Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
I bet you didnt know that
Comments
-
-
-
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 93,129 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 91367
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,309 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 6211
An interesting tennis stat here. On Sunday 23rd of September Juan Martin del Potro turned 30 and today Marin Cillic (picture above) also turned 30.
Why is the above noteworthy?
Well, it now means that in the mens game, no player aged under 30 has won a grand slam. Also it means, that no player under 30 has won as much as a set in a grand slam final. In fact, only three players in their twenties have even made a Slam final: Milos Raonic, Dominic Thiem and Kei Nishikori. Raonic came the closest to getting on the scoreboard, taking Andy Murray to two tie-breaks in the 2016 Wimbledon final.
The active ATP players to boast a set in a major final are Roger Federer (37), Stan Wawrinka (33), Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (33), Marcos Baghdatis (33), Rafael Nadal (32), Andy Murray (31), Novak Djokovic (31), Del Potro (30) and Cilic (30).
The dominance of the big 4: Federer, Djokovic, Nadal and Murray stretches back to the 2005 French Open. In the 55 slams that have taken place since that tournament, only one final has not featured any of them (2014 US Open). From the 2010 US Open to the 2013 Australian Open they occupied all the winners and runner up spots. Since 2008 they have occupied all four semifinal spots on four occasions, at the 2008 US Open, 2011 French Open, 2011 US Open and 2012 Australian Open, as well as taking three of the four spaces on nine other separate occasions. In 2011 they occupied 14 out of a possible 16 Grand Slam semifinal slots. In the same period, only twice have two or more not made the semifinal stage (2009 and 2010 French Open), while in 2012 they took 13 out 16 Grand Slam tournament semifinal slots.
One last stat. When taking into account only the grand slam titles they have won where they have played another of the big 4, Djokovic stands at 13 (100%), Nadal at 13 (76%), Federer at 8 (40%) and Murray at 2 (67%).0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
RiderOnTheStorm wrote: »Dont know if its true, but sounds true....that humans are the only mammal that drinks milk as an adult. Maybe we shouldn't be drinking it if we aren't designed for it.
Possibly, but especially here in Ireland we have been lactose tolerant for hundreds, if not thousands of years, so we are fully adapted to consuming dairy.
I cannot and will not give up butter on my potatoes and cheese on a sandwich.
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
The iconic Jumbo Jet; the Boeing 747 turned 50 this year.
It was designed by Joe Sutter & his team and all by hand. It was originally thought that the continuing development of aircraft & their engines would lead to subsonic planes been mainly used for cargo as passenger aircraft would mainly be by supersonic aircraft like the Concorde and the then in development Boeing Supersonic Transport. It is this reason why the 747 has its hump as Joe wanted it to be used as a freighter with nose loading too.
Boeing bet the whole company on the 747 and had to build a huge new hanger for it. Despite the complexity of the project; the aircraft flew on schedule but was delayed for a short while entering airline service due to engine issues. These engines were a new high bypass design by Pratt & Whitney (P&W); the problems were only solved when a Boeing Test Pilot took the head of P&W up on a test flight and proved to him in flight how the engine would stall…. That shocked him into action to solve the design issue!!!
The original design was improved over the years with the hump getting stretched for more seating; improved engines, winglets to the ends of the wings for better fuel economy etc.
The latest version has a new wing which done away with the winglets as it got a whole new wing. This version the 747-8 was not a success for Boeing from a passenger point of view and more freighter versions have sold than passenger. It’s quite likely the US government will purchase the last of the passenger version as a replacement for Air Force One.
From an Irish point of View; Aer Lingus was one of the launch customers for the 747 and the then Shamrock tail design may still be seen on the original test aircraft which is now preserved in Seattle.
It flew 3 of the original versions on their transatlantic network and when in the winter demand on the transatlantic fell; Aer Lingus leased some of the fleet to other aircraft thus Ireland began what is now a multi-billion business in aircraft leasing worldwide.
Should anyone like to take a flight on the ‘Queen of the Skies’ start planning soon as they are slowly been retired. British Airways still have a big fleet of them but hope to retire them by 2022 or so.
A graceful iconic aircraft that helped bring flying within the grasp of the ordinary person.
Lots of more info online and YouTube has some great videos too.
[IMG][/img]
747 by Paul Carr, on Flickr
https://youtu.be/WsN334JjITc0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,183 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59110
One of the Aer Lingus 747's in '75.
