Reputation
266
Next privilege 500 Rep.
Access review queues
Badges
1 6
Newest
 Scholar
Impact
~3k people reached

  • 0 posts edited
  • 0 helpful flags
  • 10 votes cast
Jan
24
comment Can you lift a basket up while standing inside it?
However, this doesn't explain why the intended idea -- pulling directly on the handles with your arms -- doesn't work.
Dec
20
comment What does an orbital mean in atoms with multiple electrons? What do the orbitals of Helium look like?
@John Duffield: So what do you take an "orbital" as meaning, then? You have said it does not mean a probability function, so what is it and what is its relationship to the wavefunction?
Dec
15
comment What does an orbital mean in atoms with multiple electrons? What do the orbitals of Helium look like?
So then the orbitals are more of a descriptive device for the quantum state than pictures of the "actual" distribution of electrons within the atom?
Dec
15
awarded  Scholar
Dec
15
accepted What does an orbital mean in atoms with multiple electrons? What do the orbitals of Helium look like?
Dec
15
comment What does an orbital mean in atoms with multiple electrons? What do the orbitals of Helium look like?
@Gert: I could not find any pictures of helium orbitals in that reference.
Dec
15
comment What does an orbital mean in atoms with multiple electrons? What do the orbitals of Helium look like?
@Brionius: Yes, however I guess I'm curious as to whether or not the difference in shape would be visible to the eye if you could plot the Helium (say) orbital on one graph and juxtapose it with a graph of the Hydrogen orbital. However I suppose that is not possible because a more accurate plot would be six-dimensional, right? That's what I'm after: whether it's because that you can't plot these things, or its something like that the differences between the H and He orbitals are just too small to be visible on a graph.
Dec
15
comment Can we increase the magnetic flux for a permanent magnet?
I think what he's asking is if we subject the magnet itself to an electric current, how does that affect the magnetic field produced by it?
Dec
15
comment What does an orbital mean in atoms with multiple electrons? What do the orbitals of Helium look like?
@Brionius: How does that gel with the multidimensionality of the wave function?
Dec
15
asked What does an orbital mean in atoms with multiple electrons? What do the orbitals of Helium look like?
Dec
4
comment What objective criteria distinguish between valid science, fringe science and pseudoscience in physics?
@Ron Maimon: So how do you reject all arguments which criticize the experimental design of positive-result-generating cold fusion experiments? What is your approach to thoroughly refuting these criticisms?
Sep
12
comment Is there an objective, external reality according to quantum physics?
Is it my imagination or is there a supposition somewhere in this discussion that the "observer" constitutes something separate from the "universe"? According to the usual naturalist/physicalist assumptions in science (no supernatural "souls", etc.) there isn't. It's all just matter, the observer is just a chunk of matter. If it's all just matter then to talk of the "observer" and "universe" as distinct is kind of silly, no?
Sep
5
comment In the earth's crust, why is there far more uranium than gold?
I'm curious: regarding georeactors, is it possible at all that a planet with a georeactor could form naturally anywhere, even if Earth is not it? Or does this process rule this out on pretty much all planets? I'm guessing the answer is no, since silicon is so common (8th most common by mass in the universe) that any rocky planets are going to have a lot of it in them.
Aug
28
comment Do apparent event horizons have Hawking radiation?
So does this mean the Unruh radiation is seen as directional and coming from "behind" the accelerating observer, not as a uniform bath coming from every direction?
Jul
4
comment Would a solution to the Navier-Stokes Millennium Problem have any practical consequences?
So what is the reason for considering P!=NP to be "scientifically certain"?
Jul
3
comment Would a solution to the Navier-Stokes Millennium Problem have any practical consequences?
So then you're saying it's probably true, not "100% surely true". But that's the same case as with many of these other unresolved conjectures, isn't it? They're probably one of true/false, but may be the other.
Jul
3
comment Can the math for physics be expressed without any uncountable sets at all?
@CuriousOne: However, could one argue that it is actually the uncountablist maths which makes the extra assumptions -- in particular, that there exist these indescribables of various types (uncomputable reals, Banach Tarsky-type sets, etc.)?
Jul
3
comment Can the math for physics be expressed without any uncountable sets at all?
If all that disappears is stuff on an "infinite precision" level, then there is no reason we could not use C-I maths instead of uncountablist.
Jul
3
comment Can the math for physics be expressed without any uncountable sets at all?
Right. So then it would seem not to defeat the usefulness of a physics theory built on Computable-Intuitionistic mathematics. Because we cannot measure down to the level that would be required to distinguish between the two types of mathematics. What I want to know is exactly what predictive power disappears when you use Computable-Intuitionist maths to do your classical mechanics, versus using uncountablist maths? Because that was the contention of this answer's OP.
Jul
3
comment Can the math for physics be expressed without any uncountable sets at all?
Right. So then I'd say show me an example of a testable prediction (the only kind that matters in science) that can be made by, say, "classical" classical mechanics and NOT by Computable-Intuitionistic classical mechanics. Something involving things along the lines of creating objects like Banach-Tarski-like sets doesn't count because that is not testable since we cannot make anything like that.