Also since so much of the chat was involved in question I asked and was unclear about "my objection." I feel I'd have to tag too many people otherwise. But I attempt to amke my views as clear as possible
Background
So I asked this question, where I'm thinking about this joshphysics's answer:
And the gist of what I get is (from the answers and the chatroom) within interpretations of quantum mechanics which say the measurement is non-unitary one can definitely make the case that the derivation c...
@JohnRennie in that case please feel free to respond with an answer to that question post. I'm open-minded enough to accept an wayout 5 as well ... I'm guessing you have read the premise of my objection and the spoecific example I give (where I assume it can't apply)... In which case please answer? Even if ur method is wayout 4 (that would be help[ful too)
An answer would be a lot of work because I feel as though you've not grasped what the uncertainty principle means, so I'd have to start by explaining it.
I see ... Can I atleast know ur official stance on "one cannot use this derivation to say the time between 2 subsequent measurements cannot be taken to 0. "
Ofcourse I do type more lines on the context of this as well ...
I feel a simple yes or no would be helpful at this point and Maybe u can tell me the physical situations this derivation applies too
quoting myself "In fact, I'm under the opinion the number of ways the 3'rd way out enables you to do are under 5 "
Edited that here is better sentence of what I mean:
In fact, I'm under the opinion the number of physical situations(/experiments) the 3'rd way out enables you to do are under 5
Are the torques on the gearbox of a manual car the same? Like, the radius and therefore the force of the gear may vary, but in the end, it doesn't matter if you are on 1st, 2nd... you have the same torque, but varying force?
@MoreAnonymous BTW, that question currently has 3 close votes, for the "unclear what you're asking" close reason. But perhaps some of those voters will reverse their votes when they see the updated version.
@PM2Ring it's good to know my efforts for clarity are being rewarded with: "But perhaps some of those voters will reverse their votes when they see the updated version. "
I'm just gonna pause for some more time ...
Before bounty
also can a bounty question be put on hold?v (if unclear)
@PM2Ring If so is there any possible way to get a reset on these flags?>
@MoreAnonymous What do you mean? I have no idea who close-voted that question, or if they'll ever look at it again. And nobody can undo anyone else's close votes.
@MoreAnonymous No, bountied questions cannot be closed. OTOH, some people may be inclined to down-vote a bountied question if they think the OP bountied a bad or borderline question to block it from being closed.
So I'm asking if a bounty question can be frozen due to it being unclear (in which case what happens to the time limit of the bounty)? Also with your answer I suspect the answer is no. There is no mechanism by which after a (massive) edit I can get these flags to be reset ...
@PM2Ring I feel I'm in a tricky situation ....
Oh dear
Alright after careful internal (and externally influenced) deliberation ... Im gonna bounty it :/
@PM2Ring Im thinking of going with "Canonical answer required"?? (amongst bounty reasons)
@MoreAnonymous Yes, you are. I advise waiting a day or so, to see what happens. If you seem to be getting a more positive response, then consider putting a bounty on it. But frankly, you don't have a lot of rep to spend on a big bounty. And a small bounty may not be enough to entice an expert into investing the energy in writing a comprehensive answer.
@PM2Ring I was under the impression the bounty enabled one to speed service the process (but obviously this interpretation doesn't apply in tricky situations) .... How do u quantify "positive response"?
@MoreAnonymous Positive comments about it, on the post itself, or here in chat. Bear in mind that the people who were involved in the chat session(s) and meta question are probably a bit sick of the topic right now, so don't push it. ;) Give them time.
@PM2Ring thanks I'll wait 1 or 2 days ... I guess .. Also I think we already have someone in the chatroom besides myself pleased with the effort I've put in :P :P :P
Also I swear I've been doing this all day at work today ... People say cooperative life is terrible ... I beg to differ :P :P :P
*cooperation
**work life in a cooperation
Also is there a good physics themed version of dilbert??
Where in dilbert the comic is about work culture bureaucracy (in a company)
I need one that enforces the work culture bureaucracy (in academia)
Also @PM2Ring would you mind advising me on what bounty reason to give? And how many points should work? (when the time for bounty is nearer)? I don't mind taking advice from others but in my country theres a saying "If you ask different spiritual masters the direction you shouldnt be suprised if they provide you with different directions?"
And regarding to that quote I think the problem is asking a spiritual master anything :P
@Slereah I saw science direct and was under the impression this was some journal u were referencing to where a neuroscientist was talkiong about language :P
Noone takes me (or my jokes) seriously enough as they should :P
@PM2Ring this edited version is still receiving downvotes: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/502221/does-the-copenhagen-interpretation-quasi-classical-apparatus-allow-one-to
Im of the impression whatever I've said is not sufficient
Any ideas for what next step to take?