Note how the captain uses a handheld microphone for the radio. None of your fancy headsets. No sirree!
On a couple of trips to the US with my folks in the late 70's, early 80's I flew on the Aer Lingus Jumbos. The first time I remember it was the one the pope of the time had flown into Ireland in(which flew over the crowd in the Phoenix Park). Can't recall the name of it. On another trip I flew on one of the others. Wetting myself with excitement I was. I remember walking out to the aircraft and looking down when we reached the door and thinking how high up we were. My dad joked we were already up in the air. IIRC the next trips we used the enclosed gangway? I had been on 737's before, which were exciting enough, but the Jumbo was another world. I remember looking back as we took off and saw a hundred odd people drop with the rear of the plane. I walked the length of it and couldn't believe how long it was(and how slightly more difficult it was walking back to the front). My dad put the talk on one of the crew as he tended to do and next thing we're in the cockpit, then he left and I got to sit in one of the chairs for about an hour chatting with the flight crew who were really sound. I was nuts about planes and had tried to memorise all the dials and such. And the captain went through them with me. I was in bloody heaven. They even got me sorted with a can of Fanta and a bag of crisps. 8 hour flight IIRC. Can't remember a film being showed, but you got headphones in plastic bags and could listen to an RTE half hour loop playing the latest poptastic tunes. After one flight I swore if I ever heard Hall & Oates "Your kiss on my list" again I'd do meself in. Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,183 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59110
Yep, to the Classical world Ireland and the Irish were "Scotti" and what is now Scotland was usually included with that, though Caledonia was named out as specifically Scotland. Though more specifically again and later in the mix someone, a Scotti who was Irish often got Eriugena tacked onto their name. IE from the Latin; "Irish born", as Eriu was the name of Ireland, after a goddess of the same name. Erin more latterly. Erinland, Ireland. The word appears to be pre Gaelic in origin. It may have a root that means land of plenty. The Classical world varied on this. Greek and Roman lads who mentioned the place either thought of it as a land of plenty, where as one guy reported it the grass was so good cattle were in real danger of exploding from the goodness, or as a Land of Winter. That's one of its other names. Hibernia, which translates as the "Land of winter". That's where we get the word "Hibernation" from, when some animals sleep through the winter.
To be fair, it is Ireland, so it can be both, which is likely how the Classical types got a tad confused. Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,309 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 6211
Back in the mid 1800s, Chicago had a big mud problem because it was built near a lake shore marsh. This helped to spread illnesses like typhoid fever, dysentery, and even a deadly outbreak of cholera. It was decided that the city would need to be raised (by between four to 14 feet) to increase drainage from the city surface.
Artists drawing of it below..
0 -
I've been trying to think how to explain this for a while and because I've been reading a history of the Caribbean, I'm going to use pirates.
Entanglement is a set of coincidences between particles that are so regular and specific that you'd naturally think they are communicating, but it's pretty much impossible for them to, so nobody can explain what is going on.
The situation is pretty easy to explain.
Two pirates on two separate ships each have a treasure box with two drawers. Inside each drawer are thousands of jewels that can be red or blue. The treasure boxes were filled up by each pirate separately on different islands.
The pirates agree to begin taking jewels once every two seconds starting at eight o' clock on Wednesday and continue for an hour. Each time they take a jewel, they can pick any drawer they want.
They then sail into the next harbour and compare results. They find the following:- Every time they both took jewels from the top drawer, they had the same colour.
- Every time they took jewels from different drawers (i.e. Pirate #1 picked the top drawer, Pirate #2 took the bottom drawer), they get the same colour
- Every time they both took jewels from the bottom drawer, they get different colours.
So they find a set of very specific regular coincidences. The problem is, the boxes have never been near each other and each pirate filled them without talking to the other.
Fairly inexplicable.
This is exactly what we find with electrons (and other particles).
The analogy is just:
Treasure box => Electron
Drawer => Choice of which direction to check their spin in (vertical or horizontal)
Jewel colour => spinning clockwise or anticlockwise
Pirates => Scientists
Even electrons made in separate labs, shielded from each other, on opposite sides of the planet, display these bizarre coincidences. The particles aren't interacting to make sure they both agree with the rules above. They've never even been near each other. And nothing could carry a message between them fast enough to make them agree either. According to QM it's just a coincidence "built into" the world, a pattern built into history.
