CPL.Luke

the matter can be converted into any kind of energy. think about what energy is on a fundamental level, its either kinetic or potential, there is no energy particle. in the case where your converting some mass into energy most of the time (all of the time?) the energy goes into the kinetic energy of the products. for instance in fission the energy goes into the kinetic energy of all of the products, fission fragments, gamma rays, and neutrons. hmm, swansont by any chance do you know if there is a situation where the energy released by the conversion of mass would go directly to potential energy? I could think that there is a reaction where a particle decays into two lighter particles which are mutually attracted to each other, however I'm not sure if such a thing exists.

yeah an easy way to think of it in general (and also a very good approximation) is that the wave function for a given energy level decays exponentially in the region E<V meaning the probability density of the particle in the region E<V is going to fall off pretty rapidly, however there is a chance if the region E<V is short and returns to a region where E>V that we'll see the normal oscillatory wave functions, now if we have a particle with a given energy, it can be anywhere and we can't really speak of it being on one side or the other, until we measure where it is. now if we localise the wave function to one side of the barrier, and then let it evolve for a little time, it will spread, and this spreading should result in some probability that the particle is on the other side of the barrier. there is a pretty good visualiser for various quantum potentials here. http://www.falstad.com/qm1d/ play around with the step potentials a bit and you'll see whats happpening, the key thing is that in these systems you can't measure energy and position at the same time. If I measured a a particles position and it was inside the high potential area, then the particle had the energy to be there, and if I measured the particle somewhere else the same thing occurs, and if I measure the energy I know very little about where the particle is.

quantum works quite well once you understand it. Personally I never understood the whole nobody understands quantum mechanics bit, everyone I know whose studied it understands it, the same can not be said of organic chemistry or behavioral neuro-endocrinology. and in all actuality I'm better with quantum than with E&M. anyway to the op, integral spin is the european way of saying integer spin, euopeans have different ways of saying a bunch of things, such as callingthe integrand the kernel etc. I even had a russian professor who would refer to 1 as unity in a number of situations, (that may have just been him though)

what was it that Holstein theorized? I couldn't find what you were referencing in the thread. I ask out of curiosity as I just finished up a years worth of coursework under him.

one problem with engagement is that people tend to get strange ideas about what the government does, and what it can do. for instance everyone hates taxes, but the government does need to tax people in order to provide services that people require, its a cliche of polling that the sam people who support tax cuts also support increased spending on programs they like. Ask any of your friends who think the government should cut taxes if they support increased veterans benefits, increased education spending etc. peope don't understand that the government is required to provide services and services cost money.

I was actually somewhat on the fence until now, orignialy I liked obama, then mccain due to energy and diplomacy (obama's reaction to russia was pitiful), but now with mac's health as it is 'm gonna have to go with obama. Its a shame to as I figured mccain could handle a divided government, which would blunt his crazy tax plan which would add 300 billion to the deficit. (although he had the right idea on corporate taxes) right now I figure obama has run a near perfect campaign so he clearly can handle executive and leadership functions. and hopefully he'll put people in place to fix his other problems.

http://online.barrons.com/article/SB121945355282265621.html?mod=b_hpp_9_0002_b_this_weeks_magazine_home_left&page=2 great article on how you are always going to be taxed by the government, and there will never be a real tax cut without a spending reduction. Its just that it infects various locations of the economy more than others. Fr instance if th governemtn cuts taxes but borrows money to pay for everything in an honest borrow (ie from some random bank) than people with money benefit as they get to lend at higher interest rates as the demand for money increases (and is an effective tax on borrowing). If the government borrows money in a way which creates the money, then they are taxing your wealth as inflation robs you of it. or because the tax code iso monstrous any tax decrease will likely absorbed by a tax increase elsewhere

phi for all from the same website on plastic cells also my original point is still in effect on subsidies since the amount of solar energy that comes down on a clear day is still greater in nevada than it is in maine. Further the technology cannot work as advertised as the clouds will stop a significant portion of the light, you can't capture what never reaches you. The best they could do is shift the absorbing frequencies to those that will penetrate the clouds, rather than the optimum to receive the most energy on a clear day. I also fin it interesting that BioSolar doesn't say how much their technology will reduce costs just that it will... most companies blast it out to the world how much their technology will reduce costs. include what? I just said that you will pay the full cost of solar whether its subsidized or not. So we should only work in real unsubsidized dollars.

anybody know what the top marginal rate was under reagan? under ford? under eisenhower?

