Count Otto Black wrote:

rainbow wrote:
That is why your search gives the answers you claim, and that is why it is wrong.
Try it.

Read the abstract and then slink back for my forgiveness.

Why?
It is one of the 3 references I found. In context of the paper, please explain how this is relevant to our discussion here. In particular the reference to light scattering is confusing as were are discussing Chemistry.

Alan C wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Count Otto Black wrote:I got 85,700, the very first was http://www.springerlink.com/content/p7025m3251803226/ which uses the term several times in the abstract alone.

This isn't the place to say, but if you Google without the parentheses (" "), then you get articles that contain both keywords but not necessarly in a phrase. If you use the parentheses, you get only those articles where they are used together in a phrase.
That is why your search gives the answers you claim, and that is why it is wrong.
Try it.

Pedantics.

No it isn't.
If you don't know how Google works, then it is about time you did. It could enrich your life.

rainbow wrote:

Mononoke wrote:^^ the shear idiocy of all of this is amazing

It is pure macroscopic incoherence.

Decoherence is very well defined mathematically, you're just making an utter fool of yourself. I also answered the nonsense about random collisions you seem to forgotten to read it.

Count Otto Black wrote:

rainbow wrote:
I thought I had answered them earlier, what were they again?

How do you think the chemical industry makes any profit if chemical reactions are random?

They sell the products at a higher price than their input costs.

What assertion did I make regarding strawberry jam and the Haber process?

Something about it doesn't make batches of strawberry jam, so it isn't random.

Why does the Haber Process produce mostly Ammonia and not something else?

Due to the stability of the product under the temperature and pressures employed.

newolder wrote:

rainbow wrote:... What do you understand by " random orientation "?

In this context, the capillary segments (macroscopic entities) are numerous and scattered.

...so guessing wildly, would you call them "Random", or "non-Random"?

Due to the stability of the product under the temperature and pressures employed.

What does this mean microscopically

rainbow wrote:In context of the paper, please explain how this is relevant to our discussion here. In particular the reference to light scattering is confusing as were are discussing Chemistry.

For the simple reason that you asked for a link to it being used in a scientific paper.

rainbow wrote:

newolder wrote:

rainbow wrote:... What do you understand by " random orientation "?

In this context, the capillary segments (macroscopic entities) are numerous and scattered.

...so guessing wildly, would you call them "Random", or "non-Random"?

The entities are not random. Their location and orientation in the space-time of the experiment is described by Gaussian statistics.

Count Otto Black wrote:

rainbow wrote:In context of the paper, please explain how this is relevant to our discussion here. In particular the reference to light scattering is confusing as were are discussing Chemistry.

For the simple reason that you asked for a link to it being used in a scientific paper.

...so it has nothing to do with Chemistry.
The second paper refers to 'random orientation'
...and the third is a discussion on Heavy Metal Music.

3 references, and not a good yield for our phrase 'macroscopic incoherence'.
No seriously, do you believe that this is a term commonly used in Science, based on what you've seen?

rainbow wrote:They sell the products at a higher price than their input costs.

But because of quantum uncertainty they can't know what the product will be.

Something about it doesn't make batches of strawberry jam, so it isn't random.

Fail. And you told be you understood it fully. What I was saying was that if chemical reactions are random you could get any product from a reaction. But we don't. We get what we expect - right down to the quantity.

Due to the stability of the product under the temperature and pressures employed.

So not random then? Why don't we get sulphuric acid?

newolder wrote:

rainbow wrote:

newolder wrote:

rainbow wrote:... What do you understand by " random orientation "?

In this context, the capillary segments (macroscopic entities) are numerous and scattered.

...so guessing wildly, would you call them "Random", or "non-Random"?

The entities are not random. Their location and orientation in the space-time of the experiment is described by Gaussian statistics.

OK. Do you think the authors of that paper might have erred. I suggest you write to them and explain how they misunderstand the word "Random".
Please tell us their response.
I for one naively think they know their subject.

rainbow wrote:No seriously, do you believe that this is a term commonly used in Science, based on what you've seen?