How Quantum Computers work is that they take advantage of these coincidences. To simplify a bit, if they encode some mathematical problem in one bunch of particles, the answer is guaranteed to coincidentally be found in another bunch of particles, allowing them to skip actually working out the answer.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Yes, yes, all well and good, but is the cat ok?
Exactly my thoughts
About Fourier's entanglements:
My current job is to translate a book with so-called Sherlock Holmes puzzles. It's fun, but boy they chose puzzles with mathematical solutions I'm struggling to understand, never mind to translate them into German :rolleyes:
So I'm sorry that I can't be bothered right now to understand what your entanglement means (the only entanglement I can think of right now is my hair in the morning).
I'm just happy that I could, for that translation, disentangle the Fibonacci sequence. No, don't ask.0 -
-
Yep, to the Classical world Ireland and the Irish were "Scotti" and what is now Scotland was usually included with that, though Caledonia was named out as specifically Scotland. Though more specifically again and later in the mix someone, a Scotti who was Irish often got Eriugena tacked onto their name. IE from the Latin; "Irish born", as Eriu was the name of Ireland, after a goddess of the same name. Erin more latterly. Erinland, Ireland. The word appears to be pre Gaelic in origin. It may have a root that means land of plenty. The Classical world varied on this. Greek and Roman lads who mentioned the place either thought of it as a land of plenty, where as one guy reported it the grass was so good cattle were in real danger of exploding from the goodness, or as a Land of Winter. That's one of its other names. Hibernia, which translates as the "Land of winter". That's where we get the word "Hibernation" from, when some animals sleep through the winter.
To be fair, it is Ireland, so it can be both, which is likely how the Classical types got a tad confused.
Ireland (Hibernia) is unique as a country in that it marked the limit of Roman expansion across Western Europe (inclusive of the part called Scotia attached to Alba..) There is some evidence to suggest that the Romans had made plans to invade the island of Ireland but so far any definitive archaeological evidence of that is absent.
If the Romans had sent over a couple of brave scouting parties - the chances were that the vast expanses of bog and usual rain sodden summers probably put them off for good
The ironic thing about the island of Ireland as the only country is Western Europe not invaded by the Romans - is that a Roman patronym -
'patricius' (from which the name Patrick is derived) was adopted as the numero uno national forename. The only country in western Europe to do so.
It is postulated that the latin term patricius in turn derived from patres conscripti ('Roman senators,' literally 'fathers.') which was allegedly the name given to the first 100 men appointed as senators by Romulus were referred to as "fathers" (Latin 'patres') and the descendants of those men who became the patrician class. Some other accounts detail that the patricians (patricii) were those who could point to fathers, i.e. those who were members of the clans (gentes) whose members originally comprised the whole citizen body of Rome.
In general the term was variously used to refer to Roman nobleman or patricians. Of course in Ireland the name is linked to st 'Patrick" a romanised britton
Is it somewhat ironic that all those long dead Roman nobles are now immortalized in the various Hibernic names such as Patrick, Paddy, Padraig, Padraic and Padraigin - in a country never even invaded by their countrymen?0 -
Chicago is famous for its architecture and one of the best things to do there is to go on a river cruise run by the architecture society there. Almost every building along the route has some cool history or fact about its design philosophy.
Three things I remember the most. The river is like a sideways 'T', it runs from the lake and than branches into the north and south branch. The location below is where the river branches.
The white building just off center was designed to provide every apartment stunning (and very expensive) views all the way down the Chicago river. The building is only one apartment deep so all the hallways and elevators are on the side facing away from the river. In fact, it even featured in a Nic Cage movie as his character's apartment::no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4710955/vlcsnap-2014-12-08-23h53m29s67.0.jpeg)
However, a few years ago, the dark building in front of it started development which would block the views of most of the apartments. The residents sued the developers to stop building but the judge dismissed the case because views are not a protected asset in Chicago.
You can see how the new building has blocked almost all of the older one
Looking at the angles, the one that Nic Cage was in, which is on the edge, might still have decent views but there are now a lot of p*ssed of owners of the other apartments who now have a lovely views of their neighbour's windows instead of downtown Chicago.
Secondly, the building on the left of the first photo that is like a Y was built on a plot of land that was long thought to be unbuildable. The city mandates that any new building must be set back a certain distance from the river and there is railway on the other side. This leaves a very narrow area on which to build, hence the narrow base. One of the problems is overcoming the building sway in high winds, which is even more problematic for this building due to its top heavy design. To overcome this, the top of the building has large water tanks. A computer systems monitors the building sway in real time and creates artificial waves in the tanks to counteract the sway. The severity of the waves is linked to the degree to which the building needs to counter sway. Crazy ingenuity there.
