The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Profile of alancalverd
  3. Show Posts
  4. Messages
  • Profile Info
    • Summary
    • Show Stats
    • Show Posts
      • Messages
      • Topics
      • Attachments
      • Thanked Posts
      • Posts Thanked By User
    • Show User Topics
      • User Created
      • User Participated In

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

  • Messages
  • Topics
  • Attachments
  • Thanked Posts
  • Posts Thanked By User

Messages - alancalverd

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 837
1
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: why do a lot of people confuse between interference and diffraction?
« on: Today at 17:20:01 »
My daughter-in-law is a civil engineer with an interest in sewage. I'll ask her about the statistics of turds, both raw and polished.

2
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Talking about Physics
« on: Today at 17:16:57 »
Quote from: Eternal Student on Today at 15:05:30
it is commonly said that as a student of physics all you will do is study the harmonic oscillator in ever increasing levels of complexity and detail.
Spoken like a mathematician!

Never mind the spherical cow in a vacuum, I once said "physics is a trivial particularisation of mathematics" and then spent 10 years calculating, designing and building just one particularisation of physics, based on a thermal diffusion equation, not a harmonic oscillator!

3
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Talking about Physics
« on: Today at 17:09:03 »
Quote from: geordief on Today at 11:20:25
if optical measuring instrumentation  was sufficiently sensitive  might it ,in theory pick up  directly  the interference pattern from one ,two or three dots?
Easier with x-rays, but the answer is yes, we can detect individual photons, and they do indeed arrive at random with the spatial probability distribution as calculated from the continuum-wave analysis.

4
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Talking about Physics
« on: Today at 08:46:49 »
Not complex. They are both real particles with charge and mass.

And beware of "required": it is a technical term in mathematics that constrains our models, but nothing is "required" in physics - it either happens or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, we have to change our model.

5
Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?
« on: Yesterday at 22:59:09 »
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 01/06/2023 04:50:28
Quote from: alancalverd on 01/06/2023 00:41:00
Never mind ice cream. Every book for sale at the airport bookshop is a "best seller".
Perhaps they were really best seller for a day, or an hour.
Even assuming anyone would know, surely you have to print the cover before you sell any?

6
New Theories / Re: the forgotten aether,2023
« on: Yesterday at 19:49:25 »
Quote from: Kryptid on 01/06/2023 17:37:17
It's not a real video of an actual event. It's a simulation made in a computer:
Heretic!
Nobody is allowed to question computer simulations nowadays.
I recently complained to a local government "consultation" that their new million pound cycle path not only made the road and sidewalk dangerous, but wasn't actually used by cyclists. My complaint was dismissed  because their expensive consultants' computer model said it would be.

7
New Theories / Re: Where does quantization of energy of electromagnetic radiation come from?
« on: Yesterday at 19:39:26 »
Not quite an inverse square law because there is no point source of magnetic field, but Wikipedia sets out all the equations you are likely to need, and when we are dealing with the projectile effect of an MRI magnet on a steel oxygen cylinder, hammer head or nut and bolt, an inverse square law is an adequate approximation from 3 meters distance until the projectile becomes supersonic at about 0.5m from the patient.

8
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: why do a lot of people confuse between interference and diffraction?
« on: Yesterday at 16:17:38 »
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on Yesterday at 15:08:40
There's a technique called self reflection, which has been shown to significantly improve answers of AI models.
However much you polish a turd, you end up with a turd.

9
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: why do a lot of people confuse between interference and diffraction?
« on: Yesterday at 16:16:44 »
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 02/06/2023 14:21:07
When a guitar string is plucked, it vibrates and produces a wave that travels along the string. This wave is a longitudinal wave, which means that the particles of the string move back and forth in the same direction that the wave is traveling.
Wrong, obviously. Not a good starting point for an essay.

10
Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Is religion killing us?
« on: Yesterday at 14:32:21 »
Quote from: varsigma on Yesterday at 01:11:33
Later, all these settlements, which arguably were some of the first temples and the first elite societies, were all buried and not by natural means. It was deliberate.
It's remarkable that Neolithic peoples went to all that effort building them, sustaining the people who chose to live there and not hunt, and then burying them. You have to ask about what the motivation was.
There is no evidence of irrationality or superstition in Neolithic structures. Personal grave goods and food make sense "just in case" the corpse revives, or as an indication to later generations of the previous status of the corpse, or even Norse and Gypsy traditions of burning everything so the next generation thinks forwards rather than backwards,  but the careful alignment of buildings with solar and siderial events points to their importance in long-distance seasonal trade, where calendar synchronisation is essential to success. 

11
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Talking about Physics
« on: 03/06/2023 22:19:04 »
Yes and no! There are plenty of examples of diffraction and interference of macroscopic waves. What is remarkable is that whilst individual particles produce random events (clearly quantum phenomena), the spatial distribution of those events is as predicted by a wave model.