Doesn't matter if it's commonly used or not. Whoever wrote the paper thought it would be understood.

But is it even a term? Or is it merely another way of saying incoherence at the macroscopic level?

rainbow wrote:

newolder wrote:

rainbow wrote:

newolder wrote:

rainbow wrote:... What do you understand by " random orientation "?

In this context, the capillary segments (macroscopic entities) are numerous and scattered.

...so guessing wildly, would you call them "Random", or "non-Random"?

The entities are not random. Their location and orientation in the space-time of the experiment is described by Gaussian statistics.

OK. Do you think the authors of that paper might have erred.

No.

I suggest you write to them and explain how they misunderstand the word "Random".
Please tell us their response.

Suggest what you like. The only misunderstanding here seems to be yours. No worries, you can fix that in your own time.

Count Otto Black wrote:

rainbow wrote:No seriously, do you believe that this is a term commonly used in Science, based on what you've seen?

Doesn't matter if it's commonly used or not.

Can I take that as a "YES"?
You agree that it isn't a commonly used term in Science?
Absolutely?

Count Otto Black wrote:

rainbow wrote:No seriously, do you believe that this is a term commonly used in Science, based on what you've seen?

Doesn't matter if it's commonly used or not. Whoever wrote the paper thought it would be understood.

But is it even a term? Or is it merely another way of saying incoherence at the macroscopic level?

I've never heard of macroscopic incoherence what does that mean

rainbow wrote:

Count Otto Black wrote:

rainbow wrote:No seriously, do you believe that this is a term commonly used in Science, based on what you've seen?

Doesn't matter if it's commonly used or not.

Can I take that as a "YES"?
You agree that it isn't a commonly used term in Science?
Absolutely?

Only if I can take it you didn't understand what I just wrote.

Count Otto Black wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Count Otto Black wrote:

rainbow wrote:No seriously, do you believe that this is a term commonly used in Science, based on what you've seen?

Doesn't matter if it's commonly used or not.

Can I take that as a "YES"?
You agree that it isn't a commonly used term in Science?
Absolutely?

Only if I can take it you didn't understand what I just wrote.

Well the other possibility is that it is commonly used in Science, yet there are only 3 references to it.
...and one has to do with Music.
Would you like to answer without the Swerve?
Yes or No?

rainbow wrote:Well the other possibility is that it is commonly used in Science, yet there are only 3 references to it.
...and one has to do with Music.
Would you like to answer without the Swerve?
Yes or No?

If you like. The term "Macroscopic Incoherent" returns 144 hits, mostly to do with macroscopic incoherent scattering - that is to say scattering which displays "macroscopic incoherence". It doesn't matter how many people know what it means, in some obscure corner of science it is used.

Incidentally tnjrp explained what he meant some pages ago so stop nit-picking and answer some of the questions put to you.

Count Otto Black wrote:

rainbow wrote:Well the other possibility is that it is commonly used in Science, yet there are only 3 references to it.
...and one has to do with Music.
Would you like to answer without the Swerve?
Yes or No?

If you like. The term "Macroscopic Incoherent" returns 144 hits, mostly to do with macroscopic incoherent scattering - that is to say scattering which displays "macroscopic incoherence". It doesn't matter how many people know what it means, in some obscure corner of science it is used.

Incidentally tnjrp explained what he meant some pages ago so stop nit-picking and answer some of the questions put to you.

I missed the answer.
"Yes or "No"?

rainbow wrote:

Count Otto Black wrote:

rainbow wrote:Well the other possibility is that it is commonly used in Science, yet there are only 3 references to it.
...and one has to do with Music.
Would you like to answer without the Swerve?
Yes or No?

If you like. The term "Macroscopic Incoherent" returns 144 hits, mostly to do with macroscopic incoherent scattering - that is to say scattering which displays "macroscopic incoherence". It doesn't matter how many people know what it means, in some obscure corner of science it is used.

Incidentally tnjrp explained what he meant some pages ago so stop nit-picking and answer some of the questions put to you.

I missed the answer.
"Yes or "No"?

You're trolling. And you haven't answered my questions.