Collecting/Loose threads :-)14 messages

But what about those neutrinos pegag? :-)

You cannot properly measure both the location and the speed of a quantum mechanical object at the same time. Compare it with a ball that rolls over the table. If you take a picture of it with a very fast shutter speed, you can reasonably see in the picture where the ball was when you took the picture, but you have no idea how fast it went. If, on the other hand, you use a slower shutter speed, you will see a kind of stripe on the photo from which you can reasonably determine in combination with the shutter speed how fast the balls went. But you cannot clearly see where the balls 'were' when you took the photo, because a faint line. So the more accurate the measurement where an object is, the more inaccurate the measurement of the energy \ impulse \ velocity of the object and vice versa. This is Heisenberg's well-known (?) Principle. This is not so bad for heavy slow objects (the everyday world), because Planck's constant is very small for large masses.

But neutrinos literally weigh almost nothing and they go really hard. That makes the measurement extremely difficult. Apart from the fact that the measurement itself also influences the system considerably, I am not yet convinced that they really went faster than light.

How do you explain the evolution of the phenomenon "life"?

Nor could it be if our planet were a closed system as many creationists claim. Fortunately, however, the system is considerably larger and the expansion of the universe causes a sufficient increase in the total entropy \ disorder of the system to allow for local decreases, such as the orderly raking of atoms into organisms. However, if it turns out that the supporters of a pulsating universe are right, things will look bad for us in the long run.

Electricity plants convert the energy of lignite or natural gas into electricity ...

What is the high-quality form and what is the low-quality form?

During the conversion, not all of the energy present in the lignite is converted into electricity, but only a part. Part of it is always converted into heat. So you have less 'electrical energy' than you had 'lignite energy'. The efficiency is less than 100%. And that applies to any conversion (except the conversion to heat). With every conversion the total amount of energy remains the same, but the amount of usable energy does not.

Oh, and the electric car is also a really very bad idea if you want to be "economical with energy". Because instead of 1x 'loss' when converting the fossil fuel into kinetic energy in your car, you have 2x loss. First when converting the fossil fuel into electricity and then again when using the electrical energy in your car. But yes, politicians are not physicists.

But what is your opinion on the Higgs boson? Everything stands or falls there.

Some recent Reality TV shows make me doubt whether 'human life' is really high quality ;-p

I deliberately did not put "human" in front of it ;-) I thought more about plants that make matter from solar energy, but ...

Tragically, it is only possible to convert energy from a 'high value' to a 'lower value' form [...]

I have to admit that I am not scientifically literate and I do not know the definition of "high" and "low" in this context.

[...] and never the other way around.

Fortunately, the system is a lot bigger and the expansion of the universe causes a sufficient increase in the total entropy \ disorder of the system to prevent local decreases

I understand that I should not have taken the word "never" literally.

Or are my threads loose?

@Zwendel

That partly depends on the extent to which the standard model is complete (which is not the case). The Higgs boson is formulated to fit right into an annoying 'hole' in the theory. But that model is not everything. That model also predicted that neutrinos (there they are again) would be massless, but as I wrote above, that must really be "almost massless".

The problem is that you never 'know' whether your model is complete. It always seems complete as long as you do not observe any phenomena that you cannot explain with it. Newton's gravity \ gravitational model worked fine as long as you limited observations to apples. If you don't, you get stuck and you have to add some theory to your model, so that it still works for apples, but also for sub-atomic particles, for example. Gravitons, like the Higgs boson, have not yet been demonstrated, but they were necessary to make the expanded gravity model correct.

So the Higgs-Boson can exist, because as a puzzle piece it 'fits', but it could just as well be that a combination of other puzzle pieces (particles) together also fill in exactly that piece of theory. Until you have demonstrated them, you will not know that, and for now it does not want to be successful.

Was that about what you wanted to hear?

@Boekenmagazijin

Yes, that word Never should be taken just as literally as it says. :-)

In the large system, too, the amount of 'still to be used' energy has decreased and partially leaked into energy that is no longer usable. To 'make' something you have to put energy into it. That energy has to come from somewhere and when "putting in" it turns out that part of the total energy that was needed for making it was not put in but leaked out. That leaked energy is still there, but in a form that is of no use to you anymore. You cannot make it into anything in the most literal sense of the word

Was dat ongeveer wat je wilde horen??

Wat ik eigenlijk wil weten is wie 'Mijn Restaurant' gaat winnen. Ik gok op Amber en Elodie.

Voor wat betreft Higgs-boson: dat is een complot: CERN heeft hem gevangen op Guantanamo Bay en wil hem ruilen voor Paris Hilton. Alleen Batman kan hier redding brengen ;-)

Was that about what you wanted to hear?

What I actually want to know is who will win 'My Restaurant'. I'm betting on Amber and Elodie.

As for the Higgs boson, it's a conspiracy: CERN captured it at Guantanamo Bay and wants to trade it for Paris Hilton. Only Batman can save here ;-)

What I really want to know is who will win 'My Restaurant'.

I didn't even know you had a restaurant, so why are you raffling it off?

As for Higgs boson, that's a conspiracy: CERN has captured him at Guantanamo Bay and wants to trade him for Paris Hilton.

Can I imagine something, because I think that Paris Hilton is made up of very elementary particles.

Can I imagine something, because I think that Paris Hilton is made up of very elementary particles.

High-quality or low-quality particles?

This is Heisenberg's well-known (?) Principle.

Schrödinger's cat is also a nice variation on the uncertainty principle.

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödingers_kat

Don't watch too much big bang theory Rik ;-)

Don't watch too much big bang theory Rik ;-)

I'd rather watch Paris Hilton's particles (:-)

On topic:

This is the well-known (?) Principle of Heisenberg

Die Heisenberg was actually a bar philosopher. That Uncertainty Principle is actually on par with statements such as ' You can't bake an omelet without breaking an egg ' or ' Every disadvantage has its advantage '. Voila: Nobel Prize!

Off topic:

'My Restaurant' can be taken seriously: Ekeren = Antwaarpen (Amber) + Limburg (Elodie); Blankenberge = West Flanders (Eef and Michael) + Holland (Raoul). Mixing so many Tribes will seriously increase the entropy of Belgium; p

Speaking of 'Big Bang':

This terribly disturbing news has reached us recently! This may be worse than the 2012 Apocalypse.

Speaking of 'Big Bang':

Fortunately, this problem will not occur until 2021. The world would have ended for 9 years by then (:-)

Well, when the need really "gets to the man", we always have the National Geographic