so i know electricity flows only in a circuit, but what i can't seem to wrap my head around is why potential differences are only relative to the positive/negative poles on a battery
like if i take an LED and connect one end the positive of one fresh 9v battery, and connect the other end to the negative of another
@bream a battery is like a pump. In fact it's literally a pump since the chemical reaction inside batteries pumps electrons through the battery from the + terminal to the - terminal.
But electrons can't appear from nowhere and they can't disappear into nowhere. the battery can only pump electrons if there's a circuit for the electrons to travel round.
There's a (very good) analogy that is to imagine an electrical circuit as water flowing round pipes. The water is the electrons, the pies are the wires and the battery is the water pump.
@Kaumudi.H hi, want to chat?
user228700
@JohnR: Hang on, did you ping me about gchat last night?!
A voltage source acts as an electron pump. Suppose we take a battery as an example, then in the battery a chemical reaction pumps electrons from the cathode to the anode. The cathode becomes depleted in electrons and becomes positive while the anode acquires an excess of electrons and becomes neg...
I think it depends on the distance from which the image is viewed. If you watch it from a close enough distance, you get to see the circles, else the rectangles.
I wonder if there is a limit to the size of starship. For example, if it gets too large, won't the part of it within its schwarzchild radius collapses into a black hole?
Bell theorem seems something extremely sophisticated, requiring pages of formulas to prove ... so I wanted to ask for the simplest known proofs and explanations for the violation?
Basing on Bell-type inequality from this note, I have recently prepared mine (paper) with example of violation using...
Is he using some kind of statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics?
All your $\psi_{ABC}$ are real numbers, aren't they? Then your Hilbert space is of dimension 1 and there is no way it works. — Luc J. Bourhis34 mins ago
The arxiv does not said anything about whether these are complex
and it seems there is something retrocausal baked into his model
But anyway, I don;t have enough GR background to peel through this in detail, I will just leave it here
Also, I spun 1 Outside almost 3/4th, I think. It's so long I couldn't finish it in one go. But I really liked it. Inspired me to look into more of Bowie's works. I don't know how I missed this years ago
Ok, it appears I am (insert word) enough that I have now read that arxiv in detail:
Basically, his model is that all events in spacetime behave like random walks, so the probability of some outcome will need to account all possible trajectories leading to the event from the past and all possible trajectories leading from the event to the future in such a way that entropy is maximised.
And when doing so, the $|\psi|^2$ is the result of combining all possible worldlines leading to the event from the past lightcone (and possibly beyond) and those from the future
But now the question is: If $\psi$ is just a probability distribution of the set of future paths or the set of past paths, then what is the meaning of complex values under his model?
A more interesting question will be: If His model correctly describes the outcome of quantum phenomenon, why are regions of maximum entropy not delocalised in time (as would be expected once the system in question have maximised the entropy in some region, it should stay maximised unless disturbed)?
and if the probability of some outcome is determined by how the paths maximises the entropy, is it even possible to control how these high entropy regions being distributed given that we only have half of the information (namely the past light cone) for any given moment?
@Secret thx for sharing, skimmed his paper, its very ambitious, has a huge out-of-nowhere self-taught maverick feel to it, wild analogies, some great ideas, liked ref to "4d jello". alas it seems kind of a disorganized mishmash also. lets see if he can be engaged (at length) in chat...
@Secret so therefore a person who is misinformed is still informed, right? :P
well, technically bits are still transferred, even if it makes no sense or disagree with your worldview
Also, if misinformation can indeed be transferred superluminally, then it pretty much saying that the present is already kinda constrained by the future (recall that under relativity, any superluminal signally is the same as travelling back in time, and under time travel models where changing the past is impossible, the future necessary impose a constraint on what can happen in the present to satisfy these casual loops), so do we have any hopes of defeating misinformation campaigns?
@Secret you seem to be getting into philosophy. you might enjoy this recent analysis, just ran across theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/… ... anyway though it looks like in degenerate times, rationalism verges on sometimes "merely" a cultural construct...
Not because what you said was sleep-inducing ;) I was simply surprisingly tired all of a sudden
But I'm aware of the singularities that may or may not occur in the fibers, and that they should be "small, but I think that's because the duality only works in the regime even for the pure T^3 and K3
@JohnRennie “A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on.” - Terry Pratchett
Well, I don't get why vzn's comment is being deleted, but I guess no information is loss since Acuriousmind have restated the off topic reason later on down the track
and Jarek Dula's reply contains part of that information
Often it is easy for us to make the mistake of thinking the comments like a discussion uses. I saw similar phenomenon across all SE sites
After many years since last encountering him, Jarek Dula have changed a lot in terms of presenting stuff. Very different from back in sciforums where his ideas are presented in a more esoteric tone, now at least it looks organised. But yeah, peer review is off topic here, thus good luck that he can get that bell stuff clarified (and plug in some complex numbers because quantum is so much easier with complex numbers)
"These norms, which are more convenient when proving local estimates, are equivalent to the previous ones, as can be seen with a simple covering argument." Wonder what a covering argument is supposed to mean.