First Solar as far as I can tell has been successful as they only manufacture cadmium telluride cells. also in the real world you are paying for the real price of subsidized solar, its just that you pay the tax for it whether or not you use it. Also the subsidy acts as an income redistribution mechanism based on geography, as only areas with enough sun to have solar be effective get the benefit.

your oppinion, but it doesn't change the fact that when a government subsidizes a new technology it does not show whether it is cost-effective or not. I prefer to work in real unsubsidized dollars for the sake of A: not dealing with inflation and B: subsidies tend distort the actual cost, the government could be supplying the money for 1/2 3/4 or 7/8ths of the system for all we know, which makes the techonlogy look more attractive than it is and makes it difficult to analyze. The government can't supply half of the cash for the power grid. and apparently the new cheap solar panels don't have to include cleanup costs for hazardous materials because they are "green" first solar states in their own SEC filing that they currently don't fall under a number of regulations related to cadmium.

that is the type of thing I can deal with, I'm not asking you to look into a crystal ball but rather to show me that it will be possible for solar to ever be a profitable venture on a large scale. the final post is exceptionally interesting as that would lower the cost of solar to levels where it coud effectively full fill the promise of "electricity to cheap to meter" that nuclear once offered. did that graph come from reuters? the link isn't displaying images on my computer. I would question the validity of that graph as grid power has remained relatively constant between 8 cents and 10 cents per killowatt hour for decades, and I don't see a large price increase across the board for all electrical standards, as long as governments allow the market to work or at the very least subsidize the parts which they want to increase demand for. Also california has been known for chronicly underproducingbase line power which drives up prices, same with germany. also one of our sources is wrong on the correct price of solar panels today I'll see if I can find a second source tomorrow the article on Japan brings up the issue of subsidies once again, (which I disagree with) this doesn't support the case that solar is cost effective, it only supports the case that if the government pays for half of the system its cost effective. for the individual. similarly I discount the profits of first solar as evidence of a growing trend as there is a growing trend for governments to heavily subsidize the panels making them seem like a good deal. Interestingly enough I passed by the first solar plant on the road today, it looked pretty nice, but that s about all I can say about it as I merely passed by it. remember when talking about costs and benefits you have to work in real unsubsidized dollars. EDIT: looks like you added links while I was typing my response, two of your sources contradict each other, with first solar offering $1.29/watt solar energy today. I checked their SEC filing and thy state it there as well, however they note that they are currently not subjected to enviromental regulations that other companies are whcih could dramatically increase their costs, and or force them to stop doing business (their words) I'd be interested to see if these regulations were in affected the coal power industry (they regulated the release of cadmium), as this would artificially drive up the price of coal or othe energy sources while leaving the solar power option open because its "clean". note that last bit was pure speculation as I haven't read about the EU regulations that they may later be effected by. EDIT: does anybody know if the costs for first solars system included opportunity costs?

I was thinking that it ws a tad bit over the line, but I was getting sick of Inow constantly poking about specifics, when specifics were provided he called my position a myopic economic view etc. I did respond and take the flaming a tad bit higher each time which I probably should have been more relaxed about but... you are correct about my frustration level. you said he technology was here today for electric cars, I provided ample evidence that all of the technologies have not come together yet to meet the demands of a mass-market car. Inow demanded specifics about my positions, I not only provided current specifics, I provided past data. Yet he has yet to provide data on any of his points about where the cost of solar will come down. I don't deny that more R&D will bring the price of solar down. nobody could deny that that would be true for nearly any technology. However eventualy diminished returns kicks in and eventually it becomes more expensive to develop the technology than its worth. (mines are usually a perfect example of what I'm talking about) anyway this conversation has probably exceeded its usefulness to any of us, as I won't be convinced unless either of you can pull up a technology that would have a direct avenue to grid parity, similarly you guys won't be convinced by such a technologies absence.

your method fails on its own terms let alone the reasons why it fails physicly for one quantum is not derived from "quantity" but rather from "quanta" which is a word that effectively means "a unit of", thats the problem in that words especially names are rather imprecise, and analyzing what I said based on reinterpreting the words that I said ends up wih you getting a different meaning than what was intended. And in this case I know what te physics are and you don't, so it is much better for you to try to understand exactly what I am telling you and not try to pull more information out of a sentance than it contains. although I highly recommend checking what I say and learning more on your own from other sources. But I speak plainly and when I want to be clear I'm clear. now on to your post responding to me. for the most part its meaningless gobbldy gook much less than is a mathematical concept meaning vanishingly small in comparison to some other number. It has nothing to do with sets. I'm not going to answer the questions as you posited them because they are so far off the reservation that the only response is to tell you how your definitions are wrong from the get go special relativity does not require a third observer it works for any number of observers and merely describes how the time and distance scales between these observers will differ from one another, the reason why it is "special" is that it cannot describe situations in which an observer is accelerating. General relativity solves this problem and describes how measurement scales differ from observer to observer regardlesss of acceleration (and as a consequence how gravity works) quantum mechanics is the physics of small things to which newtonian mechanics is an approximation for large bodies. Quantum field theory is a theory that puts special relativity into quantum mechanics, thus relativistic mechanics is an approximation to quantum field theory. Quantum field theory also allowed for the description of 3 of the known forces in quantum terms.