The third one is about the building below in the middle of the photo:
For some reason I can't remember, it was not possible to build foundations for one of the corners of the building. So, the metal structure on the roof is actually holding up that corner of the building from the roof. The tour guide described it as placing your arm underneath your knee and using that to support your leg.
So anyone intending to visit Chicago should definitely do this tour. It is absolutely fascinating.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Can second that, it's an unbelievable tour, one of my favourite cities in the world.SimonTemplar wrote: »Chicago is famous for its architecture and one of the best things to do there is to go on a river cruise run by the architecture society there. Almost every building along the route has some cool history or fact about its design philosophy.
Three things I remember the most. The river is like a sideways 'T', it runs from the lake and than branches into the north and south branch. The location below is where the river branches.
The white building just off center was designed to provide every apartment stunning (and very expensive) views all the way down the Chicago river. The building is only one apartment deep so all the hallways and elevators are on the side facing away from the river. In fact, it even featured in a Nic Cage movie as his character's apartment:
However, a few years ago, the dark building in front of it started development which would block the views of most of the apartments. The residents sued the developers to stop building but the judge dismissed the case because views are not a protected asset in Chicago.
You can see how the new building has blocked almost all of the older one
Looking at the angles, the one that Nic Cage was in, which is on the edge, might still have decent views but there are now a lot of p*ssed of owners of the other apartments who now have a lovely views of their neighbour's windows instead of downtown Chicago.
Secondly, the building on the left of the first photo that is like an upside down Y was built on a plot of land that was long thought to be unbuildable. The city mandates that any new building must be set back a certain distance from the river and there is railway on the other side. This leaves a very narrow area on which to build, hence the narrow base. One of the problems is overcoming the building sway in high winds, which is even more problematic for this building due to its top heavy design. To overcome this, the top of the building has large water tanks. A computer systems monitors the building sway in real time and creates artificial waves in the tanks to counteract the sway. The severity of the waves is linked to the degree to which the building needs to counter sway. Crazy ingenuity there.
The third one is about the building below in the middle of the photo:
For some reason I can't remember, it was not possible to build foundations for one of the corners of the building. So, the metal structure on the roof is actually holding up that corner of the building from the roof. The tour guide described it as placing your arm underneath your knee and using that to support your leg.
So anyone intending to visit Chicago should definitely do this tour. It is absolutely fascinating.
One tip for visitors: go to the Hancock building, my favourite in the city, but don't go to the observation level, which costs about 18 dollars, instead to to the bar, on the level below that, which is free to all, have a seat, and order an overpriced beer. Same great view, plus a seat and a beer. If you're lucky like me and my friends were, you'll only wait in line a couple of minutes before being seated with an amazing view of the skyline (minus the best building in it because you're in that one) as evening turns to night.
Then eat an Italian beef sandwich somewhere cheap and cheerful and thank me later. Not sure this all qualifies as stuff I bet you didn't know, but I really wanted to respond to your great post, reminded me what a great city it is. Used to live nearby, miss it a lot.0 -
I've been trying to think how to explain this for a while and because I've been reading a history of the Caribbean, I'm going to use pirates.
Entanglement is a set of coincidences between particles that are so regular and specific that you'd naturally think they are communicating, but it's pretty much impossible for them to, so nobody can explain what is going on.
The situation is pretty easy to explain.
.......
I stopped reading at this point.... (joke)0 -
Yep, to the Classical world Ireland and the Irish were "Scotti" and what is now Scotland was usually included with that, though Caledonia was named out as specifically Scotland. Though more specifically again and later in the mix someone, a Scotti who was Irish often got Eriugena tacked onto their name. IE from the Latin; "Irish born", as Eriu was the name of Ireland, after a goddess of the same name. Erin more latterly. Erinland, Ireland. The word appears to be pre Gaelic in origin. It may have a root that means land of plenty. The Classical world varied on this. Greek and Roman lads who mentioned the place either thought of it as a land of plenty, where as one guy reported it the grass was so good cattle were in real danger of exploding from the goodness, or as a Land of Winter. That's one of its other names. Hibernia, which translates as the "Land of winter". That's where we get the word "Hibernation" from, when some animals sleep through the winter.