Pattern recognition is an odd business.Humans tend to see "hyperuniformity" - imposing patterns on data where none exist, because  we have a preference for geometry. This has some advantages, say in navigating through a remebnered but now modified landscape, because we can ignore a few anomalies, but it can lead to errors in making very confident predictions that turn out to be completely wrong. Simple example: I say 1,3,5... and you say 7,9.... Wrong! I was enumerating primes, so the amswer is 7,11... and whilst it can be proved that there is no pattern to the occurrence of prime numbers, they do tend to occur in sort-of-periodic clumps!

12
New Theories / Re: Where does quantization of energy of electromagnetic radiation come from?
« on: 03/06/2023 22:02:16 »
Quote from: Eternal Student on 02/06/2023 16:40:59
There are some materials for which we just can't - there isn't a simple scalar relating E and D fields  OR  the B and H fields.
....which is why I said for various materials.

We are quite used to dealing with hysteresis and birefringence. You could still model em propagation in nonlinear materials by saying that εm  is not necessarily constant, but what usually matters in practice is the overall "black box" transfer function of a dense material, not the detail of what happens inside the box.

13
New Theories / Re: Where does quantization of energy of electromagnetic radiation come from?
« on: 03/06/2023 21:55:08 »
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 03/06/2023 06:59:04
Do Maxwell equations explain electrostatic and magnetostatic interactions?
If they don't, what does?
Is it compatible with Maxwell equations?
No, they are derived from experiments that show that a moving charge creates a magnetic field and a varying magnetic field induces a voltage in a conductor. These are essentially dynamic phenomena.

14
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Talking about Physics
« on: 03/06/2023 15:28:37 »
Quote from: varsigma on 02/06/2023 12:10:12
what do random or regular patterns of dots mean?
The dots arrive at random times, and the position of the next dot cannot be predicted from past events, but every time we repeat the experiment for long enough we get the same overall distribution.

15
Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Is religion killing us?
« on: 03/06/2023 15:25:28 »
Religion features very high among the list of killers, in some countries comparable with some cancers. It requires a vector, but there is no shortage of gullible people with guns and knives.

It is unique in being an avoidable, transmissible  entirely man-made and continually evolving disease of the brain that promotes physical harm to others who are presumed to suffer from a different strain.

16
New Theories / Re: Where does quantization of energy of electromagnetic radiation come from?
« on: 02/06/2023 08:34:12 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 01/06/2023 23:29:25
Maxwell's equations only describe the propagation of EM radiation in a vacuum.
No. They apply to any medium if you substitute  εm and μm for ε0 and μ0. The vacuum value is admittedly an experimental approximation, but none the worse for that.

To make life easy, we measure and publish dimensionless relative permittivities and permeabilities for various materials (including air and metamaterials) so you can just multiply the vacuum value as appropriate.

17
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Talking about Physics
« on: 02/06/2023 08:25:00 »
Oh dear! I think you are still not distinguishing between observations and models.

I'll allow "inject" as a colloquialism in this context: I think you mean "assign to the model of" an experiment. When we actually inject energy or stuff, the object is to see what happens next - understanding may come later. 

Procedures and algorithms are predetermined processes through which we force data or real stuff. There is nothing predetermined about the fate of a photon in the double-slit experiment, and there can't be: the outcome of any given event is essentially random.

On a grumpy day, I'd even reject "quantum requirement"! Quantum mechanics is how we describe and predict what happens. The fact that we can correctly predict an outcome, is a measure of the validity of the model, not a god-given and preordained demand as to how nature should work.

"Classical uncertainty" is the sum of random and systematic experimental errors that estimates the size of the ballpark that contains the truth. Not to be confused with Heisenberg's indeterminacy, which is an inherent property of the entity, nothing to do with error, and denies the existence of a single truth.

It has been argued that the progress of modern science actually rests on a religious belief that the universe was created and run by a consistent directive, and science is merely a search for the creator's plan. I deplore such arrogance. As I see it, by inventing and polishing mathematical models of what we know, we get better at anticipating the outcome of experiments that we haven't yet done.

18
New Theories / Re: Where does quantization of energy of electromagnetic radiation come from?
« on: 01/06/2023 23:08:50 »
Once the scattering has occurred, the spectrally-shifted radiation propagates exactly according to Maxwell because it is electromagnetic radiation.

I seem to have to keep repeating the bloody obvious: Maxwell's equations describe the propagation of EM radiation, not its interactions nor even its generation (the generation of radio waves is easily explained with them but atomic spectra and x-rays need a different approach - quantum mechanics is helpful) .

19
New Theories / Re: Where does quantization of energy of electromagnetic radiation come from?
« on: 01/06/2023 20:55:04 »
Nobody said they do. The lift equation doesn't model the ground run correction, but they are entirely consistent with the business of taking off and landing because it's all classical continuum mechanics.

20
New Theories / Re: Where does quantization of energy of electromagnetic radiation come from?
« on: 01/06/2023 15:17:37 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/05/2023 12:52:47
They don't, for example, explain the blue sky.

Rayleigh scattering in the atmosphere is a classical continuum effect, entirely consistent with Maxwell.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 837
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.896 seconds with 63 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.