I excluded those countries because their grid power is considerably higher than other areas where they pursue a sensible energy policy. If a government stops allowing for new construction of other power plants and thus drives up the grid price to the point solar achieves grid parity, then thatis not evidence of solars success but rather a governments failure. solar warrants some use as a power supply for remote locations where the cost of running a power line to a house is more than it costs to install solar panels, however the billions your talkingabout are because the industry xpects the government to pass more renewable energy mandates, and to provide extra subsidies for solar installation. however shifting the goal poasts to it being "part of the solution" is an overstatement, the solution involves diversification, but not an unnecessary increase in prices when other technologies have grid parity and can cut emissions today.

or how bout the once arid lands that will become cultivatable? or the new shipping lanes that would open up? or the new resoures that would be uncovered as the ice melts, opening up more area to development. Remember that greenland used to be green when the vikings were there. since when was the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere high enough to qualify as a toxin? because our air is much cleaner today than it was 30 years ago, and the US is currently becoming more efficient in terms of CO2 emitted per dollar of GDP at a faster rate than the kyoto protocol nations (mainly because 2 of the major participants are China and India, who are actually getting less efficient as time goes on). Not to mention that its still entirely possible that the global warming models are still a bit off, take for instance the Argo buoy system deployed to study deep ocean warming trends and got a slight cooling result. however thats beyond the scope of this thread. What is in the scope of this thread is the viaility of solar power which at the moment remains completely non-viable in comparison to any sane governments grid power (which excludes Germany, California, Massachusettes, and a few others) expecially when considering that the price is ~3.7 times as high as Grid power only when given a lifetime use of 25 years where every ounce of electricity is consumed, and the grid aternative uses power source that may cost much more to maintain but cost much less to build. you end up seeing that there wouldn't be enough money around t support a government mandate to produce any significant percentage of the countries power requirements through solar.

see my point aove about how the ipcc estimates that gloabl warming while being bad is not something that would stop us fom being able to feed and hydrate ourselves.

I'm no economist either, but over the past 6 months or so I've been getting a bit more into it after the whole mess were in sparked my interest. It didn't hurt that my roommate was an accounting major either (I'm a physics major). however I believe the problem is mainly in the measurements, the "quantity theory of money" page on wikipedia, states that its mainly bleieved that if the statistics could be known accurately that policy prescriptions could be made very quickly. in looking for data on the effect of the money supply on inflation I ended up reading the full monetarism article on wikipedia which include a number of empirical counter arguments to the idea that the money supply is the sole cause of inflation. From what I can gather the mainstream view is that while the money supply is well known the demand for money is much harder to quantify, and as such policies that are aimed as to provide exact fiscal policy in response to a given situation is doomed ot failure. I would highlly recommend the wikipedia articles on monetarism and keynesianism. There both pretty straight forward and cover the main views of economists for the past 100 years back to the original point though, it does seem logical that large inflation can't occur unless the money supply is increased, as the GDP caps the amount of money that can be consumed at a given time, but if the government allows banks to lend out more money, then people will spend more, pushing the demand for goods up across the board and triggering inflation. (assuming that growth doesn't coincide with this policy) similarly if the government borrows money from over seas and spends it at home, then they are using that money to pay workers driving up wages and then in turn driving up the cost of goods. (again assuming economic growth doesn't coincide) bah I wish I knew more about the math that goes into economics, it would make determining bunk so much easier. then again I also wish that the math that goes into economic theories produced meaningful falsifiable results.

fair enough, till next time

not really quantum mechanics is a theory that more accuratly describes things with P/m <<(much less) c than newtonian mechanics. where p is the momentum, m is the mass and c is the speed of light, (this is equivalent to saying that the velocity is much less than the speed of light) if that condition is not met, then one must resort to Quantum Field theory. which has special relativity implicitly guaranteed in the equations. its general relativity and quantum field theory that have a problem, not quantum and special relativity.

either tell me specifically where I'm wrong on the cost analysis, and produce your own numbers, or get better at your job.

iNow what more is at stake? also remember that the ipcc estimates global warming to have a net positive effect on the global economy of .75% per year, up through 2075 where the trend turns negative, and it hurts the global economy by 3.5% per year in mind that they also estimate that the world will be 17000% richer. its important to remember that dollars are merely an abstraction used to represent the amount of resources that went into the construction of something, people need dollars to live. IF you make he cost of electricity quadruple in the us it takes away resources from everything else, the economy doesn't grow as fast, as the economy dosn't grow as fast real wages are forced down, now if the entire developed world did this, we would be in a rather deep recession for several years preenting overseas development in places like africa. -note I hope that at your company you dont sell products at a net loss just because there is more at stake there than the bottom line.

hmm phi for all it seems a couple o our posts in the thread on GM over in politics actually belong in here, although if they don't get moved I recomend your guys check out a couple of posts in the thread GM "chairman" last letter. There toward the end, but I dug up some of the cost analysis on present technologies, and the cost history (real value) of both grid power and solar power. it can be summed up as such, a person who installs a solar power system on their house will pay 3.7 times more for electricity than a person who buys the power from the grid. (excepting subsidies and the like)

what makes you think that it does?

hey the news just came out, its officially biden