« Last post by vhfpmr on Yesterday at 22:24:27 »
But what makes an orgasm trigger a sneezing fit?
Hydroelectricity is indeed free of charge as long as you collect the water in your own reservoir at the top of your own mountain and move it through your own pipes. It may be worthwhile comparing your domestic piped water charges with your electricity bill.
UK domestic water costs about £4 per tonne (you pay more for the sewerage to take it away than you do for delivering the clean stuff!). Assume you have a 5 m pressure head from a 1000 liter brake tank in the loft. 1 tonne falling through 5 m will deliver
m g h = 1000 x 9.81 x 5 = 49,050 joules = 13.625 Wh for £4, about 30,000 times the cost of the same amount of domestic electricity.
If you drive your turbine direct from the water main, at say 5 bar pressure, you will reduce the cost to about 3,000 times the cost of mains electricity.
Superpositions means the probability of finding the state of a particle is 50% up and 50% down.I'm no QM expert, but are you saying that superposition is confined to spin measurements, and to 50/50 probabilities? Given what you say below, I don't think you mean that, but it sounds like just an epistemological assertion: I toss a coin and catch it under my hand and don't know if it's heads or not. That's not superposition, but your description here seems to indicate it being your understanding of it.QuoteIt does not mean it is in a real superposition.I've never heard of 'real superposition' as distinct from a different sort of superposition. Kindly give an example or a link or something. You've really lost me with all this.QuoteYou say for you what is real is what can be measured or detected.I said that under my preferred view, what is real to X is what has been measured by X. It has nothing to do with what can be measured.QuoteYou can't detect a superposition.Interference is one way superposition is detected. A simple lack of knowledge does not explain interference.QuoteThe MWI is special because it tries to include the superposition in parallel worlds, but in the end, it is a causal set in many worlds instead of one.I don't know your personal understanding of MWI. There's typically the actual-splitting-worlds interpretation (De Witt) where ontologically distinct worlds result from a measurement, and then there's the relative state formulation (Everett) which is just one thing. The former has serious problems in my opinion, but the latter has problems as well.QuoteThe farthest star we could see has an impact on us due to gravity, even though you can neglect it in practice because it is too small.Not negligible since there's so bloody many of those distant stars. They have more effect on our potential energy than do the nearby objects.QuoteThere is no proof that randomness is fundamental.Of course not. Neither Bohm nor Everett have any randomness in their interpretations, but some others do. Einstein had a significant distaste for it, but most of the QM interpretations at his time posited randomness. I'd love to hear his take on some of the more modern ones.QuoteNow, if you take only a very small number of particles and you have no prior information on them, your power of prediction becomes minimal.I'd say the particles do not meaningfully exist at all given no prior information on them. I suppose Bohm would say otherwise since he posits a measurement-independent reality.QuoteUnrealistic interpretations are not better, they are worst because they all demand more free parameters.One that is free of contradictions seems better than one with them, but with fewer 'free parameters'. Not sure what you consider these free parameters to be. What's your QM interpretation of choice? Causal sets is not a QM interpretation. Not without unification with QM at least. I like the relational one (Rovelli, 1994) for the reasons I've posted in this thread.
I suspected that CFD might be involved, and was interested to see if you differentiated between “speaking "meaningfully" of the definiteness of the results of measurements”, on the one hand, and making assertions about the existence/non-existence of physical objects in a 3+1 (apparent) reality.I don't see how the CFD thing is related to interpretation of time. Most interpretations, with or without CFD, work both models of reality (time as a dimension or not).
My understanding is that pair-production requires that the vacuum be “something” and that there be an input of energy to act on that “something”.No energy is needed for virtual pair production since they have zero mass/energy. But energy is needed to make the virtual particles real. That has to come from somewhere.
Can it be asserted that the presence of that “something”, and the input of energy are without cause?Energy cannot appear uncaused. That would violate thermodynamic law.
I’ve just found a comment by JP, for whose views I have the highest regard.Well I'm definitely not in the something from nothing camp. A realist will say there is something, but not necessarily that it came from nothing, and the whole phrase "ever has been nothing" is a self contradiction.
In a thread similar to this we were in discussion about the something from nothing idea. The thread became so convoluted that we switched to PMs to look more closely at whether or not we could say that there could never have been nothing.
He was adamant that we could not make this claim because, “outside the Universe conditions could exist in which something could come from nothing”. I pointed out that “conditions” must surely be somethingExcellent point. Especially if it's phrased as 'existing conditions'.
and although the discussion continued for a while, we never really moved beyond his saying: “The problem with the idea that "nothing can come from nothing" is that to scientifically discuss this, we need to come up with a model, and we can't even describe "absolute nothing" scientifically (or at least I haven't seen a scientifically workable definition)”.A model about that for which there is no empirical test isn't a very scientific one. I don't claim to be discussing science in this thread.