kleinwolf

Is it possible to make giants plants or fruits by treating them with growth hormon ?

I don't have a text, it's just a sentance. I could say : computer like reaction : I look out of the window, it's raining : "If it's raining, I take my coat" But If I program a week, and I still don't know if a given coming day will be rainy, I have to say : "If a given day were rainy, I would have to take my coat".

I don't know the effect on long time (psychiatrically e.g.). (BTW why bees do not make honey out of them, this could indicate a high toxicity) But in fact do we speak of sativa or sativa indica (and even polyploïde version which can be even stronger) In fact I'm seeking for a medicine against long term effect that could arise in some cases (sativa means "wild", humans retracting from the world and even severe schizophrenia). I read in some newspapers that hindustani people could commercialize a medicine made out of bovine urine (this animal were sacred in those regions), but I don't know if this has something to do with cannabis use.

Sludge ? Because I don't know the genetics of ABO system, but could it be that the groups were all 3 differents ?

And if we used elliptic coordinates (2 centers), would this describe the field of a 2-body system, and hence, if solvable, the geodesic would be the solution for a test-mass in a (pseudo-) 3-body problem ?

There is sometimes a popular knowledge saying : eating fish could make somebody more intelligent ? Is there any proof of this, in which sense ?

If we used the following assumption on the metric through the Ansatz : metric coefficient in spherical coordinates are function of [math](r,\theta)[/math] should we get a metric for a rotating body (BTW I forgot the name of this space-time)

Is it true that people are not advised to have children if their blood sample mixed together coagulate ?

If pc is not a kinetic term, what is then p, the momentum, if it does not depend on the speed ? Is it a quantum quantity proportional to h*k.? In fact my question is : How do we get the term pc ?

Starting from [math]E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2[/math], then a matrix-type root we get Dirac equation. But here, the term pc is a kinetic term, but not for massive particle, i.e. pc is only for massless. Is it that this equation rules a field with a massive (mc^2) and a massless parts ?

Thanks for the syntax reminder. You agree that in cartesian coordinates, if cosmological constant is 0, a solution is Minkowskian. Is this a mystery that the reality of gravitation could depend on the coordinate you choose ?

Is there an invariant in classical mechanics made out of energy ? As about relativity, I think the quantity E^2/c^2-p^2 remains invariant (towards this time a Lorentz transformation), is it true ?

I have to start to learn medicine, and I had a question. How were blood groups determined ? is it by mixing some blood of several people on a plate and it could coagulate or not ?

I was in fact writing about [math]\rho[\math], the isotropic metric coordinates. In fact, I read an article in arXiv, but seems in some sense wrong, since I doubt more like rho->infty=>ds^2=c^2dt^2-drho^2Minkowskian rho->0 =>Singular (space coefficient is infty)...BTW : does this mean galilean : ds^2=c^2dt^2-(infty) drho^2 (space is not considered and hence only time is invariant ?) The other question I had was : which is the "real" radius (measured from earth center) : rho (isotropic radial coordinate) or r (schwarzschild radial coordinate) ? In fact should the metric be isotropic ? If we consider the aequivalence principle, the aequivalent speed of the lift has a direction, and lorentz contraction happens only in radial direction.

I found an article saying that the isotropic metric goes into Minkowskian space for r->infinity, and r->0. Is this what you mean in your starting post ?

Or "menace-like" sentences : some teacher saying to a scholar "If you repeat this once more, I throw you out of the room" ?

Right, those are block (anti-)diagonal matrices. Then, how are s=3/2 particles represented (e.g. gravitini, I suppose) ?

I thought that the dimension of the matrix representation of a spin s was (2s+1)x(2s+1) (spin 0 is a 1x1=1 scalar, 1/2 is 2x2, spin s=1 is 3x3, aso), but then the Dirac matrices are 4x4 which should be a spin 3/2, and if gravitons would exist, they should be by 5x5 matrices represented ?

What is incomplete measurement ? -) meaning that QM measurement are in fact not pushed to whole precision -) measuring only one subsystem of a multipartite system ?

What about incomplete measurement, is it measuring A without measuring B...does this disturbs B ? From axioms we get : [math]A\otimes 1[/math], hence the system in B, whenever defined as such locally, is not disturbed, however, from the postulate of QM (generallier) : a measurment disturbs the system, and the system in B is in some sense disturbed "in a undefined way"...does this is "incomplete measurement" (In fact I ask this question because of the definition of covariance, in Bell's theorem : Cov(A,B)=<AB>-<A><B>)..what does <A> in formula looks like, it has no sense since the system is of dimension 4 and A is 2-dimensional)

Since the photon is a spin-1 particle, how do we recognize it out from a polarization measure, since only +,- are possible (dimension 2), from a spin-1/2 system ?

And angular momentum is [math]m\vec{r}\wedge\vec{\omega}[/math] or opposite ? But spin is eigen momentum (spin on oneself, except that with 180 degrees you find yourself as initially) ? My question was : how to link the spin n (1/2 or 1) to matrices (Pauli or spin 1 matrices)

I don't really understand the link between angular momentum and spin. But I heard that "longitudinally" polarized photons were not "seeable", but would "transmit the electromagnetic force". Hence longitudinally polarized photons would make that 2 magnet attract themselves, but of course there is no "light" between the magnets. Is this correct in some sense ?

Yes it's correct.

no experimentally seen is in parentheses..lack "?"..just given by Elderly People..like a tradition, but no (even statistical) proof.