Ap-145 (Rev: Fill & Download for Free

Hypothetically, if both were to have a crew of equal skill and experience, the Tiger would clap cheeks.Both were the primary heavy tank for the beginning half of WW2, and both had a notorious reputation on the battlefield. As we all know, the Tiger was widely known and widely feared for its thick armor and monstrous firepower, and the KV-1 had such saucy armor for its time that the Germans had to rely on their 8.8 cm AA to even hole the thing.A Ruski banger. Stalin sends his regards.The KV-1 was one of the first tanks in the war, and in a time of Panzer III’s and M3 Lee’s, there was this beast. Entering service in 1939, the KV-1 was immune to everything the Germans had except the massive 8.8 cm FlaK gun. Against the early Panzer vehicles, the KV-1 dominated, and in many accounts have a sole KV-1 defended against multiple targets and blasted them.However, the KV-1 was quickly outdated, and by mid-war it was clear that continuous production of the rather expensive vehicle was wasteful, as the cheaper T-34/76 performed equal or better in every respect. However, the KV-1 had its use and its legacy lived on in the IS tanks, which were based on it.A problem with the KV-1 as it grew older was its aging firepower, and in this hypothetical battle, it will be very prominent. While also on the T-34, the KV-1 is a much slower platform with the same firepower, which renders its usage less useful because of its more defensive/offensive design.The Cat is on the Hunt for Your Mom.Won’t go into the Tiger too much as I’m sure we all know.As a quick summary, despite it looking weaker as time progressed, 100 mm of frontal armor in 1942 was almost completely impenetrable, and it was the most heavily armored tank at the time. Its 8.8 cm gun was incredibly devastating, sporting 145 mm of AP penetration and due to its caliber dealt massive damage to anything unlucky enough to meet it.While its design aged, its gun and reputation did not, and it was the main heavy tank for Germany for the entirety of the war.here begins tank fanfictionIt’s a quiet, desolate abandoned village only marked cut by the low rumbling of a large, trudging vehicle. A lone KV-1, separated from its brethren, passes through the flat plains and silent houses.An aggressive purr of an engine matches the mechanical Soviet hymn. At about 1000 m, a Tiger I drives out into the open, a stark contrast to the vibrant landscape. On a lone patrol, the Tiger drives closer to the village, unbeknownst of the intruder within.The KV-1 turns a corner. Then another. Then another. It is lost, trying to claw its way out of this mix and mash of houses and churches. Finally, it reaches the edge and makes a right turn to be greeted whole-heartedly.Around 500 m away, a KV-1 drives out between two houses and turns right. The Tiger spots it immediately and slams the brakes and begins preparations to fire. The massive 8.8 cm gleamed menacingly as an AP shell was ejected.The shell misses and obliterates the house behind, alerting the crew. The KV-1 immediately revs away from the Tiger, firing a shot back which bounces harmlessly off the mantlet.The Tiger drives after the KV-1, and soon 700 hp catches up to a reversing KV-1. As much as I’d like to make this exciting, the KV-1 fires at the Tiger which sweats off the hit from his frontal armor, and shortly after a massive hole is found in the frontal plate, and then another, and then another, just to be safe.Basically, the Tiger’s armor and firepower far outclassed the KV-1, which could not shrug off or penetrate the opposite.

I believe I already answered this exact question a few weeks ago. I hate to disagree with Dr Muller, but in this case, in my opinion, the uncertainty of the proton’s position is not an answer, sorry Dr Muller. Uncertainty is a black box that ‘in my opinion,’ is used to explain off too many phenomenon that no one wants to give thought to.The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle gives us the minimum constraint on a wave function’s position, not how BIG it can be. That is, The HUP is given byThe 4 pi in the denominator is the result of usually seeing Planck’s constant written in ‘reduced form,’ represented by h-bar. There are a few things to know here. First, Planck’s constant, by definition is indivisible, as it represents the smallest slice of energy possible in normal space-time. You therefore do not divide the indivisible h by 4 pi (I see this in doctoral level lectures, and it is the second most stupid thing I have ever seen; I’ll save the first most stupid for some other post). Second: pi is not even a rational number. Dividing the indivisible h by an irrational number that has no discrete value in itself is - absurd. Third, h-bar was written by Dirac because he recognized that since h only deals with wave functions, it must have a value fundamentally related to a wave cycle, which is 2-pi. This is why h-bar is h/2pi. Four: 4-pi represents two full wave cycles, the minimum number to describe a wave function as being in one of two possible positions. Thus, the 4-pi in the denominator purely represents the smallest amount of energy possible in normal space-time, spread over the minimum requirement for a wave cycle to be considered as being in more than one position.Five, sigma-x represents the distribution of possible locations of the wave function, sigma-p represents the distribution of velocities (and hence momenta) that got the wave function to those superpositions distributed over sigma-x. The equation ONLY STATES THAT THIS DISTRIBUTION MUST BE GREATER THAN THE MINIMUM SLICE OF ENERGY POSSIBLE IN NORMAL SPACE-TIME SPREAD OVER TWO WAVE CYCLES. THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR ALLOWING A PROTON TO INFLATE TO 10,000 TIMES ITS SIZE.SIX: I don’t know how many times I have had to repeat this, the HUP only refers to wave functions, not ‘particles.’ Once a wave function is detected, it is no longer a wave function, and the HUP is non-sequitur. The proton is not a wave function. According to the Standard Model (We’ll go with that for a moment) it is a composite of we don’t know what. It has taken ‘particle physicists’ half a century of smashing them with a giant hammer to figure out that they don’t know what it is made of by looking at the broken pieces. The pieces, so far, weigh 100 times more than the thing before they smashed it with a hammer. So, they invoke the HUP to (Uncertainty Principle) claim the excess mass comes from the Uncertainty Principle, with a certainty out to about 15 decimal places… The spin of these invoked contents account for 2% of the proton’s spin. (Referred to a the ‘spin catastrophe.’)Now, we have someone claiming this composite region inflates to 10,000 to a million times it size, consistently, to explain the position of the electron; as absurd as the answer is, doesn’t answer the question, ‘why do electromagnetic things attract?’If we use the spin angular momentum of the electron, and the proton or positron, whatever, and think of it as a boomerang, I use this analogy:In Feynman terms, imagine a man in one boat and a woman in another. They have no means of propelling their boats, but happen they are supplied with boomerangs. How can they get their boats together? By throwing a boomerang away from the man, the woman would experience a reaction force from the boomerang towards the man. The boomerang could then circle round and approach the man from behind, and on reaching him, could exert a force on him towards the woman.In this diagram, the woman throws the boomerang (virtual photon, spin 1), which has spin +1/2, producing force Fv, the momentum of the throw also producing force F1. The man catches the boomerang, producing force F2. In this instance, there is an ‘attractive’ force, likened to the man being an electron and the woman being a positron. But why does the ‘force’ obey the inverse square law?We can generalize the electromagnetic force in terms of any constant, represented by k, two charges, and distance:And again, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, purely in terms of delta-E:In this case, delta-t is purely mediated by r^2, the distance.That is as close to a Feynman explanation as one would get, perhaps.A virtual photon is not massless, but is off mass shell, that is, possess mass. This is where we come to chirality and helicity. Helicity is a spinning massive particle, we’ll say counter clockwise. Because it has mass, it cannot go as fast as light, meaning thqat you can get in front of it and see it apparently spinning the opposite