To be fair, it is Ireland, so it can be both, which is likely how the Classical types got a tad confused.
The First king of a United Ireland was Erimon/Heremon/Eremon.. theres a number of spellings.
He was the son of the Milesian king who invaded ireland over throwing he Tuatha De Dannan. Eremon controlled the south and his brother Eber controlled the north and htey had a falling out. Eremon went on to defeat his brother and in so doing he became the first ruler of a single ireland.
Ive considered that is where we got the name Eire/Erin from... as in Eremon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89rim%C3%B3nÉrimón,[1] (modern spelling: Éiremhón) son of Míl Espáine (and great-grandson of Breoghan, king of Celtic Galicia), according to medieval Irish legends and historical traditions, was one of the chieftains who took part in the Milesian invasion of Ireland, which conquered the island from the Tuatha Dé Danann, and one of the first Milesian High Kings. A year after the Battle of Tailtiu, Éber Finn became unhappy with his half, fought a battle his brother at Airgetros, lost and was killed. Érimón became sole ruler of Ireland. He appointed kings of the four provinces.
http://www.ireland-information.com/irish-mythology/the-melesians-irish-legend.html0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,183 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59110
It's possible alright. They mentioned the place from time to time alright and one writer whose name sadly escapes reckoned he could take the place with one legion, but *personal opinion* it was never really on the cards. For one reason; economics. Their invasion and takeover of England was not a profitable exercise and was much more about the prestige involved. With a side order of wounded Roman pride. Julius Caesar invaded first, installed a local puppet king and then left. Augustus thought about it a few times but decided nah, not worth it. Caligula had a go, an extremely wasteful one(he ordered his men to collect seashells on a French beach. As you do), but never left the coast of France. Claudius took over and actually made a successful invasion. Hadrian throwing up his wall on the border with Scotland was likely a "right so, this is the limit of empire"(it would have been near useless as a defensible structure).Ireland (Hibernia) is unique as a country in that it marked the limit of Roman expansion across Western Europe (inclusive of the part called Scotia attached to Alba..) There is some evidence to suggest that the Romans had made plans to invade the island of Ireland but so far any definitive archaeological evidence of that is absent.
The Roman empire's borders had always been decidedly fluid in nature. They didn't have the manpower to operate hard borders like we think of today and they didn't really think of borders as hard the way we think of them today. How they generally operated was by sending in an army to a new place, kicked a few arses(often didn't have to), then converted/installed a local warlord as Roman and then sent in engineers to build roads for trade and tax. In particularly profitable and/or troublesome places they'd install a governor. Many such territories were Roman in name only for the most part. They didn't tend to impose any cultural imperial stuff like later empires. Roman cultural influences were nearly always willingly absorbed by the local population who actively wanted them. Cultural influences went the other way too. The Romans collected new religions in particular. Christianity irritated them because it was monotheistic. Citizenship was different too. No requirement to swear loyalty, though it was kinda a given, no cultural exams or any of that. It was bestowed and seen as a gift and accorded the person extra rights. In many ways the Roman's built an empire by mistake and at a pace that sometimes surprised them.
It was also the first foray by missionaries of the new Christian religion beyond the borders of what had been the Roman Empire. In every other case they stayed within that sphere of influence. Beyond was considered bandit country. When the Irish Church became established and strong(as it was more stable than the mess left in mainland Europe after the "fall" of the Western empire) it the sent its own missionaries back into the Roman sphere(and beyond).The ironic thing about the island of Ireland as the only country is Western Europe not invaded by the Romans - is that a Roman patronym -
'patricius' (from which the name Patrick is derived) was adopted as the numero uno national forename. The only country in western Europe to do so.Is it somewhat ironic that all those long dead Roman nobles are now immortalized in the various Hibernic names such as Patrick, Paddy, Padraig, Padraic and Padraigin - in a country never even invaded by their countrymen? Never thought of it like that. Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Big post, but I've exhausted the main physics topics I wanted to try to explain, so this will be the last one for a long while.
He's the Captain.Yes, yes, all well and good, but is the cat ok?
Since it has come up.
Schrödinger's cat was more Schrödinger complaining about an idea popular in Quantum Mechanics early on and really the idea is Einstein's. It should be "Einstein's keg".
