usenet weirdness

And the plot thickens.

From this I see primo facio evidence of at least THREE grand conspiracies, plus the muons beamed from Brookhaven.

Remember this is right near where the Montauk Project experiments were carried out which 80 years later Deep State is still trying to coverup.

It is an interesing field of research, because with all external fields screened out you can investigate the spin-spin couplings. [1] (among other things)

Yes, I know. I only gave the paywalled direct link, for the history, because once you know it exists it is easy to find copies elsewhere, (of dubious legality)

Jan

Understood, your majesty.

FYI, Behaving like a stubborn ass doesn't improve your credibity in general.

Why can't you just admit that your statement that 'remarkably high fields are needed to give you a detectable signal' is just plain wrong?

As a matter of fact NMR can be done in zero or near-zero fields, at very low frequencies. FYI, there is a large Wikipedia article devoted to it.

Jan

Sure I do, but it wouldn't carry an electron beam. The word "beam" implies that the electrons or muons would keep on going in the same direction after they hit the dirt and rocks. They don't keep on going very far at all - way less than 95 miles. Think inches.

I worked on electron microscopes for nine years (1982 to 1991) and I do know a bit about electron beams. You clearly know nothing.

University of Melbourne. It's been there since 1853, and is currently the top-ranked university in Australia, and 19th in the world (at least on one list, not that that means much). Trump University got shut down as a fraud shortly after it was set up. It didn't last long enough for me to have been able to get any kind of degree from it, and I'm not gullible enough to have been in their target demographic. Not being American put me even father out of reach. As insults go this isn't plausible enough to be worth making.

Which is to say, not very far and not all that fast (though they do get farther than electrons).

One of the tales you tell your girl-friends. Try lying to them about muon beams - it will take longer for them to find out that you are lying.

I've been posting to sci.electronics.design since 1996, and my first comment got published in the Review of Scientific Instruments in 1972. Only a very dim newbie would make that kind of mistake.

Like I said, the idiot here is you.

That [1] implies that you meant to cite an example. What happened? You couldn't find one?

And who is going to care about spin-spin couplings? I've seen some daft research projects but there's usually been at least the remote chance of some sort of real world advantage in prospect.

I deleted the anecdote, and forgot the reference to it. Here it is.

I see. You are one of those people with blinders on, who can only see his own mightily interesting little field.

Jan

Bohr's self-serving Solvay shaming was situationally swept into the ash heap of history:

Truth by fiat the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Authors

Reminder to self:

Never post anything about physicists again.

I got a Ph.D. in physical chemistry, but had to do enough of my own electronic instrumentation to get it that I ended up as an electronic engineer.

My only published paper that has been cited more than once or twice is

Sloman A.W., Buggs P., Molloy J., and Stewart D. “A microcontroller-based driver to stabilise the temperature of an optical stage to 1mK in the range 4C to 38C, using a Peltier heat pump and a thermistor sensor” Measurement Science and Technology, 7 1653-64 (1996)

which in context doesn't suggest narrow specialisation.

I wasn't saying it was irrelevant, merely a pretty narrow specialisation. The fine details of chemical binding and structure tend to be interesting only for very specific molecules - things like haemoglobins and chlorophylls. A friend who went through primary school with me in Tasmania and ended up as professor of inorganic chemistry at Melbourne looked at really weird molecule which shunted energy around a group of some ten transition metal atoms embedded in a really complex organic molecule, but I didn't take any notes when he talked about - it was over lunch.

Calling people stubborn asses doesn't help yours either.

It does depend on what your are trying to detect. It's certainly true in a lot of situations of practical interest. Laboratory NMR machines did go in for high magnetic fields.

That does depend on " highly sensitive magnetic sensors - SQUIDs, magnetoresistive sensors, and SERF atomic magnetometers".

Super-conducting quantum interference devices used to need liquid helium. Presumably high temperature super conductors could let you get away with liquid nitrogen, which is lot cheaper.

I was a chemist for long enough to be aware of the difference between faddish research technique that you only found in research labs and more practical approaches that you run into in industry.