way, clockwise. Chirality refers to massless photons, which you cannot get in front of because you cannot exceed v=c to do so, so they only ‘spin’ in two polarization states, clockwise or counterclockwise.Because a virtual photon has mass, it is helic, not chiral, giving it 3 polarization states. The 3rd polarization state is observed by passing the slow moving virtual photon and watching it ‘spin’ apparently in the opposite direction.Its mass and 3rd polarization state account for the boomerang effect shown above. Note that in order for the boomerang argument to work, the arrow goes around and points the opposite way, as seen coming at you as opposed to the helic spin of when it was launched.I hope this over simplified explanation helps. As for the proton’s uncertain position as a wave function, you will note that the delta-t in the HUP equation above simply will not allow for a proton to extend as far as a valence electron. So, that is just wrong.In fact, as I look at this a few months later, I can tell you exactly how wrong it is. A virtual photon mediating a magnetic field can live exactly 3 wavelengths. That is a certainty; exactly three. This is referred to as a Near Field Effect. Radio antennas, for instance, produce a powerful magnetic field that does not drop off with the square of the distance. For instance, if your transmission is at 300 megahertz, then your wavelength is 1 meter. The magnetic field produced by the Near Field Photons is exactly uniform throughout a 3 meter domain from the antenna; then comes to a dead stop, like a brick wall.A proton has a diameter of 1 femtometer, 10^-15 meters. The first electron orbital is out at 10^-10 meters. That means Muller’s Uncertainty Principle explanation has to extend the proton diameter 5 orders of magnitude greater than it normal cross section. In order for that to happen, the delta-t has to decrease by 5 orders of magnitude, spontaneously. In this amount of time, if you do the algebra, you find that the massive virtual photon actually has to exceed the speed of light in order for there to be any prayer of that answer being in any way possible.The proton has a diameter of 10E-15 meters, a hydrogen atoms valence electron is 10E-10 meters, meaning the uncertainty principle would have to allow the photon to inflate to 10,000 times its diameter, for just the lowest ground state of hydrogen. When you take the virtual photon mass and spin angular momentum, that is impossible. The HUP will work no magic here. The argument via HUP might hold some, but very little, water if the virtual photon had no mass, but this is not the case.The uncertainty of the photon’s position is also equally outward as it is inward, that is, of what little uncertainty there is in a virtual photon’s position (because of its mass, reduces the uncertainty, such as the uncertainty of a battle ship’s position) it is not emitted unidirectionally away from the proton from the electron. This exacting vector must be exactly 180 degrees opposite the proton’s position to be true. Since it is the electron’s position that is uniquely uncertain, this requires the electron to have 1) a certain position and 2) foreknowledge of its vector toward the proton from where it will be when it emits the virtual photon, exactly 180 degrees away from the proton’s position and 3) a reason for emitting only photons 180 degrees away from the proton.Thinking inside the box and staying there because it feels safe when people agree with you is why we are living in the Holocene Extinction. If we thought for ourselves, the world would change; would already have done so.I’d like to thank Dmitry Popov for catching my typos, I was writing proton when I was thinking photon.I answered a similar question at When we say that spin-1/2 fermions must go through 720 degrees to equal the 360 degrees required by spin-1 bosons, what exactly is being measured?I found this in an old text I wrote some years ago:It is not possible to ignore the relativistic effect of velocity of recession. Therefore, G takes on G’ as a function of t’, given by simple time dilation.REFERENCESPersonal lecture (conference) notes: Leonard Susskind, lecture July, 2013Personal lecture (conference) notes: Mark van Raamsdonk of the University of British Columbia, Oct 2015Personal lecture (conference) notes: Erik Verlinde, Oct 2017Personal lecture (conference) notes: Gerard T’ Hooft Feb 2015Personal lecture (conference) notes: Gerard T’ Hooft May 20131.Astier, Pierre (Supernova Legacy Survey); Guy; Regnault; Pain; Aubourg; Balam; Basa; Carlberg; Fabbro; Fouchez; Hook; Howell; Lafoux; Neill; Palanque-Delabrouille; Perrett; Pritchet; Rich; Sullivan; Taillet; Aldering; Antilogus; Arsenijevic; Balland; Baumont; Bronder; Courtois; Ellis; Filiol; et al. (2006). "The Supernova legacy survey: Measurement of ΩM, ΩΛ and W from the first year data set". Astronomy and Astrophysics. 447: 31–48. arXiv:astro-ph/0510447 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2006A&A...447...31A. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054185.2.Zelong Yi; Tongjie Zhang (2007). "Constraints on holographic dark energy models using the differential ages of passively evolving galaxies". Modern Physics Letters A. 22 (1): 41. arXiv:astro-ph/0605596 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2007MPLA...22...41Y. doi:10.1142/S0217732307020889.3.Haoyi Wan; Zelong Yi; Tongjie Zhang; Jie Zhou (2007). "Constraints on the DGP Universe Using Observational Hubble parameter". Physics Letters B. 651 (5): 352. arXiv:0706.2723 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2007PhLB..651..352W. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.06.053.4.Cong Ma; Tongjie Zhang (2010). "Power of Observational Hubble Parameter Data: a Figure of Merit Exploration". Astrophysical Journal. 730 (2): 74. arXiv:1007.3787 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2011ApJ...730...74M. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/74.5.Tongjie Zhang; Cong Ma; Tian Lan (2010). "Constraints on the Dark Side of the Universe and Observational Hubble Parameter Data". Advances in Astronomy. 2010 (1): 1. arXiv:1010.1307 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2010AdAst2010E..81Z. doi:10.1155/2010/184284.6.Wiltshire, D. (2008). "Cosmological equivalence principle and the weak-field limit". Physical Review D. 78 (8): 084032. arXiv:0809.1183 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2008PhRvD..78h4032W. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.084032.7.Gray, Stuart. "Dark questions remain over dark energy". ABC Science Australia. Retrieved 27 January 2013.8.Merali, Zeeya (March 2012). "Is Einstein's Greatest Work All Wrong—Because He Didn't Go Far Enough?". Discover magazine. Retrieved 27 January 2013.9.H. Arp, Dark Energy and the Hubble Constan ;arXiv:0712.3180 (Cornell University)10.Arp, H. 1990, Ap&SS 167, 18311.Arp, H. 1994, 430, 7412.Arp, H. 1998a, Seeing Red, Apeiron, Montreal13.Arp, H. 1998b, ApJ 496, 66114.Arp, H. 2002, ApJ 571, 61515.Bell, M. 2007, ApJ 667, L12916.Freedman,W., Madore, B., Gibson, B. et al. 2001, ApJ 553, 4717.Narlikar J. 1977, Ann. Phys. 107, 32518.Narlikar J. and Das, P. 1980, ApJ 240, 40119.Narlikar J., Arp H. 1993 ApJ 405, 5120.Sandage A., Tamman, G., Saha, A. 1998 Phys. Rep. 307, 1– 8 –21.Sandage, A. et al. 2006, ApJ 653, 84322.Shafieloo. A. 2007, Mon. Not. Roy. Soc. 380(4), 157323.White, S. 2007, astro-ph, arXiv:0704.22924.Wimmel, Hermann (1992). Quantum Physics & Observed Reality: A Critical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. World Scientific. p. 2. ISBN 978-981-02-1010-6.25.J. Mehra and H. Rechenberg, The historical development of quantum theory, Springer-Verlag, 2001, p. 271.26.Howard, Don (2004). "Who invented the Copenhagen Interpretation? A study in mythology" (PDF). Philosophy of Science. 71 (5): 669–682. doi:10.1086/425941. JSTOR 10.1086/425941.27.Bohm, David (1952). "A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of 'Hidden' Variables. I & II". Physical Review. 85 (2): 166–193. Bibcode:1952PhRv...85..166B. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.85.166.28.H. Kragh, Quantum generations: A History of Physics in the Twentieth Century, Princeton University Press, 1999, p. 210. ("the term 'Copenhagen interpretation' was not used in the 1930s but first entered the physicist’s vocabulary in 1955 when Heisenberg used it in criticizing certain unorthodox interpretations of quantum mechanics.")29.Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, Harper, 195830.Olival Freire Jr., "Science and exile: David Bohm, the hot times of the Cold War, and his struggle for a new interpretation of quantum mechanics", Historical Studies on the Physical and Biological Sciences, Volume 36, Number 1, 200531."Popper's experiment and the Copenhagen interpretation". Stud. History Philos. Modern Physics. 33: 23. arXiv:quant-ph/9910078 Freely accessible. Bibcode:1999quant.ph.10078P.32.Bohr, N. (1928). 'The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory', Nature, 121: 580–590, doi:10.1038/121580a033.Heisenberg, W. (1927). Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik, Z. Phys. 43: 172–198.34.Jammer, M. (1982). 'Einstein and quantum physics', pp. 59–76 in Albert Einstein: Historical and Cultural Perspectives; the Centennial Symposium in Jerusalem, edited by G. Holton, Y. Elkana, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, ISBN 0-691-08299-5.35.Born, M. (1955). "Statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics". Science. 122 (3172): 675–679. Bibcode:1955Sci...122..675B. doi:10.1126/science.122.3172.675. PMID 17798674.36.Bohr, N. (1928). 'The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory', Nature, 121: 580–590, doi:10.1038/121580a0, p. 58637.Claus Kiefer (2002). "On the interpretation of quantum theory – from Copenhagen to the present day". arXiv:quant-ph/021015238.David Bohm, A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of "Hidden Variables", I, Physical Review, (1952), 85, pp 166–17939.David Bohm, A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of "Hidden Variables", II, Physical Review, (1952), 85, pp 180–19340.Hugh Everett, Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics, Reviews of Modern Physics vol 29, (1957) pp 454–462, based on unitary time evolution without discontinuities.41.H. Dieter Zeh, On the Interpretation of Measurement in Quantum Theory, Foundation of Physics, vol. 1, pp. 69–76, (1970).42.Wojciech H. Zurek, Pointer Basis of Quantum Apparatus: Into what Mixture does the Wave Packet Collapse?, Physical Review D, 24, pp. 1516–1525 (1981)43.Wojciech H. Zurek, Environment-Induced Superselection Rules, Physical Review D, 26, pp.1862–1880, (1982)44.Camilleri, K (2006). "Heisenberg and the wave–particle duality". Stud. Hist. Phil. Mod. Phys. 37: 298–315.45.Camilleri, K. (2009). Heisenberg and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: the Physicist as Philosopher, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, ISBN 978-0-521-88484-6.46.Duane, W. (1923). The transfer in quanta of radiation momentum to matter, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 9(5): 158–164.47.Jammer, M. (1974). The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: the Interpretations of QM in Historical Perspective, Wiley, ISBN 0-471-43958-4, pp. 453–455.48.Gribbin, J. Q for Quantum49.Max Tegmark (1998). "The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Many Worlds or Many Words?". Fortsch. Phys. 46 (6–8): 855–862. arXiv:quant-ph/9709032 Freely accessible. Bibcode:1998ForPh..46..855T. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1521-3978(199811)46:6/8<855::AID-PROP855>http://3.0.CO;2-Q.50.M. Schlosshauer; J. Kofler; A. Zeilinger (2013). "A Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. 44 (3): 222–230. arXiv:1301.1069 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2013SHPMP..44..222S. doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2013.04.004.51.C. Sommer, "Another Survey of Foundational Attitudes Towards Quantum Mechanics", arXiv:1303.2719. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.2719v152.T. Norsen, S. Nelson, "Yet Another Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics", arXiv:1306.4646. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.4646v2.pdf53.Steven Weinberg (19 January 2017). "The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics". New York Review of Books. Retrieved 8 January 2017.54.Erwin Schrödinger, in an article in the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 124, 323–38.55.Nairz, Olaf; Brezger, Björn; Arndt, Markus; Zeilinger, Anton (2001). "Diffraction of Complex Molecules by Structures Made of Light". Physical Review Letters. 87 (16): 160401. arXiv:quant-ph/0110012 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2001PhRvL..87p0401N. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.160401. PMID 11690188.56.Brezger, Björn; Hackermüller, Lucia; Uttenthaler, Stefan; Petschinka, Julia; Arndt, Markus; Zeilinger, Anton (2002). "Matter-Wave Interferometer for Large Molecules". Physical Review Letters. 88 (10): 100404. arXiv:quant-ph/0202158 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2002PhRvL..88j0404B. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.100404. PMID 1190933457.Beller, M. (1992), “The Birth of Bohr's Complementarity: The Context and the Dialogues”, in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 23: 147–180.58.Beller, M. (1999), Quantum Dialogue: The Making of a Revolution, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.59.Brock, S. (2003), Niels Bohr's Philosophy of Quantum Physics in the Light of the Helmholtzian Tradition of Theoretical Physics, Berlin: Logos Verlag.60.Bunge, M. (1967), “The Turn of the Tide”, in Mario Bunge (ed.) Quantum Theory and Reality, New York: Springer, pp. 1–12.61.Camilleri, K. (2006), “Heisenberg and the Wave-particle Duality”, in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 37: 298–315.62.Camilleri, K. (2007), “Bohr, Heisenberg and the Divergent Views of Complementarity”, in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 38: 514–528.63.Chevalley, C. (1991), “Introduction: Le dessin et la couleur”, in Niels Bohr, Physique atomique et connaissance humaine, Edmond Bauer and Roland Omnès (trans.), Catherine Chevalley (ed.), Paris: Gallimard, pp. 17–140.64.Chevalley, C. (1994), “Niels Bohr's Words and the Atlantis of Kantianism”, in J. Faye and H. Folse (eds), Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy, pp. 33–55.65.Clifton, R. and H. Halvorson (1999), “Maximal Beable Subalgebras of Quantum Mechanical Observables”, in International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 38: 2441–248466.Clifton, R. and H. Halvorson (2002), “Reconsidering Bohr's reply to EPR”, in Placek, T. and J. Butterfield (eds.) Non-locality and Modality Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher,67.Cushing, J. (1994),Quantum Mechanics, Historical Contingency, and the Copenhagen Hegemony, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.68.Dickson, M. (2001), “The EPR Experiment: A Prelude to Bohr's Reply to EPR”, in Heidelberger, M. & F. Stadler (eds.) History of Philosophy of Science — New Trends and Perspectives Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher, pp. 263–275.69.Dickson, M. (2002), “Bohr on Bell: A Proposed Reading of Bohr and Its Implications for Bell's Theorem”, in Placek, T. and J. Butterfield (eds.) Non-locality and Modality Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher,70.Einstein, A., B. Podolsky and N. Rosen (1935),“Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?”, Physical Review, 47: 777–780.71.Faye, J. (1991), Niels Bohr: His Heritage and Legacy. An Antirealist View of Quantum Mechanics, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.72.Faye, J. (2008), “Niels Bohr and the Vienna Circle”, in Manninen, J. and F. Stadler (eds.) The Vienna Circle in the Nordic Countries (The Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook, 14), Dordrecht: Springer Verlag.73.Faye, J., and H. Folse (eds.) (1994), Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science: Volume 158), Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.74.Folse, H. (1985), The Philosophy of Niels Bohr. The Framework of Complementarity, Amsterdam: North Holland.75.Folse, H. (1986), “Niels Bohr, Complementarity, and Realism”, in A. Fine and P. Machamer (eds), PSA 1986: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, vol. I, East Lansing: PSA, pp. 96–104.76.Folse, H. (1994), “Bohr's Framework of Complementarity and the Realism Debate”, in J. Faye and H. Folse (1994), pp. 119–139.77.Gomatam, R. (2007), “Niels Bohr's Interpretation and the Copenhagen Interpretation — Are the two incompatible?”, in Philosophy of Science, 74(5): 736–748.78.Halvorson, H. (2004), “Complementarity of Representations in Quantum Mechanics”, in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 35: 45–56.79.Hebor, J. (2005), The Standard Conception as Genuine Quantum Realism, Odense: The University Press of Southern Denmark.80.Heisenberg, W. (1955), “The Development of the Interpretation of the Quantum Theory”, in W. Pauli (ed), Niels Bohr and the Development of Physics, London: Pergamon pp. 12–29.81.Heisenberg, W. (1958), Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science, London: Goerge Allen & Unwin.82.Held, C. (1994), “The Meaning of Complementarity”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 25: 871–893.83.Henderson, J. R. (2010), “Classes of Copenhagen interpretations: Mechanisms of collapse as a typologically determinative”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 41: 1–8.84.Honner, J. (1987), The Description of Nature: Niels Bohr and The Philosophy of Quantum Physics, Oxford: Clarendon Press.85.Hooker, C. A. (1972), “The Nature of Quantum Mechanical Reality”, in R. G. Colodny (ed.), Paradigms and Paradoxes, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 67–305.86.Howard, D. (1994), “What Makes a Classical Concept Classical? Toward a Reconstruction of Niels Bohr's Philosophy of Physics”, in Faye and Folse (1994), pp. 201–229.87.Howard, D. (2004), “Who Invented the ‘Copenhagen Interpretation?’ A Study in Mythology”, Philosophy of Science, 71: 669–682.88.Kaiser, D. (1992), “More Roots of Complementarity: Kantian Aspects and Influences”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 23: 213–239.89.Katsumori, M. (2005), Niels Bohr's Complementarity. Its Structure, History, and Intersections with Hermeneutics and Deconstruction, Ph.D. Dissertation, Vrije University Amsterdam.90.Landsman, N. P. (2006),“When champions meet: Rethinking the Bohr-Einstein debate.”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 37: 212–242.91.Landsman, N.P. (2007), “Between classical and quantum”, in Handbook of Philosophy of Science (Volume 2: Philosophy of Physics), J. Earman & J. Butterfield (eds.), Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 415–555.92.Massimi, M. (2005), Pauli's Exclusion Principle. The Origin and Validation of a Scientific Principle, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.93.Murdoch, D. (1987), Niels Bohr's Philosophy of Physics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.94.Petruccioli, S. (1993), Atoms, Metaphors and Paradoxes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.95.Plotnitsky, A. (1994), Complementarity: Anti-Epistemology after Bohr and Derrida, Durham: Duke University Press.96.Popper, K. R. (1967), “Quantum Mechanics Without ‘the Observer’”, in Mario Bunge (ed.), Quantum Theory and Reality, New York: Springer, pp. 1–12.97.Schlosshauer, M. Camilleri, K. (2011), “What classicality? Decoherence and Bohr's classical concepts”, in Advances in Quantum Theory, American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings 1327, pp. 26–35.98.Tanona, S. (2004a), “Uncertainty in Bohr's Response to the Heisenberg Microscope”, in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 35: 483–507.99.Tanona, S. (2004b), “Idealization and Formalism in Bohr's Approach to Quantum Theory”, in Philosophy of Science, 71: 683–695.100.Whitaker, M.A.B. (2004), “The EPR Paper and Bohr's Response: A Reassessment”, in Foundation of Physics, 34: 1305–1340.101.Zinkernagel, H. (2011), “Some Trends in the Philosophy of Physics”, in Teoria, 26(2): 215–241.102.Zinkernagel, H. (forthcoming), “Are we living in a quantum world? Bohr and quantum fundamentalism”, in The Danish Royal Academy of Sciences and Letters' Series.103.Larson, Calculus, 9th Edition, Theorem 3.10104.Dimitar Valev, Estimations of total mass and energy of the universe; April 8, 2010, arXiv:1004.1035v1 [physics.gen-ph] 7 Apr 2010105.Kim, Yoon-Ho; R. Yu; S.P. Kulik; Y.H. Shih; Marlan Scully (2000). "A Delayed "Choice" Quantum Eraser". Physical Review Letters. 84: 1–5. arXiv:quant-ph/9903047 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2000PhRvL..84....1K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1.106.Kennard, E. H. (1927), "Zur Quantenmechanik einfacher Bewegungstypen", Zeitschrift für Physik (in German), 44 (4–5): 326–352, Bibcode:1927ZPhy...44..326K, doi:10.1007/BF01391200.107.David H. Reser et al, Claustrum projections to prefrontal cortex in the capuchinmonkey (Cebus apella); SYSTEMS NEUROSCIENCE, published: 03 July 2014;doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00123108.Cambridge, Mark Thomson, University of (2013). Modern particle physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1107034266.109.Hawking, Stephen (1998). A brief history of time (Updated and expanded tenth anniversary ed.). New York: Bantam Books. ISBN 9780553896923.110.Mitrofanov, Igor G. (April 1994). "Cosmic gamma-ray burst sources: The phenomenon with the smallest angular size in the observable universe". Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 424 (2): 546–549.111.M. Tegmark; N. Bostrom (2005). "Is a doomsday catastrophe likely?" (PDF). Nature. 438 (5875): 754. Bibcode:2005Natur.438..754T. doi:10.1038/438754a. PMID 16341005.112.L. Susskind, "The anthropic landscape of string theory", arXiv:hep-th/0302219.113.M. Douglas, "The statistics of string / M theory vacua", JHEP 0305, 46 (2003). arXiv:hep-th/0303194; S. Ashok and M. Douglas, "Counting flux vacua", JHEP 0401, 060 (2004).114.M.S. Turner; F. Wilczek (1982). "Is our vacuum metastable?" (PDF). Nature. 298 (5875): 633–634. Bibcode:1982Natur.298..633T. doi:10.1038/298633a0. Retrieved 2015-10-31.115.Coleman, Sidney; De Luccia, Frank (1980-06-15). "Gravitational effects on and of vacuum decay" (PDF). Physical Review D. D21 (12): 3305–3315. Bibcode:1980PhRvD..21.3305C. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.21.3305.116.M. Stone (1976). "Lifetime and decay of excited vacuum states". Phys. Rev. D. 14 (12): 3568–3573. Bibcode:1976PhRvD..14.3568S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.3568.117.P.H. Frampton (1976). "Vacuum Instability and Higgs Scalar Mass". Phys. Rev. Lett. 37 (21): 1378–1380. Bibcode:1976PhRvL..37.1378F. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.37.1378.118.P.H. Frampton (1977). "Consequences of Vacuum Instability in Quantum Field Theory". Phys. Rev. D15 (10): 2922–28. Bibcode:1977PhRvD..15.2922F. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.15.2922.119.Peralta, Eyder (2013-02-19). "If Higgs Boson Calculations Are Right, A Catastrophic 'Bubble' Could End Universe". Home Page Top Stories. Article cites Fermilab's Joseph Lykken: "The bubble forms through an unlikely quantum fluctuation, at a random time and place," Lykken tells us. "So in principle it could happen tomorrow, but then most likely in a very distant galaxy, so we are still safe for billions of years before it gets to us."120.N. Arkani-Hamed, L. Motl, A. Nicolis, and C. Vafa, “The String landscape, black holes and gravity as the weakest force,” JHEP 06 (2007) 060, arXiv:hep-th/0601001121.R. Bousso, B. Freivogel, and M. Lippert, “Probabilities in the landscape: The Decay of nearly flat space,” Phys. Rev. D74 (2006) 046008, arXiv:hep-th/0603105122.A. Aguirre, T. Banks, and M. Johnson, “Regulating eternal inflation. II. The Great divide,” JHEP 08 (2006) 065, arXiv:hep-th/0603107123.H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, “Non-supersymmetric AdS and the Swampland,” arXiv:1610.01533124.U. H. Danielsson, G. Dibitetto, and S. C. Vargas, “Universal isolation in the AdS landscape,” arXiv:1605.09289125.A. Hebecker, F. Rompineve, and A. Westphal, “Axion Monodromy and the Weak Gravity Conjecture,” JHEP 04 (2016) 157, arXiv:1512.03768126.A. Hebecker, P. Mangat, S. Theisen, and L. T. Witkowski, “Can Gravitational Instantons Really Constrain Axion Inflation?,” arXiv:1607.06814127.M. Cvetic and H. H. Soleng, “Supergravity domain walls,” Phys. Rept. 282 (1997) 159–223, arXiv:hep-th/9604090128.S. R. Coleman and F. De Luccia, “Gravitational Effects on and of Vacuum Decay,” Phys. Rev. D21 (1980) 3305.129.M. Cvetic, S. Griffies, and S.-J. Rey, “Nonperturbative stability of supergravity and superstring vacua,” Nucl. Phys. B389 (1993) 3–24, arXiv:hep-th/9206004130.B. Heidenreich, M. Reece, and T. Rudelius, “Evidence for a Lattice Weak Gravity Conjecture,” arXiv:1606.08437131.L. Dyson, M. Kleban, and L. Susskind, “Disturbing implications of a cosmological constant,” JHEP 10 (2002) 011, arXiv:hep-th/0208013132.B. Freivogel, “Making predictions in the multiverse,” Class. Quant. Grav. 28 (2011) 204007, arXiv:1105.0244133.R. Bousso, B. Freivogel, and I.