At the time people were reading certain terms in the equations as saying something was "in two places at once", "moving at two speeds at once", "spinning in two directions at once". Einstein sent a letter to Schrödinger saying this is daft because you could apply QM to a keg of gun powder and if you read the equations the same way you'd be forced to say the keg was exploded and not exploded at the same time. Which is daft, because you never see such a keg. Einstein's point was that QM is actually just saying there's a certain chance for the keg to explode and a certain chance for it not to (this would be majority view amongst physicists today), it's not saying both happen at the same time.
Schrödinger, to make the point more striking, then wrote a paper about a cat in a box being poisoned. The same reading would force you to think the cat would be alive and dead. Which is daft. So it's just that QM is giving a chance for the cat to live or die.
Einstein quite liked Schrödinger's change, but kept a little bit of his original version. When he explained it to students when lecturing or in newspaper articles he had the cat be blown up.
Ironically modern pop science books reverse the real point and use it to say "QM says a cat would be alive and dead!"please advice wrote:ah, don't go changing topics when i was just about to ask how do you explain the Casimir effect or Hawking Radiation...
The Casimir effect is easy enough to describe and explained terribly by most books.Fourier wrote:I'll return to this myself in a week or so, but just to give you something.
The van der Waals force is the electric effect that holds water together. Basically a small amount of electric charge leaks out of each water molecule, letting it "stick" to others. When you boil water with a kettle what is happening that you are overcoming this sticking power. Many other substances besides water have this sticking force.
The Casimir effect is just that when you add in relativity the van der Waals force in some metals gets so strong it actually leaks out of their surface and can stick two plates of metal together. Nothing to do with "particles popping in and out of existence".
To quote R.L. Jaffe, professor at MIT and an expert on the Casimir force:
https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503158Jaffe wrote:The Casimir force is simply the (relativistic, retarded) van der Waals force between the metal plates.
As for the Hawking effect it also does not involve "particles popping in and out of existence". Hawking in his original paper just say it's a nice way to keep the calculation in your head:
However as he then says:Hawking wrote:One might picture this negative energy flux in the following way. Just outside the event horizon there will be virtual pairs of particles, one with negative energy and one with positive energy.Hawking wrote:It should be emphasized that these pictures of the mechanism responsible for the thermal emission and area decrease are heuristic only and should not be taken too literally.
Particles near a black hole aren't created from nothing/pop into existence. They're created by the black hole, one of the most powerful objects in existence. This is why the black hole shrinks over time, it has to pay for creating these particles. I never understood describing them being "created from nothing". If a black hole, something with the power to rip open a star, counts as "nothing" you've a funny definition of nothing.
To close off, just so you don't think some eijit on boards has filled your heads with nonsense about Quantum Mechanics!
This is Joseph Emerson of the Institute for Quantum Computing at Waterloo describing QM in a lecture given in 2017. I've extracted a small part of the lecture which I think nicely summarises what I've been saying about QM. That is that it doesn't explain what's going on, just the chances of devices and detectors clicking and lighting up.
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
....
Since it has come up.
Schrödinger's cat was more Schrödinger complaining about an idea popular in Quantum Mechanics early on and really the idea is Einstein's. It should be "Einstein's keg".
At the time people were reading certain terms in the equations as saying something was "in two places at once", "moving at two speeds at once", "spinning in two directions at once". Einstein sent a letter to Schrödinger saying this is daft because you could apply QM to a keg of gun powder and if you read the equations the same way you'd be forced to say the keg was exploded and not exploded at the same time. Which is daft, because you never see such a keg. Einstein's point was that QM is actually just saying there's a certain chance for the keg to explode and a certain chance for it not to (this would be majority view amongst physicists today), it's not saying both happen at the same time.
Schrödinger, to make the point more striking, then wrote a paper about a cat in a box being poisoned. The same reading would force you to think the cat would be alive and dead. Which is daft. So it's just that QM is giving a chance for the cat to live or die.
Einstein quite liked Schrödinger's change, but kept a little bit of his original version. When he explained it to students when lecturing or in newspaper articles he had the cat be blown up.
Ironically modern pop science books reverse the real point and use it to say "QM says a cat would be alive and dead!"
....
Interestingly this debate is very much alive (and dead!)
Recently the caretaker of the Schrodinger Building at the University of Limerick couldn't determine whether the cat was in and / or out of the building at the same time or were there in fact two cats. No body has been found however ....
0 -
Advertisement
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/GettyImages-174522308-590a59283df78c92834b7b04.jpg)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1E-iMDMz8HM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ma6ku-peus
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement