to me that folks do more than paint puff harder stripes on the sides of their device.

How is power that limited in normal flight? How many aircraft fly underwater? Sorry for the nits, it's good to know that such a system is coming one day.

I think this is a sound idea, in principle. +1 Especially as train and some buses in the UK do this continuously these days. And planes are supposed to be in radio contact at all times. The difficulty is that the sequence is often normal contact for part of the journey, then loss of contact, followed by some sort of incident. So any information available immediately prior to the incident would only be available on the black box recorders. How would you overcome this?

I think there are some misunderstandings here. Firstly there are several electronic ways to control power and voltage. Yes, stringjunky the user has a variable setting knob or dial. But this merely activates the control mechanism/circuitry within the device. It should be remembered that the vapours are generated by applying electrical power to a resistive heating element (called the coil by mnufacturers). The characteristics of both this coil and the liquid feed combine to determine the heating effect and vapour generation. I do not know whether vape devices in general or the OP's particular device inparticular are pulse or plain DC driven. It is likely that the thermal inertia would be too great for tight control at DC, so I would expect some form of electronic pulses to be used. The tables in the article I linked to suggest that only simple DC power is employed and that users substitute batteries and coils rather too freely.

Yes I think this may be at the root of it. The argument goes way back before 1930 to the falling out of Einstein and Lenard and the rise of the Lenard-Stark movement. The rise of the Nazis provided the vehicle for those opposed to Einstein. I have no information on Lasker.

The wattage changes, although you have some control by also changing the resistance. See here for a detailed chart and explanation. https://www.ecigarettedirect.co.uk/ashtray-blog/2014/04/electronic-cigarette-batteries-guide.html

Not from me, you didn't. In fact I gave you an upvote for a good question in another thread two days ago. I have also reversed the negative vote here with a +1 to encourage you to read 'stuff' and answer sensibly as you have just done. Now to answer your specific responses 1) I don't know of any way to measure momentum without affecting the moving object. However affecting it may be part of the experiment, for instance when objects collide observing the resulting velocities and directions of the (perhaps new or combined) bodies allows back calculation to what the momentum was at the point of impact. So for bulk objects such as a bullet fired into a block of wood, observer technique and error so far outweighs the HUP we can ignore it. But for sub atomic particles impacting singly (especially if one is destroyed) the HUP becomes significant as well as observer error. 2) In a Hadron collider we know the position of the target to incredible precision, since we put it there. But yes the spread of momenta is then wide. 3) Thank you for that acknowledgement. So for instance an example calculation in a textbook, is subject to Heisenberg Uncertainty, which cannot be due to any measurement technique. 4) Yes, there are at least two methods of measuring some properties without changing them. This is why I started that spin of thread concerning Wikipedia, which contains plain incorrect statements about this. One of the Wiki examples concerns measuring the voltae and/or current in an electric circuit. The example states, quite correctly, that if you connect up any voltmeter or ammeter you will get an incorrect reading due to inherent imperfections of the instruments. There is considerable theory available as to the significance of these errors. What is does not say is that if you choose another way to measure - called a null method - you can avoid these errors. For example you can use a nulling potentiometer to balance the voltage. Another method of measurement that does not change the (in this case position) is embodied in Eddington's famous experiment to verify General Relativity. He observed light that was bent round the Sun by gravity to observe a star that should otherwise have been hidden from view because the star's position was behind the Sun. This is a case of observation/ no observation not changing the star's position. I expect there are other go/nogo situations that could be thought of. So do you not think conversation and cooperation is better and more productive for all concerned than ignoring ?

Indeed so. Indeed so. The product (it must be a product) variables have the dimensions ML2T-1 so it can easily be seen that momentum x position = MLT-1 x L energy x time = ML2T-2 x T satisfy this. What you have not understood is that it is only such pairs of variables that come unde the HUP> Measuring or calculating other properties do not. The measuring process may or may not change the particle, but any such change is additional to the HUP . No the HUP also applies to calculated theoretical values, where not only is no measurement ever made, but the particle may not actually ever exist at all. It is so disappointing to have received a big fat raspberry to my attempts to help.

Excellent point. +1

But some parts are just plain old fashioned wrong and some parts give the wrong impression because they are not specific. Why, for instance pick out QM, which has a well publicised 'Uncertainty Principle' ? So yes, read it carefully skeptically, then burn after reading, Ethan Hunt.

Thank you for that correction. (and the translation) +1 I thought that the numbers were losses, not survivors since I had understood that most of the losses came towards the end of the return trip as the weather became colder. But either way, the losses were truly staggering.

No I have never heard of this map before. But it is an interesting example of graphic display of vainglorious loss of life. I could not determine from the text, but I assume that black going and light buff is returning ? It is interesting also because the map is dated Paris 1869, but France (but not Russia) converted to the metric system in 1790 and the Celsius scale whilst Russia remained on the Reaumur till much later. Millimetres were used in the distance scale I see. It does however show that direction along an axis is a convention that we can choose.