-S. Yang, “Properties of the scale factor measure,” Phys. Rev. D79 (2009) 063513, arXiv:0808.3770134.A. De Simone, A. H. Guth, A. D. Linde, M. Noorbala, M. P. Salem, and A. Vilenkin, “Boltzmann brains and the scale-factor cutoff measure of the ultiverse,” Phys. Rev. D82 (2010) 063520, arXiv:0808.3778135.G. T. Horowitz, J. Orgera, and J. Polchinski, “Nonperturbative Instability of AdS(5) x S**5/Z(k),” Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 024004,arXiv:0709.4262136.I. Heemskerk, J. Penedones, J. Polchinski, and J. Sully, “Holography from Conformal Field Theory,” JHEP 10 (2009) 079,arXiv:0907.0151137.M. Stone (1976). "Lifetime and decay of excited vacuum states". Phys. Rev. D. 14 (12): 3568–3573. Bibcode:1976PhRvD..14.3568S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.3568.138.P.H. Frampton (1976). "Vacuum Instability and Higgs Scalar Mass". Phys. Rev. Lett. 37 (21): 1378–1380. Bibcode:1976PhRvL..37.1378F. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.37.1378.139.M. Stone (1977). "Semiclassical methods for unstable states". Phys. Lett. B. 67 (2): 186–188. Bibcode:1977PhLB...67..186S. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(77)90099-5.140.P.H. Frampton (1977). "Consequences of Vacuum Instability in Quantum Field Theory". Phys. Rev. D15 (10): 2922–28. Bibcode:1977PhRvD..15.2922F. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.15.2922.141.S. Coleman (1977). "Fate of the false vacuum: Semiclassical theory". Phys. Rev. D15: 2929–36. Bibcode:1977PhRvD..15.2929C. doi:10.1103/physrevd.15.2929.142.C. Callan; S. Coleman (1977). "Fate of the false vacuum. II. First quantum corrections". Phys. Rev. D16: 1762–68. Bibcode:1977PhRvD..16.1762C. doi:10.1103/physrevd.16.1762.143.Instantons in Gauge Theories. Edited by Mikhail A. Shifman. World Scientific, 1994.144.Interactions Between Charged Particles in a Magnetic Field. By Hrachya Nersisyan, Christian Toepffer, Günter Zwicknagel. Springer, Apr 19, 2007145.Large-Order Behaviour of Perturbation Theory. Edited by J.C. Le Guillou, J. Zinn-Justin. Elsevier, Dec 2, 2012.146.Patrick Heelan, REALITY IN HEISENBERG'S PHILOSOPHY - Chapter Eight of Heelan's Quantum Mechanics and Objectivity. Hermeneutic and Phenomenological Philosophies of Science, 1965147.Vassilios Karakostas∗. Realism and Objectivism in Quantum Mechanics . Journal for General Philosophy of Science 2012 (Vol. 43, Issue 1)Andrea Oldofredi∗ Michael Esfeld. On the possibility of a realist ontological commitment in quantum mechanics. arXiv:1801.05307v1 [quant-ph] 13 Jan 2018

Specifically, there are differences anatomically between men and women that have a strong effect on substance pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics and also metabolism.Specific variances exist, and those differences create differing responses depending on the substance in question.1. Women's bodies store 20% overall body fat at minimum if diet and exercise permit. The evolutionary reason for this is that women under 20% body fat are vastly more likely to miscarry or deliver a child early. This 20% body fat cushion is referred to as the "Reproductive Cushion," in the medical literature. Many substances are lipophilic, meaning that they are stored in body fat and can potentially be released from fatty tissues. From a "healthy" BMI standpoint, this difference in body fat is more than double that of a healthy male.2. Women have a different water balance than men as well as a different distribution of bodily fluid. This is controlled largely by the interplay of Oestradiol and Progesterone and their analogues either synthetic or endogenous. This variability of water balance and distribution can dramatically affect substance concentrations, creating differing responses to the same dose of a substance. See:Sex Hormone Effects on Body Fluid Regulation3. Women's normal hormone fluctuations have an effect on mood, anxiety, tolerance and intoxication. According to research published in "Sex Differences in Drug Abuse, Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 2008," females of reproductive age have a more difficult time quitting smoking during the late luteal phase due to declining estrogen and progesterone levels, however:"estradiol decreases anxiety and negative affect, thereby alleviating some of the negative consequences of smoking cessation."4. Other physical variances between the genders have significant effects on how individuals respond to substance abuse and addiction. Women have a lesser amount of the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase (which destroys ethanol) in the stomach than men, this coupled with variable fluid volume and distribution depending on menstrual phase can create markedly different levels of intoxication in women exposed to the same amount of alcohol as men. According to the same study referenced above as well as several other well cited and carefully constructed studies, there are other assertions to be made such as:For example, women become addicted to alcohol more rapidly than do men [142], and brain atrophy develops more rapidly in women than in men (other negative medical consequences involve the heart, muscle and liver which are also compromised more rapidly in women than in men [86]).In women, the subjective effects of stimulants vary across the menstrual cycle [66-68]. For example, several of the positive subjective effects of d-AMPH such as euphoria, desire, increased energy and intellectual efficiency are potentiated during the follicular phase (when estradiol levels are low at first and rise slowly; progesterone levels are low) relative to the luteal phase (when estradiol levels are moderate and progesterone levels are high). Additionally, administration of estradiol during the follicular phase further increases the subjective effects of d-AMPH [67]. In contrast, the subjective effects of psychomotor stimulant drugs are negatively correlated with salivary progesterone levels in women [136], and progesterone administered during the follicular phase has been reported to attenuate the subjective response to repeated self-administered cocaine [44,45,117].As you can see, there are numerous differences and a great deal of ongoing research on this subject, much information of value may be gleaned from the studies referenced below.I hope this answers your question adequately.References:1. Alele PE, Devaud LL. Sex differences in steroid modulation of ethanol withdrawal in male and female rats. Journal of Pharmacology & Experimental Therapeutics. 2007;320:427–36. [PubMed]2. Andersen SL, Rutstein M, Benzo JM, Hostetter JC, Teicher MH. Sex differences in dopamine receptor overproduction and elimination. Neuroreport. 1997;8:1495–8. [PubMed]3. Anglin MD, Hser YI, McGlothlin WH. Sex differences in addict careers. 2. Becoming addicted.American Journal of Drug & Alcohol Abuse. 1987;13:59–71. [PubMed]4. Aragona BJ, Liu Y, Yu YJ, Curtis JT, Detwiler JM, Insel TR, Wang Z. Nucleus accumbens dopamine differentially mediates the formation and maintenance of monogamous pair bonds.[see comment] Nature Neuroscience. 2006;9:133–9. [PubMed]5. Arnold AP, Gorski RA. Gonadal steroid induction of structural sex differences in the central nervous system. Annu Rev Neurosci. 1984;7:413–42. [PubMed]6. Back SE, Brady KT, Jackson JL, Salstrom S, Zinzow H. Gender differences in stress reactivity among cocaine-dependent individuals. Psychopharmacology. 2005;180:169–76. [PubMed]7. Bazzett TJ, Albin RL, Becker JB. Malonic acid and the chronic administration model of excitotoxicity.Mitochondrial Inhibitors and Neurodegenerative Disorders. 2000:219–231.8. Bazzett TJ, Becker JB. Sex differences in the rapid and acute effects of estrogen on striatal D2 dopamine receptor binding. Brain Res. 1994;637:163–172. [PubMed]9. Becker JB. Direct effect of 17ß-estradiol on striatum: sex differences in dopamine release. Synapse.1990;5:157–164. [PubMed]10. Becker JB. Estrogen rapidly potentiates amphetamine-induced striatal dopamine release and rotaional behavior during microdialysis. Neuroscience Letters. 1990;118:169–171. [PubMed]11. Becker JB. Estrogen rapidly potentiates amphetamine-induced striatal dopamine release and rotational behavior during microdialysis. Neurosci. Lett. 1990;118:169–71. [PubMed]12. Becker JB. Gender differences in dopaminergic function in striatum and nucleus accumbens.Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior. 1999;64:803–812. [PubMed]13. Becker JB, Arnold AP, Berkley KJ, Blaustein JD, Eckel LA, Hampson E, Herman JP, Marts S, Sadee W, Steiner M, Taylor J, Young E. Strategies and methods for research on sex differences in brain and behavior.[see comment] Endocrinology. 2005;146:1650–73. [PubMed]14. Becker JB, Beer ME. The influence of estrogen on nigrostriatal dopamine activity: behavioral and neurochemical evidence for both pre- and postsynaptic components. Behav Brain Res. 1986;19:27–33.