I could start a meta with how can I better phrase my question ?? But Im not sure where that would lead :/
@MoreAnonymous Definitely don't ask a new meta question about it! That will just attract more negative attention. All you can do now is wait, and hope for some constructive feedback.
The alternative position I could take is something in my question is soooo dumb that it's being downvoted massively and it would take too much effort to spell it out ...
@PM2Ring is there some "Can I have constructive feedback post" you can point me towards?? Though I would love specific criticism? Maybe that might help?
@Semiclassical Are you willing to help? https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/502221/does-the-copenhagen-interpretation-quasi-classical-apparatus-allow-one-to
As one of the original characters in this episode of "the simpsons" :P
I wonder if my post will flucate around the score of 2 for all eternity :P Maybe I knowing the standard deviation might help :P
@AbhasKumarSinha what is this yes to: 1.Bart has a horrified expression in that one 2.I wonder if my post will flucate around the score of 2 for all eternity
I do remember doing precisely that theorem but I'm not sure if has anything to with my question (though at this point Im not even certain if I know QM) ...
@MoreAnonymous Positive comments about it, on the post itself, or here in chat. Bear in mind that the people who were involved in the chat session(s) and meta question are probably a bit sick of the topic right now, so don't push it. ;) Give them time.
Yea ... @PM2Ring Im unfortunately the type who loses sleep over not understanding something ... I'm not defending my impatience but hoping for some sympathy
@AbhasKumarSinha not in university anymore but yes I was gonna drop him a mail ... Im sure he'll be horrified to learn despite his course and me getting a 1st Im messing up something really basic :/ ...
This recent question asks about Quantum Darwinism, which has an interesting approach to the measurement problem. But it looks like no-one is interested in (or capable of) answering it. physics.stackexchange.com/questions/502566/…
@MoreAnonymous Sorry, you aren't going to get a lot of sympathy right now, after posting a meta question that casts aspersions on one of the site's favourite mods. You just have to wait, and do positive stuff to demonstrate your value as a member of the community.
@MoreAnonymous It's not a fantastic question, but it's quite reasonable. But sadly, lots of questions like that slip through the cracks, without getting any attention.
@PM2Ring I'm pretty sure ur talking about the Quantum Darwinism question and not mine (sorry for stating the obvious but Ive had baaad experience with presupposing views)
@MoreAnonymous Yes, I was talking about the Quantum Darwinism question. There's a bit of info on Wikipedia. It sounds interesting. It's not exactly "just" an interpretation, since it postulates a mechanism underlying which measurements actually occur, so in principle it's predictions can differ from those of standard interpretations. I think. :)
Philip Ball at Quanta has a nice article on “Quantum Darwinism” and experiments designed to exhibit actual toy examples of the idea in action (I don’t think “testing” the idea is quite the right language in this context). What’s at issue is the difficult problem of how to understand the way in which classical behavior emerges from an underlying quantum system. For a recent survey article discussing the ideas surrounding Quantum Darwinism, see this from Wojciech Zurek. Jess Riedel at his blog has a new FAQ About Experimental Quantum Darwinism which
I don't really know how to solve it, and it's really frustrating. I'd like to know if perhaps the question is hard, so at least I know I'm not missing something simple. It concerns a very real like issue - barbell bench press, so make sure to take a look at it - you'll be sure to impress your meathead buddies. Well it's unlikely you have meathead buddies but whatever...
@MoreAnonymous my twitter - twitter.com/abhaskumarsinha
@JohnP your discription is a bit confusing, do you've an image to point A, B, C and force vectors? That should definitely help me as well as other people in the website. To be fair, I think that I can solve your problem, but I'm confused so...
FOrmally, I'm assuming there's an object D between B and C, in the middle of them.THere is a massless rod between B and D, and between D and C. these two massless rods are constrained to keep the same angle.
This object D is of a negligible mass compared to A,B,C
A can't move, C can only move vertically, there's the massless rods that keep the distance between various objects fixed, and the 2 rods that contain D keep a cosntant angle. THose are the constraints.
Not sure what you mean by if D pushes C or not, there's only the force acting on D.
@JohnP if only force acts, then it'll move down, if A provides sufficient torque to counter forces, then it can also move up. So, if only force (1, -1) is there, then it'll move down
Ok so see I would expect all this. ANd yet empriically, somehow the triceps which act in a very similar way like these forces, somehow contribute and help move your hand C up.
