The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Based just on appearance, I would think that quartz, with impurities, would be a safe bet.  The fact that you have established that the colouration is not just surface staining does tend to push the diagnosis in the direction of Clifford's agate, but where quartz varieties are concerned there are some well defined specimens and lots of intermediates.
Quote from: jccc
OK, you won again.
I'm sorry jccc. I'm not really interested in winning anything. I'm only trying to help you understand quantum mechanics. I don't want to be or even sound  mean to you. However you don't appear to want to do the hard work to learn what you want to learn. Learning quantum mechanics is very difficult, regardless of what Einstein thought in that little quote.

If you were to look in almost any physics textbook you'll see in the preface a statement of what you need to have learned before you can read the text. There's a good reason for that.

In the preface of Introduction to Quantum Mechanics - Second Edition by David J. Griffiths, page viii the author states what the reader needs to know in order to understand the text
The reader must be familiar with the rudiments of linear algebra (as summarized in the Appendix), complex numbers, and calculus up through partial derivatives; some acquantance with Fourier analysis and the Dirac delta function would help. Elementary classical mechanics is essential, of course, and a little electrodynamics would be useful in places. etc.

Regarding objections to what I keep telling you, you're not alone. Everyone thinks that way at one time or another. As Richard Feynman once said
I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'but how can it be like that?' because you will go 'down the drain' into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be that way.

If nobody knows how it can be that way then what is it we're learning when we learn quantum mechanics? We're learning how to make predictions and to hopefully explain certain physical phenomena.
Don Dillman asked the Naked Scientists:
If a magnet opposes a metal object,  does it acquire it's weight?
What do you think?
New Theories / Re: thrust does not work in space
« Last post by SteinUntStein on Today at 12:51:08 »
Quote from: chiralSPO
But this ↑ is mistaken. If anything, the air would be expelled faster into a lower pressure environment or vacuum, not slower.
That's precisely the case. If somone actually studied physics then this would be quite obvious. The rate of flow is a function of the difference in pressure.
If someone wasn't such a jerk, maybe he wouldn't be ridiculed all over these boards :)
I am sorry of the limitations of your own expertise.
You also confuse an alleged vacuum with simple empty space.
OK, you won again.
Quote from: jccc
Pete, everything is force, position, motion.
The only thing about that is that position is part of QM. There is nothing in QM about force and motion (as you think of it, i.e. classically).

Quote from: jccc
The force between electron and nucleus has to be balanced to form stable atoms. What else is more fundamental?
The only thing that you'll see in quantum mechanics is the potential energy function.

See what I mean? All you're able to think about is classical physics. Every time you think about classical trajectories like a particle moving on a path you're no longer thinking about quantum mechanics.

I can see that you're at an impass and as such you'll never be able to grasp the concepts of quantum mechanics. As such I will no longer respond to any questions or comments by you. Especially with regards to any of these totally wrong comments like you just posted here. You're simply stuck in classical mechanics and are unable to get out of this rut you're in and since for some unknown reson you refuse to pick up a book on it and learn it I can't see trying to help someone who refuses to help themselves by reading and learning. Goodbye
Pete, everything is force, position, motion. The force between electron and nucleus has to be balanced to form stable atoms. What else is more fundamental?

Anyone can see the attraction force, only QM believers see the balance force.

Quote from: jccc
If electrons don't circle the nucleus, it has no momentum, it will fall in. ...
Totally wrong. You keep using Newtonian mechanics to explain things in quantum mechanics. You can't do that. Quantum mechanics is a more fundamental theory and from that you can derive Newtonian mechanics and
predictions. You're trying to do it the opposite way.

You have an incredible amount of physics to learn before you tackle quantum mechanics but you're not willing to do that work. That's why you don't understand quantum mechanics and never will - until you do the basic work, from the ground up. I had to spend years learning algebra, trigonometry, calculus, vector analysis, mathematical physics, Newtonian Mechanics, Relativity, etc etc etc. It was then that I was prepared to learn quantum mechanics. You arrogantly think you can skip everything before quantum mechanics before you learn quantum mechanics.

The way you think it'll never happen.
Quote from: jccc
In fact I read both pages. First one said 3 things about science. Not too agree. Second page load too slow, I gave up.
Come back when you read the second one, carefully.

Quote from: jccc
Pete, do you really understand QM?
Of course I understand it. I got all A's in my undergradute quantum mechanics courses and modern physics courses and B's in my graduate courses in quantum mechanics. And you? What did you study to get to the point where you are now in your understanding of quantum mechanics?

Quote from: jccc
Remember what einstan said? If you can't explain it to a six year old....
That was the most ridiculous thing he ever said. Especially in this day and age with the extremely difficult physics which are being discovered.

What part of my resonse didn't you understand? There is an equation in quantum mechanics called the Schrodinger equation. The solution to the equation is a wave function. The wave function is used to determine the probability of where the particle wil be found when you measure its location. There is nothing in quantum mechanics about particles moving. Therefore you cannot say that the electron circles or moves around the nucleus. The only way you can use quantum mechanics to talk about motion is to use an averaging calculation.
A piano and a stick?

Free spectrogram software is available which will show the frequency content of sound , e.g. Audacity or SoX. If you have a computer such programs are cheaper,  more convenient and more accurate than using a piano to estimate the frequency.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
SMF 2.0 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines