studiot

Space is not warped. It follows its true and proper form. The very statement 'warps space' implies there is some unwarped absolute coordinate system to compare against. You will struggle with Relativity until you can abandon the idea of absolute space or absolute time. Draw a circle or part of one. What warps the line you are drawing? It is not a straight line - would that be somehow preferable? Is the circle a warped straight line and is the straightline absolutely perfect? Or is the circle correct for a circle?

The problem is What I am referring to in emboldened sentence is the thermodynamic idea that heat is the 'lowest grade of energy'. That energetic processess degrade higher forms like electricity or potential or motion energy to become heat. And the problem is that recovering light is trying to reverse this. Of course it can be done, but it costs you a lot in energy efficiency terms. Perhaps swansont knows more about this than I do but can't you contain laser light between mirrors and open on demand with a kerr cell shutter?

What is the battery in your car? Do you think you get the same electrons out that you put in when charging? So how to store photons as I outlined in post#4. That is photons in and later photons out. All afternoon my car has been sitting on the drive absorbing all those nice yellow photons. Tonight, after dark, members of the local furry fraternity will sunbath by basking in the infra red photons radiated under my car. There ya go, photons in photons stored, photons out. I never said they were the same photons, any more than Mr Chloride said the electrons from the car battery are the same.

No the question was Why can't light be stored? (which, of course, contains an incorrect assumption) not how can it be stored?

Wave v corpuscular doesn't really matter for the purpose of light storage.

I didn't say you could store light in a battery, I just said it could be stored.

None of the classical or semi classical theories of metals and semiconductors (Drude, Free electron, Simple band) can explain the so called 'anomalous' Hall effect coefficients. You need the full 3D quantum mehcanics combined with crystallogrphic lattice theory to get anywhere near it.

How about these functions? [math]\left\{ \begin{array}{l}f(x) = 0,x \ne 0 \\f(x) = 1,x = 0 \\\end{array} \right\}[/math] [math]\left\{ \begin{array}{l}f(x) = 0,x < 0 \\f(x) = 1,x = 0 \\f(x) = 2,x > 0 \\ \end{array} \right\}[/math]

Holes are formed when an electron is promoted into a higher level band, leaving behind a hole. The electrons we are discussing are already in the band. So there are no holes.

1) Yes this is true of monovalent metals. The monovalent metals enjoy a single electron in the outer s orbital in the free atom. Thus the orbital is half full. When N such atoms combine to form a metallic solid these combine to form the conduction band each original s orbital contributes 2 spaces to the band. So the band has "N spaces and N electrons. So it too is half full. The next (empty band) is formed from the empty outer p orbitals. This has a definitely higher energy than the s conduction band. So there is a definite gap between the upper half full band and the next empty band. 2) So why does the resulting monovalent metal sold conduct? Well the conduction band is half full. This is ideal to accept an electron moving in from somewhere else. If fact the maximum number of moving electrons that can flow is N. N are moving in and N are moving out of a given zone. To achieve this you need N filled and N vacant spaces. An insulator has full band and cannot accept further electrons. It is possible to develop this simplified explanation to cover pretty well all cases and consider the roles played by the various gaps, overlaps and abutments between bands.

So is it abandoned? Here is a better reference. Clark E S , Acta Cryst, 1958, 11, 284

It was a couple of days ago. I'm almost sure DrP gave the only answer. I was going to post a fuller one, but just can't find it. Can't remember the title but the OP was interested in auric compounds in general and auric chloride in particular.

I could have sworn there was a question recently about this but I can't find it. Can anyone help?

That's the day Marvel Comics allows Batman to take the post#3 hotrod for a spin.

This is what Mordred and I were discussing here, posts 5 - 12 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/106118-quantum-tunneling-and-timeenergy-conjugacy/ So can we all agree that Aspden was a blind alley and move on?

These ideas are good questions but perhaps we should not be quite so hard on the OP as his idea may be well beyond our present technology, but is within the bounds of the physically correct. Ed, a small correction to your arithmetic, you should work in metres or kilometres, and not mix them. Taking your area figures as correct, raising the ocean 7m will not mean a volume increase of 3.6 x 7 x 108, but of 3.6 x 7 x10-3 x 108 cubic kilometres The Sahara desert is about 9 x 106 square km so spreading all the dredgings there would raise its level by 280 metres or 0.28 km. Not so bad. In fact a good way would be to boost the coastal margins right round the world, many are under attack. Also we do not need to dig in the deepest ocean, shallower water nearer shore would do just as well. But sadly we do not possess that sort of technology

Nice explanation. +1

Exactly, and somewhere in this thread dick makes the claim that it is impossible to communicate without language, which he just stated a newborne babe does not possess.

I think the point is that a dead or seriously damaged Marco due to the physics of the breathing tube, will not have normal biomedical responses.

Thank you for your improved information. Can you not post some formulae to explain in more detail?

"Out of the mouths of Babes" Have you had any dealings with a newborn baby ? They manage to communicate, so giving the lie to your thesis.

A better name for the 'probability' in the field interpretation is The probability density. There is a connection here with mathematics in as far as the field interpretation is a continuous function of probability density over the region of the field. The particle interpretation is an impulse type function, everywhere zero except at the point of the particle. Compare this with a mass density function in a gas v point function particle in classical mechanics.

This has implications both for your field view thread and the umpteen youngs slit threasd we see. You need the field interpretation to develop the field as all the values are always present and real (all though they may be changing). In the moving particle version only one value is ever real at a time, all the rest are potential values that are not realised.

Well I think you are both wrong. The maximum safe limit for a snorkel is 16 inches. https://physics.le.ac.uk/journals/index.php/pst/article/viewFile/627/442 I suggest you google this subject and also Carbon dioxide and diving as there is much more to the the biochemistry as well https://www.diveassure.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Diving-and-Carbon-Dioxide.pdf