studiot

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

We talk of (the modulus of the square of) the wave function as being the probability of finding the particle at a particular point. But this type of probability is classical probability. It is mutually exclusive. When we look , we see the particle is here, or there, but not both, and each location with its own p-value. This type of probability requires more than one experiment to encompass all the possible probability values at different locations. That is each instance or experiment offers a particular value. The sum of many individual experiments establishes a distribution pattern for the probabilities, but at any one time only one is in play. This is of course because we are regarding the particle as a localised entity that moves about the region of interest. The field approach says, hey wait a minute, the particle is actually non localised or smeared out in proportion to the localised p values in the region of space of interest. This is how a field works. In both cases the p values are the same and when normalised add up to 1

Your original description was more coherent than Aspden's, but consider this: My car is much more difficult to start in the morning on my driveway than after I have driven a few miles to the petrol station and halted it to put some petrol in the tank. This does not only apply to electric machines. With your nautical background, you should be able to confirm this applies to outboards. So I am still waiting to learn the need for any mumbo jumbo associated with this.

What on Earth do black holes have to do with electric motors on Earth? Please can we get back to the subject of this thread, I would particularly like your take on my assessment of Aspden, as posted in my post#26

A really well asked question +1 Naming is based on the longest carbon chain, which in this case is C2 - C3 and is two atoms long or an ethane base. So the there are two identical nitrogen based groups attached to one of these carbons (C2 here) so the diaminomethyl must be a repeat of the same carbon number, either 1,1 or 2,2 So 1,5 is out. Convention dictates we use 1,1 as the lowest carbon. It might be important if there was another functional group then you might get 1-something, 2,2 dimethylamino. Does this help?

Are you aware of the two different meanings of quantum probability?

Here is the original report of the effect from Aspden himself. No I am having trouble understanding what is said here or reconciling it with the description offered by handy andy. Can anyone help here? What is an electrical machine with no electrical input? and what does the rest of it say in plain English? https://www.haroldaspden.com/lectures/30.htm

I am starting this thread to support Mordred (+1) in assembly of a QFT summary manual. This idea is to keep the original thread pristine and rock solid by debating challenges, questions and suggestions here and only putting the results in the parent thread. To begin this I have a question about QFT and probability. How do they fit together and what is the role of probability in QFT?

There's too much expansion (of hypotheses) and not enough consolidation (of theory) going on, if you ask me.

Not sure if this refers to my comments, but didn't the OP, in effect, ask about the possibility of long term drift in a 'universal' value of c? This is possible (in flat spactime) under Galilean Relativity, but I am suggesting that Einstein's new postulates preclude this. This is not dependent upon the difference between SR and GR, but goes back to 'The Principle of Relativity'.

Confusing maybe and I am sorry for that. Impossible, certainly not. You are looking for hidden difficulties, when I am trying to simplify and make as plain as possible. Imagine, if you will, a super bright torch, say the star Arcturus. 36 and a half years ago the the light that arcturus was generating is now arriving on Earth. On its journey, the light passes AlphaCentauri (I haven't checked if this star is in the correct orientation so please bear with me for this thought experiment - it is only an illustration) and some falls there and could be observed. The rest of that part of the output which is coming our way continues on and in turn I can observe some of it on Earth. More still will carry on to other locations. What I should perhaps add is that this is an illustration that the speed of light should be constant at different times as well as different places, according to Einstinain relativity.

Good enough. +1

There are clearly as many views on the meanings of philosophy, science and reality as there are posters here. Small wonder there are such differences or that this type of discussion belongs in the pub. Let's all go down to the pub to finish it.