[PubMed]15. Becker JB, Cha J. Estrous cycle-dependent variation in amphetamine-induced behaviors and striatal dopamine release assessed with microdialysis. Behav. Brain Res. 1989;35:117–125. [PubMed]16. Becker JB, Molenda H, Hummer DL. Gender differences in the behavioral responses to cocaine and amphetamine. Implications for mechanisms mediating gender differences in drug abuse. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2001;937:172–87. [PubMed]17. Becker JB, Ramirez VD. Sex differences in the amphetamine stimulated release of catecholamines from rat striatal tissue in vitro. Brain Res. 1981;204:361–72. [PubMed]18. Brady KT, Randall CL. Gender differences in substance use disorders. Psychiatr Clin North Am.1999;22:241–52. [PubMed]19. Brady KT, Randall CL. Gender differences in substance use disorders. Psychiatric Clinics of North America. 1999;22:241–52. [PubMed]20. Breedlove SM, Hampson E. Sexual differentiation of the brain and behavior. In: Becker JB, Breedlove SM, Crews D, McCarthy MM, editors. Behavioral Endocrinology. MIT Press; Cambridge, MA: 2002. pp. 75–115.21. Breese GR, Chu K, Dayas CV, Funk D, Knapp DJ, Koob GF, Le DA, O'Dell LE, Overstreet DH, Roberts AJ, Sinha R, Valdez GR, Weiss F. Stress enhancement of craving during sobriety: a risk for relapse. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research. 2005;29:185–95. [PMC free article] [PubMed]22. Byqvist S. Drug-abusing women in Sweden: marginalization, social exclusion and gender differences.Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. 2006;38:427–40. [PubMed]23. Byqvist S. Patterns of drug use among drug misusers in Sweden. Gender differences, Substance Use & Misuse. 2006;41:1817–35. [PubMed]24. Camp DM, Robinson TE. Susceptibility to sensitization. I. Sex differences in the enduring effects of chronic D-amphetamine treatment on locomotion, stereotyped behavior and brain monoamines. Behav Brain Res. 1988;30:55–68. [PubMed]25. Camp DM, Robinson TE. Susceptibility to sensitization. II. The influence of gonadal hormones on enduring changes in brain monoamines and behavior produced by the repeated administration of D-amphetamine or restraint stress. Behav Brain Res. 1988;30:69–88. [PubMed]26. Carpenter MJ, Upadhyaya HP, LaRowe SD, Saladin ME, Brady KT. Menstrual cycle phase effects on nicotine withdrawal and cigarette craving: a review. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 2006;8:627–38.[PubMed]27. Carroll M, Lynch W, Roth M, Morgan A, Cosgrove K. Sex and estrogen influence drug abuse. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences. 2004;25:273–279. [PubMed]28. Carroll ME, Morgan AD, Lynch WJ, Campbell UC, Dess NK. Intravenous cocaine and heroin self-administration in rats selectively bred for differential saccharin intake: phenotype and sex differences.Psychopharmacology. 2002;161:304–313. [PubMed]29. Carruth LL, Reisert I, Arnold AP. Sex chromosome genes directly affect brain sexual differentiation.Nature Neuroscience. 2002;5:933–934. [PubMed]30. Castner SA, Becker JB. Estrogen and striatal dopamine release: a microdialysis study. Soc. Neurosci. Abstr. 1990;1631. Castner SA, Becker JB. Sex differences in the effect of amphetamine on immediate early gene expression in the rat dorsal striatum. Brain Res. 1995 under revision. [PubMed]32. Castner SA, Becker JB. Sex differences in the effect of amphetamine on immediate early gene expression in the rat dorsal striatum. Brain Res. 1996;712:245–257. [PubMed]33. De Vries GJ, Rissman EF, Simerly RB, Yang LY, Scordalakes EM, Auger CJ, Swain A, Lovell-Badge R, Burgoyne PS, Arnold AP. A model system for study of sex chromosome effects on sexually dimorphic neural and behavioral traits. Journal of Neuroscience. 2002;22:9005–9014. [PubMed]34. Demotes-Mainard J, Arnauld E, Vincent JD. Estrogens modulate the responsiveness of in vivo reorded striatal neurons to iontophoretic application of dopamine in rats: role of D1 and D2 receptor activation. J Neuroendocrinol. 1990;2:825–832. [PubMed]35. Devaud LL, Alele P. Differential effects of chronic ethanol administration and withdrawal on gamma-aminobutyric acid type A and NMDA receptor subunit proteins in male and female rat brain. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research. 2004;28:957–65. [PubMed]36. Devaud LL, Chadda R. Sex differences in rats in the development of and recovery from ethanol dependence assessed by changes in seizure susceptibility. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research.2001;25:1689–96. [PubMed]37. Di Paolo T, Falardeau P, Morissette M. Striatal D-2 dopamine agonist binding sites fluctuate during the rat estrous cycle. Life Sci. 1988;43:665–672. [PubMed]38. Di Paolo T, Levesque D, Daigle M. A physiological dose of progesterone affects rat striatum biogenic amine metabolism. Eur J Pharmacol. 1986;125:11–16. [PubMed]39. Di Paolo T, Poyet P, Labrie F. Effect of chronic estradiol and haloperidol treatment on striatal dopamine receptors. Eur J Pharmacol. 1981;73:105–6. [PubMed]40. Di Paolo T, Rouillard C, Bedard P. 17 beta-Estradiol at a physiological dose acutely increases dopamine turnover in rat brain. Eur J Pharmacol. 1985;117:197–203. [PubMed]41. Dluzen DE, Ramirez VD. Bimodal effect of progesterone on in vitro dopamine function of the rat corpus striatum. Neuroendocrinol. 1984;39:149–155. [PubMed]42. Dluzen DE, Ramirez VD. In vitro progesterone modulation of amphetamine-stimulated dopamine release from the corpus striatum of ovariectomized estrogen-treated female rats: response characteristics.Brain Res. 1990;517:117–122. [PubMed]43. Elmer GI, Pieper JO, Hamilton L, Wise RA, Becker JB, Arnold AP. Society for Neuroscience.Washington, D.C.: 2005. SEX-Chromosome genes influence ampheatmine potentiation of brain stimulation reward independently of gonadal secretions in mice; p. 541.5. Online.44. Evans SM, Foltin RW. Exogenous progesterone attenuates the subjective effects of smoked cocaine in women, but not in men. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2006;31:659–74. [PubMed]45. Evans SM, Haney M, Foltin RW. The effects of smoked cocaine during the follicular and luteal phases of the menstrual cycle in women. Psychopharmacology. 2002;159:397–406. [PubMed]46. Forgie ML, Stewart J. Sex difference in amphetamine-induced locomotor activity in adult rats: role of tetosterone exposure in the neonatal period. Pharmacol, Biochem, Behav. 1994;46 [PubMed]47. Fuchs RA, Evans KA, Mehta RH, Case JM, See RE. Influence of sex and estrous cyclicity on conditioned cue-induced reinstatement of cocaine-seeking behavior in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl)2005;179:662–72. [PubMed]48. Funakoshi T, Yanai A, Shinoda K, Kawano MM, Mizukami Y. G protein-coupled receptor 30 is an estrogen receptor in the plasma membrane. Biochemical & Biophysical Research Communications.2006;346:904–10. [PubMed]49. Gallop RJ, Crits-Christoph P, Ten Have TR, Jacques P. Barber JP, Frank A, Griffin ML. Differential Transitions Between Cocaine Use and Abstinence for Men and Women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2007;75:95–103. [PubMed]50. Gordon JH. Modulation of apomorphine-induced stereotypy by estrogen: time course and dose response. Brain Res. Bull. 1980;5:679–682. [PubMed]51. Griffin ML, Weiss RD, Lange U. A comparison of male and female cocaine abuse. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1989;46:122–6. [PubMed]52. Harrod SB, Booze RM, Welch M, Browning CE, Mactutus CF. Acute and repeated intravenous cocaine-induced locomotor activity is altered as a function of sex and gonadectomy. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2005;82:170–81. [PubMed]53. Hart SA, Snyder MA, Smejkalova T, Woolley CS. Estrogen mobilizes a subset of estrogen receptor-alpha-immunoreactive vesicles in inhibitory presynaptic boutons in hippocampal CA1. Journal of Neuroscience. 2007;27:2102–11. [PubMed]54. Hernandez-Avila CA, Rounsaville BJ, Kranzler HR. Opioid-, cannabis- and alcohol-dependent women show more rapid progression to substance abuse treatment. Drug & Alcohol Dependence. 2004;74:265–72.[PubMed]55. Hogle JM, Curtin JJ. Sex differences in negative affective response during nicotine withdrawal.Psychophysiology. 2006;43:344–56. [PubMed]56. Hruska RE. 17ßEstradiol regulation of DA receptor interactions with G-proteins. Soc. Neurosci. Abstr.1988;14:454.57. Hruska RE, Ludmer LM, Pitman KT, De Ryck M, Silbergeld EK. Effects of estrogen on striatal dopamine receptor function in male and female rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1982;16:285–291.