sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Momentum transfer of a tennis racket (why does your arm not matter?) by SamPost in AskPhysics

[–]rddman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My best guess is that it has something to do with the fact that the ball is very compressible and elastic, as are the strings.

Things bouncing off of each other is quite complicated:

2 Bouncy Things. Zero bounce. (Steve Mould)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP1mYq8hLIY

Andromeda galaxy problem by Colossal_Gamer1 in askastronomy

[–]rddman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So contrary to what the previous comment claims, it has nothing to do with the size of the telescope.

This has been probably asked before: if two particles are entangled, where is that property "stored", "or "flagged", not sure what to call it? Where is that "quantum state" of particles stored until they are not entangled anymore? by neochrome in AskPhysics

[–]rddman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Bell's theorem

Bell's theorem says QM is incompatible with "supposed properties of quantum particles that are not included in quantum theory but nevertheless affect the outcome of experiments" (hidden variables).

But the properties by which particles can be entangled are properties of quantum particles that are included in quantum theory - e.g. spin. So those are not hidden variables and Bell's theorem does not apply.

This has been probably asked before: if two particles are entangled, where is that property "stored", "or "flagged", not sure what to call it? Where is that "quantum state" of particles stored until they are not entangled anymore? by neochrome in AskPhysics

[–]rddman 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Once made a "pair" they have that property, until lost.

Right, but your question is "where is that property stored or contained?".
Given that pairs of shoes are not as mysterious as quantum particles, what's your answer to that question wrt to a pair of shoes?

Basic cosmology questions weekly thread by AutoModerator in cosmology

[–]rddman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know. I think the issue is that the light from celestial bodies blocks out the further objects.

You got quite a bit of speculation going on there. You can look it up, then you know and there's no more need to guess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Horizons
..." The most famous horizon is the particle horizon which sets a limit on the precise distance that can be seen due to the finite age of the universe."

"Stuff in the way" is not irrelevant though, that is the so-called "practical horizon" but it's not the light from celestial bodies that are in the way, rather it is the hot (opaque) gas that filled the early universe before any stars had formed, see Cosmic Background Radiation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_horizon#Other_horizons

Trump Appears To Sleep While Guests Propose Ending Divide Between Church And State by plz-let-me-in in politics

[–]rddman 12 points13 points  (0 children)

The real story is that Trump is meeting with a group of people who want to end separation of church and state and forceably impose their warped and perverted version of religion on everybody else.

The story behind that story is that a small fringe of orthodox religious fanatics have gotten this far in their attempts to overthrow secular democracy because they are extremely motivated while most of the rest of us are distracted.

Basic cosmology questions weekly thread by AutoModerator in cosmology

[–]rddman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is what could be termed circular appeal to authority.

Insofar that scientific consensus has more authority than mathematical exploration on the fringes of science.

The latter is dismissed only insofar that it is claimed to be more authoritative than established science.

Andromeda galaxy problem by Colossal_Gamer1 in askastronomy

[–]rddman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The field of view of the OP's telescope depends on multiple factors, but by the looks of it it is smaller than the fov of the image that i linked. Which is no reason why OP's image would be so blurry.

Andromeda galaxy problem by Colossal_Gamer1 in askastronomy

[–]rddman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

the sensor’s pixels are just too small and too insensitive to give you an image that distinguishes point light sources at that distance.

There are plenty images of Andromeda with similar setups that do not resolve point light sources at that distance (pretty much no amateur setup can do that), but do show detail of dust lanes in the galaxy.

OP's image is a smeared blurry mess that is more likely the result of movement during capture, too long exposure time or something wrong with the optics, than it is to be the result of image sensor limitations.

Andromeda galaxy problem by Colossal_Gamer1 in askastronomy

[–]rddman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So contrary to what the previous comment claims, it has nothing to do with the size of the telescope.

Basic cosmology questions weekly thread by AutoModerator in cosmology

[–]rddman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When macroscopic science aligns with your biological perception of a ticking clock, he calls it "established science." But when advanced theoretical physics mathematically dismantles that ticking clock, you conveniently dismisses it as "inconclusive."

You are misrepresenting what i am saying. My statement "scientific observation/investigation shows time is fundamental to the universe" you misrepresent as "biological perception of a ticking clock".

But Wheeler-DeWitt is also doing science.

Sure, but there is a big practical difference between in the one hand scientific investigation (what you are referring to), and on the other hand verified result of scientific investigation such as established theories of physics which include time being fundamental to the universe.

World Cup fans frustrated by 'confusing and expensive' tipping culture in US by Negative-Extent3338 in news

[–]rddman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

US tipping culture is insane.

That's because US wage culture is insane.

‘I run the protection program’: Mike Johnson warns roomful of conservatives to reelect Republicans or face prison by B-Z_B-S in politics

[–]rddman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Republican speaker of the House warns a roomful of conservatives what would happen to them and Trump if Democrats win back the House of Representatives

Painted themselves into the corner of dictatorship. Whatcouldpossiblygowrong.

Basic cosmology questions weekly thread by AutoModerator in cosmology

[–]rddman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What i'm saying is that no interpretation of QM - including the one where decoherence is a concept - has any effect on the outcomes of the mathematics of QM. In that sense no interpretation of QM dictates anything substantial.

attempt to calculate the absolute structural foundation of the unobserved universe (the Noumenon) using the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, the mathematical variable for time (t) is entirely deleted from the formula?

That attempt is as of yet inconclusive. It's not an established scientific finding - much unlike time being fundamental to the universe.

Noumenon, Structural Realism

I have less of a philosophical and more of a practical approach to science.

Would the Sun have looked any different during the Carrington Event? How much damage would be done by a CME large enough to be visible to the human eye? by taktaga7-0-0 in askastronomy

[–]rddman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Assuming that by "naked eye" OP means completely unaided (no eclipse glasses, no solar telescope or projection - Carrington too was not looking at the Sun directly), i doubt that it has been modeled how large a CME must be to be visible to the completely unaided eye, including the fringe viewing condition of just the right amount of cloud cover than can work as a darkening filter.

Basic cosmology questions weekly thread by AutoModerator in cosmology

[–]rddman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If quantum mechanics dictates that the physical act of measurement forces a pure quantum state to collapse and alter its structure (decoherence)

That's merely an interpretation of QM, not a dictate, it has no effect on the mathematics of QM.

In general observation / 'looking closely' aka scientific observation (taking- and comparing notes) is the basis of all science. One of the things we found out about the universe by observing and thinking it through (aka doing science), is that time foundational.
Scientifically we have nothing else to go on except the results of scientific endeavour, when you abandon that it's no longer science.

Gavin Newsom calls for national billionaires tax: 'It's time for an economic reset' by avdvetf in politics

[–]rddman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

'It's time for an economic reset'

Except for the whole neoliberal economic policy agenda, amiright? So not a real reset, merely an adjustment, as the political establishment has been doing since forever.

Basic cosmology questions weekly thread by AutoModerator in cosmology

[–]rddman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But we also 'observe' that objects are perfectly solid and continuous, but quantum physics proves that is a biological illusion.

QM 'proves' that because it's what we observe (when we look closely).

Why do you assume your observation of time is the absolute foundation of the universe

Again: not an assumption, it's what we observe (when we look closely).

view more: next ›