Context and question: Prior to Planck's work, it had been assumed that the energy of a body could take on any value whatsoever that it was a continuous variable. The RayleighJeans law makes close predictions for a narrow range of values at one limit of temperatures, but the results diverge more and more strongly as temperatures increase. To make Planck's law, which correctly predicts blackbody emissions, it was necessary to multiply the classical expression by a complex factor that involves h in both the numerator and the denominator. The influence of h in this complex factor would not disappear if it were set to zero or to any other value. Making an equation out of Planck's law that would reproduce the RayleighJeans law could not be done by changing the values of h, of the Boltzmann constant, or of any other constant or variable in the equation. In this case the picture given by classical physics is not duplicated by a range of results in the quantum picture.
Planck's law involved what necessary mathematical step to correctly predict blackbody emission?
Answer: multiply the classical expression by a complex factor that involves h in both the numerator and the denominator
Context and question: Ectosymbiosis, also referred to as exosymbiosis, is any symbiotic relationship in which the symbiont lives on the body surface of the host, including the inner surface of the digestive tract or the ducts of exocrine glands. Examples of this include ectoparasites such as lice, commensal ectosymbionts such as the barnacles that attach themselves to the jaw of baleen whales, and mutualist ectosymbionts such as cleaner fish.
What mutualist ectosymbionts clean the barnacles that attach themselves to the jaw of baleen whales?
Answer: unanswerable
Context and question: The positions on the persistence of objects are somewhat similar. An endurantist holds that for an object to persist through time is for it to exist completely at different times (each instance of existence we can regard as somehow separate from previous and future instances, though still numerically identical with them). A perdurantist on the other hand holds that for a thing to exist through time is for it to exist as a continuous reality, and that when we consider the thing as a whole we must consider an aggregate of all its "temporal parts" or instances of existing. Endurantism is seen as the conventional view and flows out of our pre-philosophical ideas (when I talk to somebody I think I am talking to that person as a complete object, and not just a part of a cross-temporal being), but perdurantists have attacked this position. (An example of a perdurantist is David Lewis.) One argument perdurantists use to state the superiority of their view is that perdurantism is able to take account of change in objects.
Which view is seen as conventional?
Answer:
Endurantism