[PubMed]58. Hruska RE, Silbergeld EK. Increased dopamine receptor sensitivity after estrogen treatment using the rat rotation model. Science. 1980;208:1466–1468. [PubMed]59. Hser YI, Anglin MD, Booth MW. Sex differences in addict careers. 3. Addiction. American Journal of Drug & Alcohol Abuse. 1987;13:231–51. [PubMed]60. Hu M, Becker JB. Effects of sex and estrogen on behavioral sensitization to cocaine in rats. J Neurosci.2003;23:693–699. [PubMed]61. Hu M, Becker JB. Society for Neuroscience. Atlanta: 2006. Rapid effect of estradiol on cocaine-induced dopamine in striatum and nucleus accumbens. (Program No. 661.10/EE3).62. Hu M, Crombag HS, Robinson TE, Becker JB. Biological basis of sex differences in the propensity to self-administer cocaine. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2004;29:81–5. [PubMed]63. Hu M, Watson C, Kennedy R, Becker J. Estradiol attenuates the K+-induced increase in extracellular GABA in rat striatum. Synapse. 2006;59:122–124. [PubMed]64. Jackson LR, Robinson TE, Becker JB. Sex differences and hormonal influences on acquisition of cocaine self-administration in rats. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2006;31:129–138. [PubMed]65. Joyce JN, Smith RL, Van Hartesveldt C. Estradiol suppresses then enhances intracaudate dopamine-induced contralateral deviation. Eur J Pharmacol. 1982;81:117–122. [PubMed]66. Justice AJH, De Wit H. Acute effects of d-amphetamine during the early and late follicular phases of the menstrual cycle in women. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior. 2000;66:509–515. [PubMed]67. Justice AJH, de Wit H. Acute effects of estradiol pretreatment on the response to d-amphetamine in women. Neuroendocrinology. 2000;71:51–59. [PubMed]68. Justice AJH, de Witt H. Acute effects of d-amphetamine during the follicular and luteal phases of the menstrual cycle in women. Psychopharmacology. 1999;145:67–75. [PubMed]69. Kippin TE, Fuchs RA, Mehta RH, Case JM, Parker MP, Bimonte-Nelson HA, See RE. Potentiation of cocaine-primed reinstatement of drug seeking in female rats during estrus. Psychopharmacology (Berl)2005;182:245–52. [PubMed]70. Kosten TA, Gawin FH, Kosten TR, Rounsaville BJ. Gender differeces in cocaine use and treatment response. J Subst Abuse Treat. 1993;10:63–6. [PubMed]71. Kosten TR, Rounsaville BJ, Kleber HD. Ethnic and gender differences among opiate addicts. Int J Addict. 1985;20:1143–62. [PubMed]72. Larson E, Carroll M. Estrogen Receptor beta, but not alpha, Mediates Estrogen's Effect on Cocaine-Induced Reinstatement of Extinguished Cocaine-Seeking Behavior in Ovariectomized Female Rats.Neuropharmacology. 2006 Epub ahead of print. [PubMed]73. Larson EB, Roth ME, Anker JJ, Carroll ME. Effect of short- vs. long-term estrogen on reinstatement of cocaine-seeking behavior in female rats. Pharmacology, Biochemistry & Behavior. 2005;82:98–108.[PubMed]74. Levesque D, Di Paolo T. Rapid conversion of high into low striatal D2-dopamine receptor agonist binding states after an acute physiological dose of 17 beta- estradiol. Neurosci Lett. 1988;88:113–118.[PubMed]75. Levesque D, Di Paolo T. Effect of the rat estrous cycle at ovariectomy on striatal D-1 dopamine receptors. Brain Res Bull. 1990;24:281–4. [PubMed]76. Levesque D, Di Paolo T. Modulation by estradiol and progesterone of the GTP effect on striatal D-2 dopamine receptors. Biochem Phamacol. 1993;45:723–733. [PubMed]77. Lovell-Badge R, Robertson E. XY female mice resulting from a heritable mutation in the primary testis-determining gene, Tdy. Development. 1990;109:635–46. [PubMed]78. Lynch WJ. Sex differences in vulnerability to drug self-administration. Experimental & Clinical Psychopharmacology. 2006;14:34–41. [PubMed]79. Lynch WJ, Arizzi MN, Carroll ME. Effects of sex and the estrous cycle on regulation of intravenously self-administered cocaine in rats. Psychopharmacology. 2000;152:132–139. [PubMed]80. Lynch WJ, Carroll ME. Sex differences in the acquisition of intravenously self-administered cocaine and heroin in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1999;144:77–82. [PubMed]81. Lynch WJ, Carroll ME. Reinstatement of cocaine self-administration in rats: sex differences.Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2000;148:196–200. [PubMed]82. Lynch WJ, Roth ME, Carroll ME. Biological basis of sex differences in drug abuse: preclinical and clinical studies. Psychopharmacology. 2002;164:121–137. [PubMed]83. Lynch WJ, Roth ME, Mickelberg JL, Carroll ME. Role of estrogen in the acquisition of intravenously self-administered cocaine in female rats. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior. 2001;68:641–646.[PubMed]84. Lynch WJ, Taylor JR. Sex differences in the behavioral effects of 24-h/day access to cocaine under a discrete trial procedure. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2004;29:943–51. [PubMed]85. Lynch WJ, Taylor JR. Decreased motivation following cocaine self-administration under extended access conditions: effects of sex and ovarian hormones. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2005;30:927–35.[PubMed]86. Mann K, Ackermann K, Croissant B, Mundle G, Nakovics H, Diehl A. Neuroimaging of gender differences in alcohol dependence: are women more vulnerable? Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research. 2005;29:896–901. [PubMed]87. Maus M, Bertrand P, Drouva S, Rasolonjanahary R, Kordon C, Glowinski J, Premont J, Enjalbert A. Differential modulation of D1 and D2 dopamine-sensitive adenylate cyclases by 17ß-estradiol in cultures styriatal neurons and anterior pituitary cells. J. Neurochem. 1989;52:410–418. [PubMed]88. Maus M, Cordier J, Glowinski J, Premont J. 17ß-Oestradiol pretreatment of mouse striatal neurons in culture enhances the responses to adenylate cyclase sensitive tobiogenic amines. Eur. J. Neurosci.1989;1:1. [PubMed]89. McCarthy MM, Becker JB. Neuroendocrinology of sexual behavior in the female. In: Becker JB, Breedlove SM, Crews D, McCarthy MM, editors. Behavioral Endocrinology. MIT Press/ Bradford Books; Cambridge, MA: 2002. pp. 117–151.90. Mendelson JH, Weiss R, Griffin M, Mirin SM, Teoh SK, Mello NK, Lex BW. Some special considerations for treatment of drug abuse and dependence in women. NIDA Res Monogr. 1991;106:313–327. [PubMed]91. Mermelstein PG, Becker JB, Surmeier DJ. Estradiol reduces calcium currents in rat neostriatal neurons through a membrane receptor. J Neurosci. 1996;16:595–604. [PubMed]92. Miller JC. Sex differences in dopaminergic and cholinergic activity and function in the nigrostriatal system of the rat. Psychneuroendocrinol. 1983;8:225–236. [PubMed]93. Milner TA, McEwen BS, Hayashi S, Li CJ, Reagan LP, Alves SE. Ultrastructural evidence that hippocampal alpha estrogen receptors are located at extranuclear sites. Journal of Comparative Neurology.2001;429:355–371. [PubMed]94. Norfleet AM, Thomas ML, Gametchu B, Watson CS. Estrogen receptor-alpha detected on the plasma membrane of aldehyde-fixed GH(3)/B6/F10 rat pituitary tumor cells by enzyme-linked immunocytochemistry. Endocrinology. 1999;140:3805–3814. [PubMed]95. Peris J, Decambre N, Coleman-Hardee M, Simpkins J. Estradiol enhances behavioral sensitization to cocaine and amphetamine-stimulated [3H]dopamine release. Brain Res. 1991;566:255–264. [PubMed]96. Qiu J, Bosch MA, Tobias SC, Krust A, Graham SM, Murphy SJ, Korach KS, Chambon P, Scanlan TS, Ronnekleiv OK, Kelly MJ. A G-protein-coupled estrogen receptor is involved in hypothalamic control of energy homeostasis.[see comment] Journal of Neuroscience. 2006;26:5649–55. [PMC free article][PubMed]97. Quinn JJ, Hitchcott PK, Arnold AP, Taylor JR. Society for Neuroscience. Abstract Viewer/Itinerary Planner; Washington, DC: 2006. Chromosomal sex determines habit formation: relevance to addiction. Online.98. Quinn JJ, Hitchcott PK, Pesquera FR, Arnold AP, Taylor JR. Third Annual Interdisciplinary Women's Health Research Symposium. National Institutes of Health; 2006. Sex differences in habit formation and sensitization to cocaine: Independent contributions of chromosomal sex and gonadal sex.99. Randall CL, Roberts JS, Del Boca FK, Carroll KM, Connors GJ, Mattson ME. Telescoping of landmark events associated with drinking: a gender comparison. Journal of Studies on Alcohol.1999;60:252–60. [PubMed]100. Razandi M, Alton G, Pedram A, Ghonshani S, Webb P, Levin ER. Identification of a structural determinant necessary for the localization and function of estrogen receptor alpha at the plasma membrane.Molecular and Cellular Biology. 2003;23:1633–1646. [PMC free article] [PubMed]101. Razandi M, Oh P, Pedram A, Schnitzer J, Levin E. ERs associate with and regulate the production of caveolin: implications for signaling and cellular actions. Molecular Endocrinology. 