pdonis

46 ms·

781.
by pdonis 2y ago
> and thus gravity. No. The electroweak phase transition had no effect on gravity whatever; the stress-energy that was governing the expansion was the same before and after. Again, the source of gravity in GR is the stress-energy t
782.
by pdonis 2y ago
> E = MC^2 Is only an approximation for particular cases, not a general law.
783.
by pdonis 2y ago
> is it really the case that this is a commonly used description of the higgs field. For whatever it's worth, it's not a description I had seen before I read the article. It's certainly not one you're going to find
784.
by pdonis 2y ago
> Is that really so? As the article notes, no, this is not a correct description.
785.
by pdonis 2y ago
> If the higgs field did not exist, particles would not have enough mass to attract each other, and the universe as we know it would not exist. This is not correct. Rest mass is not required for gravity. The source of gravity in GR is
786.
by pdonis 2y ago
> the entire theory of the higgs field and its discovery came from understanding that the model without it lacked sufficient gravity to match the world around us. No, it didn't. Mass is not required for gravity; only energy is. Th
787.
by pdonis 2y ago
> Any particular reason/mechanism why the Higgs field suddenly (gradually?) switched on? "Switched on" is not really a good description. According to my understanding of our best current model, the Higgs field was not
788.
by pdonis 2y ago
African and European electricity could be operating it together...
789.
by pdonis 2y ago
> On a unix filesystem, a file that's hard linked with multiple names has no single 'actual name'. But each of the multiple names points to the same actual data, so it doesn't matter which one is shown. The obvious
790.
by pdonis 2y ago
> If the (GR+QM) firewall hypothesis is correct (a big if) A big if indeed, but if that hypothesis is correct, then the GR solution that applies is no longer the standard black hole solution . The "firewall" is not vacuum-
791.
by pdonis 2y ago
> I have absolutely no idea what you think this explains. It explains the case where an electron and a proton scatter off each other and do not form a bound hydrogen atom.
792.
by pdonis 2y ago
> so the electron is now bound to the proton This is extremely unlikely unless the relative motion is very slow, or, to put it another way, the total center of mass energy is very close to the rest energy of electron + proton, so there
793.
by pdonis 2y ago
> In a classical view of 2 particles accelerating towards each other v x r will always be 0 Only if the impact parameter is exactly zero. But that is an extremely unlikely edge case.
794.
by pdonis 2y ago
> You can just plug numbers into Coulomb's law Not if you want to get correct answers in problems that involve moving charges. > relativity is necessary when things start to move 'very fast' In electromagnetism, rel
795.
by pdonis 2y ago
> electrons orbiting protons don't emit synchrotron radiation Not in atoms, no. But I mentioned scattering, which is a different scenario.
796.
by pdonis 2y ago
> our universe also includes QM and that makes BH physics much more subtle In some ways, yes, but none of that changes the particular thing I said about BH physics.
797.
by pdonis 2y ago
> Some claim matter falling into a black hole never really does from the point of view of an outside observer. Such claims are wrong. The correct statement is that the outside observer never sees the matter reaching or falling inside
798.
by pdonis 2y ago
An electron-proton pair approaching each other will not necessarily form a hydrogen atom by emitting radiation. They could just scatter off each other, and if the impact parameter is large enough, this process could be modeled reasonably we
799.
by pdonis 2y ago
> An electron falling (electrostatically) toward a proton will reach the speed of light at some point. No, it won't. A correct relativistic analysis of the relative motion of the electron and proton will show their relative speed
800.
by pdonis 2y ago
> I don't see this making any sense for large scale energy storage. Storage tanks for compressed hydrogen enjoy the square-cube law. This system doesn't store hydrogen. It stores elemental iron (produced from iron oxide, i.e.
801.
by pdonis 2y ago
> Is my sense of wonder diminished by understanding Rayleigh Scattering? Richard Feynman asked a similar question, IIRC about knowing how the color and smell of flowers is conveyed to your senses and processed by your brain. He said he
802.
by pdonis 2y ago
> Other than rabies And, as others have commented upthread, roundworm, which, unlike rabies, can't be reasonably managed.
803.
by pdonis 2y ago
The real kicker in that case is that Snyder claimed the money was payment for services as a consultant to Peterbilt--which would be an obvious and glaring conflict of interest with his duties as mayor. But as far as I can tell this wasn&#x2
804.
by pdonis 2y ago
> think what you’re saying is: conspicuously paying more money for health insurance, or paying for more people, is a signal about affluence. No, I'm saying no such thing. I'm saying that having the government provide health i
805.
by pdonis 2y ago
> what matters is that he had a position in Boeing Only if he knew about it and kept the position. Which, according to the disclosure he filed, he didn't.
806.
by pdonis 2y ago
> why the second group ("the pure institution for institution sake" mindset) tends to take over the organisation. Because they can focus 100% of their time and effort on controlling the organization, whereas the first group c
807.
by pdonis 2y ago
> The original Green New Deal, the 2006 package of single-payer health care, job guarantees, free college paid by a carbon tax; that’s hard for me to call materialistic. Sure it's materialistic. By "health care" is meant
808.
by pdonis 2y ago
> Today, it’s the political right that embraces materialism (he assumes left) and the left that understands the biblical sacrifice. I agree with you about today's right, but disagree strongly about the left. The left is, if anythi
809.
by pdonis 2y ago
Correction from the poster I was responding to: it is not his article. My comment about why the anecdotes in this thread are about Chase are still valid, but I did not realize that the poster I was responding to was not the article's a
810.
by pdonis 2y ago
> I’m not the OP and I didn’t write an article. Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that. That was stupid of me.

More ›