@JohnP Practically, triceps won't help here, but, when you actually lift a barbell (by lifting with a smaller section of width of it, than it actually is), you lift it's center of mass, so you've to apply a diagonal component of the force here too
I'm still not sure that's true. I think they help, even the grip width is wide, and throughout the whole movement your forearms are essentially pointing outwards.
ugh! sorry, I'm confused, larger the width, more is the contribution of biceps, more muscles, that's why it's easier to lift when the width is more, lesser the width, less contribution of biceps, more difficult to lift
It definitely does, but biceps are probably negligible there - you can't use both - they do the opposite thing (only for physiological/safety reasons it happens, but it doesn't contribute to movement directly)
Oh ok. Yeah but see I don't understand it - how exactly do the triceps help in say the diagram I posted? I mean they definitely do, it's just an empirical observation that people know it's important.
Even with a wide grip, they help.
Like I said, it seems like they help "push" the elbow in, which means the arm extends, and hand goes up higher.
An alternative intuitive observation - imagine you are essentially strong enough to keep the angle in elbow constant ( angle between AB and BC) whcih strong enough triceps should be able to do, and the weight is heavy. It will still not move - it's like the upper arm and forearm are a rigid body, and can only rotate around the shoulder. But the hand can also only move up or down, so nothing will move.
So it seems like enough force that will keep the elbow "still" essentially causes upwards movement of the hand.
Guys I've edited the question - would maybe look at it and tell me if it's understandable?
This should probably be solvable using Lagrangian mechanics, but I haven't learned that yet and so I would appreciate an explanation of what happens without referring to it, if possible, and ideally some sort of intuitive simplified reason why it happens.
My question: what would be a basic model...
Hi, @Loong ? Why edit a 5 year old unanswered check-my-work question like that one? Are you bored or something? :) Maybe you can give some input to this
@PM2Ring OP has no idea about radioactivity. And I am afraid that question could attract low-quality answers.
Maybe move it to worldbuilding.se
And I don't want to tell people where to find the highest potential releases.
Probably OP also has no idea how a nuclear power plant works.
> the water is not moving too much
Then you should not build a power plant there; although it's not impossible.
Of course, "radium" and "irradiate water" has nothing to do with it; but I guess OP already knows that.
"for ~100 years" That leaves only one radionuclide that could have the desired effect in water, but even that one would mostly move to the sediment in the long term. And it could be removed from drinking water like any other salt.
So, if Cheronbyl was supposed to be on purpose, could it have been worse? And how bad could it have been? — Seph Reedyesterday
Cutting the primary coolant loop would have resulted in even more melt down and ejection of radio-nuclides from the core. An actual nuclear explosion (like an A-bomb) still seems unlikely though. — Gertyesterday
Chernobyl doesn’t have primary coolant loops like a PWR. It doesn’t even have primary coolant. And all reactor coolant lines actually had been cut.
Frankly, I'd be more worried about tritium in the water supply than radioactive caesium or iodine. That's a bit harder to remove. But I guess a biological agent would be nastier. Nobody wants Mad Cow disease in their ecosystem.
The low-energy beta radiation of H-3 is effectively shielded by any kind of material, including the outer layers of the skin. Therefore, external exposure to H-3 is generally not taken into account in radiation protection. Typical tabulated dose coefficients for external exposure to H-3 are all z...
It's a blue one of these. The site says the inner chamber is Pyrex. I did use it as a key chain for about 8 years, sometimes in my jeans pocket, but mostly in my backpack. These days, it just sits on my bookshelf.
@AbhasKumarSinha Not really. See the post Loong linked. The beta particles are pretty weak, and get blocked by the glass, as Loong just calculated. There's a tiny bit of X-ray emission, but it's also rather mild, much less than sitting in front of an old CRT computer monitor or TV.
Of course, before computers, nobody sat right up close to the TV. OTOH, some of us did sit in front of oscilloscopes. ;) I got an oscilloscope kit for Christmas when I was 10. My Dad worked for a company that did electronics correspondence courses, and supplied a few essential items of electronic test gear in kit form, for the students to build. So at the end of the course you had a bunch of useful gear, and various other bits & pieces.
I was wondering, how do innovative entrepreneurs (Elon Musk made an impression on me) do think of those perfect ideas to fill or improve something. For example Tesla. Electric cars is exactly what the world needs and is much more efficient, clean, easy-to-operate than manual transmission cars. Also Paypal. It's something so simple and obvious, the perfect idea at the perfect time.
I was also wondering, how automatic transmission system or an electric car detect what torque to put into the wheels and how do they do it?
Background
So I asked this question, where I'm thinking about this joshphysics's answer:
And the gist of what I get is (from the answers and the chatroom) within interpretations of quantum mechanics which say the measurement is non-unitary one can definitely make the case that the derivation c...
