studiot

One of the earliest questions asked was How do I light a fire? That is a Physics question. Should I light a fire?, why light a fire? and many more are not Physics questions since Physics does not deal with motivation (the why question) or morality .

Well I don't think that is a poor analogy, though obviously every analogy is imperfect. Classically if a third person places each face (without noting which is which) in a separate sealed envelope, that surely is as near as a classical model can get?

The curvature is a local phenomenon, which means it varies from point to point in spacetime and can be determined with reference to nearby points in spacetime. However remember the fourth axis of spacetime is ct not time. This has the dimension of length, and units of metres. So, unlike Strange's example where the radius arm points to a common point in 3D spacetime, there is no such common centre in 5D spacetime. The radius arm at every point in our 4D manifold extends in a different direction in the mathematical 5D spactime. So long as this doesn't give the impression that the radius is somehow in 'time'. Which brings me back to my OP calculation (in metres). Still no takers?

Suppose you made a coin by pressing together a tail face and a head face. You have effectively entangled these two faces. Now suppose you split the faces and took one to the other end of the universe, leaving the other face behind with a friend, but sealed in an envelope. If you friend then opens the envelope he will instantly know which face you have taken, but he will not know until he opens the envelope. This is a model of how entanglement works.

Unless that purpose was less than straightforward. +1

You didn't make clear if these motors are part of the vehicle system (eg hydraulic pump) or extra equipment you plug in (eg mounted camera rotator). In aircraft a 400Hz supply is often used because the higher the frequency the smaller and lighter the motors and transformers. Frequency drives? Is this to vary the speed of the motor? You did mention safety not filtering? Filtering? Does this mean your drive circuitry is square or pulsed wave? How about incorporating some better filtering? Gyrators? High value capacitances also readily available these days. You also need to consider the possibility of fault conditions energising exposed metal parts at supply voltage and the possibility of sparks.

To get entangled, those particles must have been together on the same side of the universe at some time. So how long did it take to get separated by a whole universe? What are the chances of something happening to disentangle them in that time? So how practical is this proposition?

Whilst I have some reservations helping you with this, as you should not be working on 230 volt circuitry unless you or someone in your team has the competence, I will offer a couple of pointers. The Earth is not part of the working 230V AC circuitry and is, in fact not used in mobile equipment. Instead you should employ double insulation methods throughout. What is not clear is the purpose of the 230V circuitry. Is it a permanent installation supplying some on board equipment or is it providing a connection point for portable equipment?

New evidence? And what about existing evidence?

Indeed the evidence supports the view that most are not like our own. Have you ever sought out any evidence?

Is that because he has two ffs to his name? Perhaps I should start a thread entitled Who is Jeff Bezos? (because I heave never heard of the bozo)

Sounds interesting but I have never heard of it. Do you have any references? I note this is in homework help. Did you really mean to post it here?

There are few known algebraic solutions to Schroedinger's equation. One of these is for a single particle translating freely in space. I don't know who first derived this one or if it was available to Schroedinger, so would appreciate in information abouy that part. Anyway we don't usually use this solution since it contains an enormous number of states, even for a single particle, and 0.5 mv2 is much easier to use. However think about the cat and its particles. All the particles are travelling in the same direction with the same velocity and appropriate KE. Is this superposition? Or is it a form of coherence? Now put the cat into a first class berth on a rocket to Alpha Centauri. The cat is now in a box, with the same velocity and KE. Now put the cat in Shroedinger's box within the spaceship. What, if anything, has changed?

The atomic clock running at different rates is very likely entirely due to altitude alone. Again, you are introducing unnecessary factors and not observing Occam's Razor. What do you mean by the term altitude? What do you understand its relationship to sea level to be?

The bonding chemistry of the first collection (I won't use group because that has a special significance in Chemistry) is basically about s and p orbitals. The second collection introduces the possibility of d orbitals as well. Having said that, the ability of Carbon bond with itself is the basis of forming the myriad of complex molecules you refer to. We are just beginning to explore the ability of Silicon and a few other elements to do the same. Here is a short piece that may be of interest.

Pity you misread what I wrote. I did not ask for a list of formulae. Nor did I ask about any other field. I asked how to determine any and all the members of your field. This is necessary to show that your field does or does not satisfy the field axioms. Membership of one particular field does not confer any status whatsoever in respect of a different field. For example 1 and 0 are members of the field R. They are also non-negative integers (which do not constitute a field). They are also members of what I understand to be the smallest possible field, which has exactly two members. What I do not understand (because you haven't told me) is what are all the members of your field.

Then you are denying what actually happens in the experiment. According to many worlds, there is a world where there is a decayed nucleus and a dead cat. In this universe there is no live cat or undecayed version of that particular nucleus. There is also a different universe with a live cat, an undecayed nucleus but no dead cat. This principle goes right back to Bohr who originated the idea, and followed through Everett and Wheeler and then DeWitt.

I'm sorry but that did not answer my question. You need to provide some unambiguous method of specifying all the elements of field, against which I can test any candidate object as in the field or not. The two usual ways of achieving this are by formula or by a list.

Indeed, my apologies, you have the correct integegral. it is really difficult to get this stupid editor to do what I want. Nevertheless was it sufficient answer to your question? Don't they use square dollars in the Lone Square State?

Adiabatic solely restricts heat transfer, not a general energy transfer. Wiki will do for this. Note they say without transfer of heat or matter, but specifying matter is unneccessary as you can't transfer matter without bringing in some heat with it.

I second Mordred's comment in that other thread. Keep it up +1

Is what a field?

Superposition refers to states not things. I believe swansont has already mentioned this. The point about many worlds is that most of the states do not exist in our world. Hence the many worlds label. These states always exist, regardless of event in our world. So there is no collapse to a particular state. Superposition (as in Engineering) requires all the states to exist together, as they do in my example of molecular bonding. Have you heard of the LCAO method in Chemistry? (Linear combination of atomic orbitals) It is the simplest attempt to derive bonding from the states of individual atoms by superposition.

No it is calculated from the deviation of starlight passing the Sun, as observed by Eddington.

How does many worlds explain superposed phenomena in this world, for instance chemical bonding? Superposition is not a feature of many worlds, it is a feature of Copenhagen.