studiot

Thank you for replying, a pity you are not listening. It is common practice in spherical geometry to mean only great circle arcs when using the term arc There are no great circles in 2D.

You should also be aware that more exotic processes give broadly similar but different values (smaller) for the nuclear radius. for example Rainwater and Fitch Hofstadter etc However this makes quite a difference to the nucleon density since the volume is proportional to the cube of the radius.

Yes more or less. Don't forget that this is not the 'real' knobbly nucleus it is an 'equivalent sphere' that has the same total charge evenly distributed all over. Also not only electron (beta particles) scattering but also positive particle scattering (alpha particles).

Thank you. Here is a more complete extract from the Wiki article that Strange linked to (and I had also found but not quoted). The root mean square value of something is a statistical method of deriving an average or mean value from a range. It is used in sine wave curves in power engineering for AC current, but it is also used much more widely when we want an average for a function that is varying, but not oscillating. In the case of the nucleus charged particles approaching the nucleus are deflected away in their path. This is called scattering. The RMS radius gives us the size of a standard sphere of evenly distributed charge that would effect the same deflection scattering as is observed. This is similar to saying the RMS current is the value of DC current that has the same heating effect as a given AC current. There is, of course, theory to attempt prediction of this radius size look in Rutherford, Chadwick and Ellis : Radiations from Radioactive substances chapters 2 and 8. : Cambridge University Press. Since they did the original reasearch (1930) starting with alpha particles as well as the ebta particles mentioned by Wiki.

I answered your question, but you have yet to answer mine. you have not posted a single reference - I only asked for one.

I said most clearly that it is not oscillating. What part of No did you not understand? Edit I don't know why Strange didn't actually answer your question since that was his alleged purpose.

Thanks, Strange, but I was seeking Butch's reference. Edit and still am.

No, do you have a reference?

Steel if often called an alloy of iron and carbon, indeed in UK GCSE this is taught. John may well be referring to a more advanced view that regards true alloys as occurring when there is a direct replacement of one atom for another in the solid lattice. In the case of steel the carbon occupies interstitial vacancy sites in the iron (eg austenite) phase to form a solid solution of carbon in iron. I don't know enough about the Indium-Tin-Oxygen system to comment.

Someone has

Poincare had a hypothesis, different from either of these. Which is interesting because we actually acknowledge an example of this in a physical variable other than time. Bishop Berkeley has yet another hypothesis, which interestingly is compatible with the Copenhagen interpretation, though it predates it by nearly two hundred years. You should read, Berkely because he also expressed a view on ioinion, similar to yours, although I should warn you his philosophies have been largely discredited today.

Well that depends upon if you include Mathematics and mathematical proofs as part of Science. Proofs belong in Maths, Logic and Philosophy. The rest of Science doesn't prove anything, it evaluates evidence and reaches a conclusion, which may change in the light of new evidence, accordingly.

Whilst the Beer-Lambert law is usually met in the context of the chemical analysis of solutions it applies more widely, and even to sound waves as well as EM radiation and ionising radiation (apha and beta particles). https://teaching.shu.ac.uk/hwb/chemistry/tutorials/molspec/beers1.htm So it depends what you mean by 'transparent'. You also have to say transparent to to what. It becomes a question of degree of absorbtion. If you can make the metal thin enough it will pass a given % of the flux. Conversely if you can make the window thick enough it will stop a given %. +1 to John Cuthber, please listen to him about what is actually a metal, and you need to specify what state the metal is in. There is some evidence that Hydrogen can be considered a metal.

In so much of a rush that you can't be bothered to write the question out properly, let alone follow the help rules and tell us what you have done so far.

@Butch This analogy might help get your head round quantum numbers. Take standard screw sizes. Standard Screw sizes are numbered thus 1,2,3,4 ...12...14 More detail is provided by subsidiary characteristics Slotted Crosspoint Brass Stainless Plated Length 1/2", 1", 2" .... If you want to know the more exact details such as pitch, thread size, thread length, etc you look up a standard table or drawing. This is almost exactly the same for quantum numbers. They give you the entry points on the look up tables or the probability distribution plots, which replace the thread drawings. Does this help?

I thought you had banned discussion about the connection.

Well I don't know what your abbreviations QT or RT stand for and I am not minded to look them up. Please stop stridently telling others what the have to do or not do. I really hoped that our last exchange about locality had put all that nonsense behind us, so I am suprised that someone who claims some training in Philosophy persists in that confrontational approach.

Edit : stuff happened whilst I was writing so this was the Klaynos post I meant. Sorry for any confusion.

