OT: Are protons really quantum black holes?

This "continuum limit" exercise is frequently repeated in a quantum mechanics class, just as a benchmark that "quantum weirdness" reduces to classical expectations at scales that are large compared to h-bar.

I don't know of a way I can explain that convincingly in a paragraph of words. I think it's just better to calculate it, graph it, etc.

PD

Tell me, Mark.

First let me tell you how I was on a runway in a plane at 35 below with 3000 feet of freezing rain above us which we didn't know about, a plane with no de-icers, and a pilot who was just going to 'go for it', and during our run-ups an oil seal broke so we had to abort.

What kind of q-randomness saved my ass THAT day?

I think you have to have your own experiences of this type to open your eyes. I have had numerous such. It's like somebody is always backing my play. (-:

John

Sounds more like "go for it"-boy also likes to neglect his maintenance. Now I suppose you want to know why the seal failed just then? Familiar with the term Mean Time Between Failure, and why it's called that?

You have an exaggerated sense of your own importance.

You also appear, as Mark Martin said, to assume Chaos Theory means total disorder- the diametric opposite of Determinism, but it isn't. Chaos Theory is about the predictable patterns discernable in certain types of macroscopic (originally not quantum-level) randomness. When first announced it was a terrible shock both to strict Determinists and Quantum Theorists alike yet it has been shown to have wide application in both ways of looking at the real world, whether they (or you) like it or not:

Incidentally, notice that Chaos Theory is intimately dependent on fractals. You don't have a conceptual problem with fractals, do you? I hope not because you're surrounded by examples of them.

This page explains the link between Chaos Theory and fractals a little better:

It goes back to Poicare's discovery that the Solar System's behavior is not stable Newtonian-deterministic-wise. I have to ask you how you can possibly believe that an entire galaxy can be stable in any particular observed state when our Solar System isn't?

Of course, if your sense of self-importance weren't so overblown you could have Googled these and more pages to learn from. But you apparently don't believe you have anything left to learn. That's kinda sad; you must live in a very boring Universe.

Also kinda sad is that you failed to respond to my earlier challenges asking you for cites to back up your beliefs re: galactic arms; maybe you're waiting for "somebody" to do it for you?

BTW, there's a serious problem with trying to build a worldview solely on one's own experiences; you can't live long enough to experience everything (not to mention all the stuff you missed before being born), nor can you replicate many of the events you survive to see if they might have gone differently. For that matter you can't replicate an experienced event so that someone else can have the same experience, period. I've had _lots_ of experiences I refuse to cite as evidence for anything no matter what I may think they mean; that's one major difference between science and whatever the hell it is you're doing.

Wanna talk about LSD trips? FTM, wanna talk about perfectly-straight "paranormal" experiences? I've had plenty of both, but they don't mean squat objectively because they're impossible to replicate for other people.

Mark L. Fergerson

Very easily. As you look at finer and finer details of anything, there is more and more variation. We both have a head and (I hope) the required number of appendages. Fine. But your DNA is unique to you. Your fingerprints are unique to you. When we look at your microbial population, it is vastly different than mine and wildly changing all the time, just like mine. All our cells have completely changed over every 12 years. The gut cells change over every 2 days.

Our sun could frigging explode and it would make *no* difference to the galaxy. Hell, stars are going nova all the time- its part of their cycle.

So basically you are saying: if your skin cells just die, then how can the rest of you be stable?

Well, it isn't. But it is stable much longer than the skin cell.

Likewise galaxies are not invulnerable; they can get into a situation like an atom-smasher or a fission bomb or a Black Hole which will seriously alter them.

But *they* are the stable structure. Our Sun and planets are temporary waveforms that are emitting energy in the form of photons and will eventually run out of that energy.

Yeah- I don't hesitate to say that galaxies are very stable- as stable as atoms.

Did you have any eye-opening experiences on LSD?

John Galaxy Model 4 the Atom

Sounds more like "go for it"-boy also likes to neglect his maintenance. Now I suppose you want to know why the seal failed just then? Familiar with the term Mean Time Between Failure, and why it's called that?

You have an exaggerated sense of your own importance.

You also appear, as Mark Martin said, to assume Chaos Theory means total disorder- the diametric opposite of Determinism, but it isn't. Chaos Theory is about the predictable patterns discernable in certain types of macroscopic (originally not quantum-level) randomness. When first announced it was a terrible shock both to strict Determinists and Quantum Theorists alike yet it has been shown to have wide application in both ways of looking at the real world, whether they (or you) like it or not:

Incidentally, notice that Chaos Theory is intimately dependent on fractals. You don't have a conceptual problem with fractals, do you? I hope not because you're surrounded by examples of them.

This page explains the link between Chaos Theory and fractals a little better:

It goes back to Poicare's discovery that the Solar System's behavior is not stable Newtonian-deterministic-wise. I have to ask you how you can possibly believe that an entire galaxy can be stable in any particular observed state when our Solar System isn't?

Of course, if your sense of self-importance weren't so overblown you could have Googled these and more pages to learn from. But you apparently don't believe you have anything left to learn. That's kinda sad; you must live in a very boring Universe.

Also kinda sad is that you failed to respond to my earlier challenges asking you for cites to back up your beliefs re: galactic arms; maybe you're waiting for "somebody" to do it for you?

BTW, there's a serious problem with trying to build a worldview solely on one's own experiences; you can't live long enough to experience everything (not to mention all the stuff you missed before being born), nor can you replicate many experiences to see if they might have gone differently. For that matter you can't replicate an experienced event so that someone else can have the same experience, period. I've had _lots_ of experiences I refuse to cite as evidence for anything no matter what I may think they mean; that's one major difference between science and whatever the hell it is you're doing.

Wanna talk about LSD trips? FTM, wanna talk about perfectly-straight "paranormal" experiences? I've had plenty of both, but they won't mean squat to anyone else because they're impossible to replicate for other people.

Mark L. Fergerson

Only stars of about 10 solar masses or more can experience a core collapse resulting in a supernova.

And only white dwarfs accreting gas from a companion, slowly enough, experience novae on their surfaces and can to so more than once.

Nova supernova. Sol will nova in a few billion years.

Cite. From what I remember of Astronomy all stars will nova. Sol will expand to roughly the size of Mars' orbit before it fades into white dwarfism.

-- Keith

Keith Williams wrote: >

You are confusing nova with red giant phase of many stars.

dwarfism.

Nope. As it collapses into white dwarfism it'll shed it's outer layers; nova.

-- Keith

Keith -- You are confusing nova with red giant phase of many stars. The word "nova" has a well defined meaning in astronomy--the explosive "burning" of hydrogen gas on the surface of a white dwarf.

Red dwarf stars like Barnard star will never get hot enough to fuse helium, and therefore, will never have a red giant phase.

No, I'm certainly not confusing the two. As a red-giant collapses the shock waves will compress and "ignite" the hydrogen (perhaps helium - can't remember) causing the nova.

I'm not sure about Barnard's, but most white dwarfs have already passed through the red giant -> collapse -> nova -> white dwarf stage. Those that weren't big enough to make this transitions are brown dwarfs.

Unfortunately you "remember" wrong... go to the library!

Barnard's star has about a tenth on the Sun's mass and is a main sequence star happily fusing hydrogen into helium via the pp-chain in it's core.