Since I spent quite a few years working on electron-beam microfabricators which sold for about a million dollars into semiconductor fabs that cost about $500 million dollars (back then) my idea of "industry" covers some fairly high end gear.

I had a head injury and volunteered for a long-term study, which involved periodic MRIs. I guess I've had 15. They are slow and boring. The gradient coils are very noisy.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

:)

I'd wonder, have you ever heard any notion that there's a modern, "crisis", in physics? That is to say, when somebody like Penrose points out that GR and QM effectively disagree

How about Mathematics, ..., I'm curious what you think that Mathematical Foundations is.

Agreeably, my little video essays are rather dry. That said, some of the modern AI reasoners eat them up. For example, in "Logos 2000: physics today" I gathered a bunch of responses from a sort of model reasoner.

How about "continuity" and "infinity", I'm curious what these things mean to you.

Yes. Those discussions do turn nasty fast.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

I bought and read Lee Smolin's "the trouble with physics"

I'm well aware that there is talk of a crisis in physics, but if you want to publish a book about what's going on, you do need to play up the drama to give the reviewers something to talk about.

Our world view isn't entirely consistent, and it probably never will be

- the more we learn the harder it becomes to pull everything together

For me mathematics is a tool box. I'm well aware that I'm not a mathematician, but I can follow mathematical advice.

Finite and continuous functions can be differentiate and integrated. My undergraduate mathematical education concentrated on them. I'd been exposed to permutations and combinations at secondary school in Tasmania, and one of my cousins is a professional statistician, so I did know that there was a world outside calculus.

I know enough to know that the infinite number of integers is a smaller number than the infinite number of rational numbers, but I don't get excited about it.

I knew some of the linguists that tried to describe natural language in terms of a generalised phase structure grammar

If you experience skepticism as "being nasty".

Great. I got a lot out of Penrose's "Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy (...in Physics)". Or, at least a reputed authority's account that "functional freedom" as he puts it makes for a great schism, a crisis, in physics.

Recall Millikan measuring an electron (or rather, establishing a charge/mass ratio), then about Rayleigh-Jeans getting to spectroscopy or, "the Old quantum mechanics", about the discretization, of what would otherwise be continuous quantities, to discrete quantities, or "quantization".

The, "standard linear curriculum", it's fair to say that we all sat the "standard linear curriculum".

Then, a usual account of, the "non-linear", and, the "non-standard", reflect upon what the "linear curriculum's" account of "linear algebra" simply doesn't include, that mathematics does include.

About definitions of continuity, of course there are the, "classical expositions of the super-classical", or Zeno's.

Then, a lot of people say that Aristotle, who's the authority in Western reason since antiquity, is Archimedean in the sense of there not existing neither infinitesimals nor infinities. Yet, it is as well so that Xenocrates is part of an account of Aristotle's as well, the lesser acknowledged accounts of Aristotle that include both the prior and posterior analytics, makes for "standard infinitesimals", "iota-values", say, between zero and one an exact infinitude of them.

Then, this bridges between the classical account of the Pythagorean, where almost-all is rational, and the modern account of the Cantorian, where almost-all is transcendental, about Vitali and Hausdorff, to make for why it's not a paradox to make for three definitions of, "continuous domains".

We're familiar with, "continuous functions", yet, their definition holds even if defined on rationals, since it's just an account as after topology and basically for intermediate-value-theorem / mean-value-theorem / trapezoid rule.

Then, the definition of, "continous domain" itself, is usually left to the "complete ordered field", the Archimedean field, in the standard linear curriculum. So, calling those field reals, then it is yet so that "line reals" or these "iota-values", are also mathematically, structurally, another example of a continuous domain. Then there's a third a la "signal reals" since the Shannon/Nyquist theorem you'll know basically makes for the supersampling as doubling, to result a continuous domain after analysis of the rationals.

So, "Mathematical Foundations" itself has structures, features, of the objects of the "domain of discourse" or our language about it, the inter-subjective account as after language, structures of mathematical continuity and infinity, that automatically equip mathematical physics.

I.e., mathematics _owes_ physics more and better mathematics of continuity and infinity.

Warm regards