I do not doubt the validity of what you are saying, only its relevance to the subject of the thread. Non-locality in QT is not what you are describing. In the first place you introduced relativity as well as QM. In the second I suggest you read Klaynos' last post again. Your posted questions would come over much better if they actually were questions rather than flat contradictions about something you also state you don't understand/know little about. So a simple "would you explain / expand on why you brought such and such up please" would earn many brownie points. Or "does this also have relevance to QM ?" (it does).

Yes it is a simple question, but unfortunately it does not as yet have a simple or any complete, answer. Let me take you back a few centuries to Christopher Columbus. In those days they knew of the magnetic compass, but they were in a similar position as regards to its action and many (sometimes tragic) mistakes were made in its use as a result. There were, of course, speculations as to why it worked but the action remained spooky. Magnetism was just not sufficiently understood and was known by way of a bunch of example disconnected phenomena that did not make sense, but displayed unpredictable action at a distance. Fast forward to Professor Sir Charles Inglis in 1951 Spooky action again but note the date. Of course Sir Charles goes on to explain the action used for many Victorian party magic tricks which was properly understood by then. So today we have a number of instances of unexplained phenomena, seemingly connected but currently lacking a proper coherent theory. Of course there are plenty of speculations, but none without consequence elsewhere in the theory. We should always be prepared to say when we just don't know. Edit, the gyroscope is interesting because it breaks some mathematical boundaries, and maybe points the way to(wards) the resolution of spooky action/entanglement/hidden forces if you would like to discuss this.

There is a further twist to this story, that applies to relativity. There can be degrees of non locality. The (measurable) property of curvature can be local or non local. However another word is often (wrongly) taken to mean non local and that is global. You can measure the curvature of a curve at any point (locally). For example the curvature of a right circular helix is the same throughout its length so its curvature is global. Measure it at one point and you have determined the curvature at every point However the curvature ofan irregular curve that meanders its way through space cannot be so determined. Knowing the curvature at one point does not help know it somewhere else. So this is no longer a global property. This is, of course, the situation in a universe with randomly distributed matter, und General Relativity.

I'm sorry I can't offer any dazzle factor on what is a very pedestrian and mundane concept. In many instances it is known by a much more prosaic name, to whit, 'distributed'. This would be the case of the football. Non locality occurs when a specific locality (ie point in a coordinate system) cannot be allocated to a particular observable (and measurable) phenomenon or effect. If the effect can't be observed or measured (ie it has no impact on the real world or part of it) then it might as well not exist. So the pressure within an inflated football has no point of application - it is distributed within and at the surface of the ball. The figure I displayed is a perspective of an object that would be impossible in normal 3 dimensions. Yet it is also impossible to allocate any single point on that drawing that is 'impossible'. Any part of that drawing could be part of a real 3D object. It is only in totality or completeness that it is impossible This brings us to an interesting feature of such non local properties. That it may result in an emergent phenomenon. The humble arch is a less flambouyant example. The extreme structural property of the arch only emerges when the entire arch is in place. It does not reside in any part of the arch exclusively. Not only this but the emergent strength acts in a direction perpendicular to any other strength the arch may possess. A distributed load on a beam is non local, as is atmospheric pressure - they act everywhere. I tried to tell you in another thread that any wave is a non local phenomenon, but you wouldn't listen.

Why should it mean anything? It was stated to be real world example of non locality. What does a football mean? It is also a real world example of a different form of non locality. This jumble of words clearly demonstrates to me that you have no idea of the meaning of non locality or of the many and varied examples of its manifestation that occur in the real world. Perhaps unfortunately your eyes have been dazzled (like many other eyes) by the unwarranted mysticisim attached to one alleged form of non locality.

The solution of the Schrodinger equation results in a system of four quantum numbers for electrons in atoms. The principle quantum number symbol n values n 1, 2 ,3, 4......... The subsidiary quantum number symbol l values 0, 1, 2, ....(n-1) The magnetic quantum number symbol m values -l, (-1+1), ....-1, 0, +1, ...(l-1), l The spin quantum number symbol s values -1/2, +1/2 Energy increases with increasing n or l Each value of n refers to a separate quantum shell. The shells correspond to the largest jumps in energy. Within each shell the subsidiary quantum number divides the energy levels. So n=1, l=0 corresponds to the 1s shell. Strictly the solution is for hydrogen, and the quantum numbers refer to the one available electron. Although all the states represented by all the quantum numbers exist, they are just empty except for one. Luckily the quantum solutions are sufficiently similar for the atoms of all the other elements that we can simply populate them with the appropriate number of electrons.

'Tis pity (John Ford 1629) you've fallen out with John Cuthber, forsooth chemical QM is far easier to digest then physical QM.