My problem then seems a poor choice of semantics as I'm willing to imagine a "molecule" effectively held together by some externally applied force (which would spontaneously break upon removal of that external energy)...but we would not call this a molecule.
Just double-checking myself on something:
Typically at the high-school level, we say that it takes energy to break a bond, but energy is released to form a bond. This has always bothered me because even with a naive understanding of enthalpies we can see formations with different signs. To me...
Wait one more question though:
Is it alright in say a high school classroom to justify the relevant phenomena to these equations by broadly talking about them as Coulomb's Law (I would guess historically one led to the other nigh simultaneously)? Subjective question perhaps but still interested...
Certainly even just considering that many possible states available to the atoms in a human body could indeed leave one dead reinforces that I probably just should have simplified this question to talking about a large macroscopic object like I previously said. Would a large system though...
Well naievly I might say w=Fd then substitute that into internal energy assuming no term for heat, calling that something like the estatic potential and hoping the the d in work would cancel one of our d's in the inverse square... is that what youre getting at? I've thought of something like...
Coming from a Chemistry background, we seem to flippantly explain away chemical phenomena using "Coulomb's Law" but are often specifically mentioning the equation for electrostatic potential energy due to their similarity. The explanatory power for us is about the same, but one is an...
I'm trying to reach a more thorough understanding of what's going on when we calculate equilibrium concentrations and was wanting to understand more what assumptions we make in order to follow through with the calculations.
Let me ask off of an example:
Consider mixing equal amounts of NH3...
Sorry for the belated reply, things got quite busy all of the sudden. Responding to a few points in brief:
1) Demystifier, thanks. And I'm avoiding much speculation on what the human would experience. I suppose I should have made this question more streamlined by just supposing some large...
I'm aware of the paper on putting a virus in superposition (of which I applaud that effort), and had heard a bit on that interesting single-photon vision test, so I'm glad to hear that's been experimented with. But even without these experimental proofs, do we not have a rigorous enough...
Putting a Human in Superposition
I recognize the practical aspects of this would be absurd, but I must admit the premise of what it would take to put a human in a superposition of states is an amusing thought exercise and has some relevance towards me understanding actually in what scenarios QM...
Bah, I keep forgetting that about the Bohmian setup. Maybe that's just personal bias pushing that thought to the back since it makes the idea seem a bit ad hoc when recognized.
Anyways, I feel pretty sated on all this. I'll have a bit of reading to do to truly be so, but that's going to happen...
I definitely saved that pdf. That had some good information on some of the formalism and mathematical background I was missing. I have a taste of how weak measurement could be done from it now, though that's going to take considerable reading for me to discuss it further in any appreciable way...
Alrighty, I've done a bit of reading on that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the sentiment I'm getting is that weak measurements are NOT truly measurements but rather inferences taken from indirect measurements that provide effectively the utility of an average measurement for the system...