Oh and goody, cantdrive55 has thrown in with some EU comments! Oh joy! You guys have a 3rd member for your club.
.. Bose-Einstein condensate that has arisen by applying an undefined force similar to gravity to a superconductor...At the case of superconductors this force isn't indeed a gravity, but the repulsive force of another electrons. It boils down into explanation, why we recognize just two types of superconductors of I. type and II. type. It requires, each superconductor will consist of two kinds of electrons: 1) these movable ones, which are mediating superconducting current current 2) and the binding ones, which are holding the first kind electrons together in structures similar to pipes or cages. At the case of I.type superconductors the binding electrons are contained within neighboring d- f- orbitals, at the case of II. superconductors they're held with neighboring atom layers.
The thing they're investigating here is whether some fundamentally different physics start to appear at high tempeatures or not
This is much like when you work with speeds close to the speed of light suddenly relativistic effects become noticeable. If you never look at those kinds of speeds you'd have thought that newtonian laws are all there are.
Science is always about looking at what happens when you go to boundary conditions. That's where you find out whether your theories are universal - or whether they are just relatively good approximations for low temperatures/speed/ etc.
The 'breakthrough' is in validating current approaches. It is very important to test your theories once in a while (and hopefully to destruction - which leads to new advances)
.. Bose-Einstein condensate that has arisen by applying an undefined force similar to gravity to a superconductor...At the case of superconductors this force isn't indeed a gravity, but the repulsive force of another electrons. It boils down into explanation, why we recognize just two types of superconductors of I. type and II. type. It requires, each superconductor will consist of two kinds of electrons: 1) these movable ones, which are mediating superconducting current current 2) and the binding ones, which are holding the first kind electrons together in structures similar to pipes or cages. At the case of I.type superconductors the binding electrons are contained within neighboring d- f- orbitals, at the case of II. superconductors they're held with neighboring atom layers.
Here you tell us that that those who have lost their children that their loss is not absolutely truthfully real.
Here you claim that everything is a lie, despite endless evidence to the contrary.
Newtonian motion is such a useful law. Is it 'absolutely true'? No. It doesn't account for relativistic effects.
Like the notion labeled zero.Unitary? Single? Your problem is that you never really post something that is comprehensible! Does your mind stop half-way or do you post before you think what you want to post?
Or Johan's unitary wave.
life is not something that is QUALITATIVELY different from 'non-life' or 'small lake' is quantitatively different from 'ocean' - but not qualitatively a different thing
I don't think so, taking into account emergent properties of systems, which cannot be reduced to properties of the subsystems only: "the whole being more than the sum of its parts": qualitatively new relations can form, which are subject to new "laws". To be clear, the components are still submitted to the more fundamental laws too. Call this the essence of complexification.
Unitary? Single? Your problem is that you never really post something that is comprehensible! Does your mind stop half-way or do you post before you think what you want to post? - J
See other thread:
http://phys.org/n...tum.html
Call that the goal post shuffle.
supermop2000
Feb 18, 2013