studiot

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.

Which is exactly what I have done and you have yet to answer. It was only a simple question as well.

A subjective answer in Science? Yes agreed, which I why I am suggesting a spin off thread, without the OP question to answer. That was the whole point of my posted article from Dr Gribben (who put it so well thought). We do not have a single explanation/model that covers all bases. But trying to understand something in terms of a mdoel which does not cover the base in point is futile. I didn't say there were, I said it was claimed to be impossible to know if the radioactive nucleus had decayed.

With respect, that's sitting on the fence, not an answer to the OP. The interpretation in question is the Copenhagen Interpretation. The cat is a proposed example of the use/application of that interpretation, stated by its author as intended to show the limits if not the flakiness of Copenhagen. Given that how can Copenhagen help understand the supplied example? The obvious conclusion is that Copenhagen is inadequate to explain/describe all instances of quantum behaviour. As to the basis, Copenhagen is founded on superposition. I think the example requires HUP. Otherwise why is it impossible to know the state? such a restriction does not appear in Copenhagen & superposition itself. There are further issues which I was considering developing in a separate thread, if anyone is interested.

One thing you haven't told us. Is your pdf given by a formula or is it a tabulation of values? You should also look up sheppard's correction https://www.google.com/search?q=sheppards+correction&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b

Metres4 is a 'section property', called Moment of Inertia by structural engineers, materials engineers and the like. The fourth power arises because it is defined as the Integral the product of an area and the square of its distance from the pivot axis. For a given shape [math]{I_x} = \int {{y^2}} dA[/math] Where Ix is the Moment of inertia of the shape about the x axis dA is a small (differential parcel of area of the shape y is the distance of that area from the x axis This section property appears in formulae involving bending in beams etc. Here is a table for various shapes of cross section. Note that the formulae involve four lengths multiplies together to get the fourth power. Does this help? Funnily enough Prometheus is currently doing a grand job helping a new member with some statistics. Moments of area are also used in statistics.

This is a speculations forum and it is wise to make careful distinction between a proposal/hypothesis and a statement of fact. Note the difference between the way I put my comment and yours which implies fact. "What if" methods are good for studying the consequences of a speculation in order to find testable consequences. I agree with Mordred that your last post becomes increasingly rambling as it progresses. You still have not answered my question about orthogonality. It is not a trick question.

To come back to the Original question, The short answer is yes except that Shrodinger's Cat is not an interpretation. Application might be a better word? Here is some very cogent thinking from John Gribbin. I have highlighted the important part for this thread, but also the whole article on models is

Agreed, nothing is the difference between an apple and a donut. (The existence of the hole to be precise) Yes please do, young Molesworth.