2002;16:100–15.[PubMed]102. Razandi M, Pedram A, Greene G, Levin E. Cell membrane and nuclear estrogen receptors (ERs) originate from a single transcript: studies of ERalpha and ERbeta expressed in Chinese hamster ovary cells.Molecular Endocrinology. 1999;13:307–319. [PubMed]103. Robbins SJ, Ehrman RN, Childress AR, O'Brien CP. Comparing levels of cocaine cue reactivity in male and female outpatients. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1999;53:223–30. [PubMed]104. Roberts DC, Bennett SA, Vickers GJ. The estrous cycle affects cocaine self-administration on a progressive ratio schedule in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1989;98:408–11. [PubMed]105. Roberts DCS, Brebner K, Vincler M, Lynch WJ. Patterns of cocaine self-administration in rats produced by various access conditions under a discrete trials procedure. Drug and Alcohol Dependence.2002;67:291–299. [PubMed]106. Robinson TE. Behavioral sensitization: characterization of enduring changes in rotational behavior produced by intermittent injections of amphetamine in male and female rats. Psychopharmacology (Berlin)1984;84:466–75. [PubMed]107. Robinson TE, Becker JB, Presty SK. Long-term facilitation of amphetamine-induced rotational behavior and striatal dopamine release produced by a single exposure to amphetamine: sex differences.Brain Res. 1982;253:231–241. [PubMed]108. Robinson TE, Camp DM, Becker JB. Gonadectomy attenuates turning behavior produced by electrical stimulation of the nigrostriatal dopamine system in female but not male rats. Neurosci Lett. 1981;23:203–208. [PubMed]109. Roth M, Cosgrove K, Carroll M. Sex differences in the vulnerability to drug abuse: a review of preclinical studies. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 2004;28:533–546. [PubMed]110. SAMHSA. e. Services DoHaH . Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration. 2005. Results of the 2005 National Survey on Drug Use & Health.111. Scordalakes EM, Shetty SJ, Rissman EF. Roles of estrogen receptor alpha and androgen receptor in the regulation of neuronal nitric oxide synthase. Journal of Comparative Neurology. 2002;453:336–344.[PubMed]112. Self DW, Barnhart WJ, Lehman DA, Nestler EJ. Opposite modulation of cocaine-seeking behavior by D1- and D2-like dopamine receptor agonists.[see comment] Science. 1996;271:1586–9. [PubMed]113. Sell SL, Dillon AM, Cunningham KA, Thomas ML. Estrous cycle influence on individual differences in the response to novelty and cocaine in female rats. Behavioural Brain Research. 2005;161:69–74.[PubMed]114. Sell SL, Thomas ML, Cunningham KA. Influence of estrous cycle and estradiol on behavioral sensitization to cocaine in female rats. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2002;67:281–290. [PubMed]115. Singer CA, Figueroa-Masot XA, Batchelor RH, Dorsa DM. The mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway mediates estrogen neuroprotection after glutamate toxicity in primary cortical neurons. Journal of Neuroscience. 1999;19:2455–2463. [PubMed]116. Sircar R, Kim D. Female gonadal hormones differentially modulate cocaine-induced behavioral sensitization in Fischer, Lewis and Sprague-Dawley rats. J Pharmacol exp Ther. 1999;289:54–65.[PubMed]117. Sofuoglu M, Babb DA, Hatsukami DK. Effects of progesterone treatment on smoked cocaine response in women. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2002;72:431–5. [PubMed]118. Thompson TL. Attenuation of dopamine uptake in vivo following priming with estradiol benzoate.Brain Research. 1999;834:164–167. [PubMed]119. Thompson TL, Bridges SR, Weirs WJ. Alteration of dopamine transport in the striatum and nucleus accumbens of ovariectomized and estrogen-primed rats following N-(p-isothiocyanatophenethyl) spiperone (NIPS) treatment. Brain Research Bulletin. 2001;54:631–638. [PubMed]120. Thompson TL, Moore CC, Smith B. Estrogen priming modulates autoreceptor-mediated potentiation of dopamine uptake. European Journal of Pharmacology. 2000;401:357–363. [PubMed]121. Thompson TL, Moss RL. Estrogen regulation of dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens: genomic- and nongenomic-mediated effects. J Neurochem. 1994;62:1750–6. [PubMed]122. Thompson TL, Moss RL. Estrogen Regulation of Dopamine Release in the Nucleus- Accumbens - Genomic-Mediated and Nongenomic-Mediated Effects. Journal of Neurochemistry. 1994;62:1750–1756.[PubMed]123. Thompson TL, Moss RL. In vivo stimulated dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens: Modulation by prefrontal cortex. Brain Research. 1995;686:93–8. [PubMed]124. Thompson TL, Moss RL. Modulation of mesolimbic dopaminergic activity over the rat estrous cycle.Neuroscience Letters. 1997;229:145–148. [PubMed]125. Van Etten ML, Anthony JC. Male-female differences in transitions from first drug opportunity to first use: searching for subgroup variation by age, race, region, and urban status. Journal of Womens Health & Gender-Based Medicine. 2001;10:797–804. [PubMed]126. Van Etten ML, Neumark YD, Anthony JC. Male-female differences in the earliest stages of drug involvement. Addiction. 1999;94:1413–9. [PubMed]127. van Haaren F, Meyer M. Sex differences in the locomotor activity after acute and chronic cocaine administration. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 1991;39:923–927. [PubMed]128. Van Hartesveldt C, Cottrell GA, Meyer ME. Effects of intrastriatal hormones on the dorsal immobility response in male rats. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 1989;35:307–310. [PubMed]129. Wade CB, Robinson S, Shapiro RA, Dorsa DM. Estrogen receptor (ER)alpha and ER beta exhibit unique pharmacologic properties when coupled to activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway. Endocrinology. 2001;142:2336–2342. [PubMed]130. Wade CNB, Dorsa DM. Estrogen activation of cyclic adenosine 5 ′-monophosphate response element-mediated transcription requires the extracellularly regulated kinase/mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway. Endocrinology. 2003;144:832–838. [PubMed]131. Walf AA, Frye CA. A review and update of mechanisms of estrogen in the hippocampus and amygdala for anxiety and depression behavior. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2006;31:1097–111.[PMC free article] [PubMed]132. Walker QD, Cabassa J, Kaplan KA, Li ST, Haroon J, Spohr HA, Kuhn CM. Sex differences in cocaine-stimulated motor behavior: Disparate effects of gonadectomy. Neuropsychopharmacology.2001;25:118–130. [PubMed]133. Walker QD, Ray R, Kuhn CM. Sex differences in neurochemical effects of dopaminergic drugs in rat striatum. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2006;31:1193–202. [PubMed]134. Walker QD, Rooney MB, Wightman RM, Kuhn CM. Dopamine release and uptake are greater in female than male rat striatum as measured by fast cyclic voltammetry. Neuroscience. 2000;95:1061–70.[PubMed]135. Wetherington CL, Roman AR, editors. Drug Addiction Research and the Health of Women. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services; Rockville, MD: 1995.136. White FJ. A behavioral/systems approach to the neuroscience of drug addiction. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2002;22:3303–5. [PubMed]137. Wong M, Thompson TL, Moss RL. Nongenomic actions of estrogen in the brain: physiological significance and cellular mechanisms. Crit Rev Neurobiol. 1996;10:189–203. [PubMed]138. Xiao L, Becker JB. Quantitative microdialysis determination of extracellular striatal dopamine concentrations in male and female rats: effects of estrous cycle and gonadectomy. Neuroscience Letters.1994;180:155–158. [PubMed]139. Xiao L, Becker JB. Steroid-specific effects of estrogen agonists and antagonists on amphetamine-induced striatal dopamine released from superfused striatal tissue. Soc. Neurosci Abst. 1997;23:403.140. Xiao L, Jackson LR, Becker JB. The effect of estradiol in the striatum is blocked by ICI 182,780 but not tamoxifen: pharmacological and behavioral evidence. Neuroendocrinology. 2003;77:239–245.[PubMed]141. Yang H, Zhao W, Hu M, Becker JB. Interactions among ovarian hormones and time of testing on behavioral sensitization and cocaine self-administration. Behavioural Brain Research. 2007 in press.[PMC free article] [PubMed]142. Zilberman M, Tavares H, el-Guebaly N. Gender similarities and differences: the prevalence and course of alcohol- and other substance-related disorders. Journal of Addictive Diseases. 2003;22:61–74.[PubMed]143. Znamensky V, Akama K, McEwen BS, Milner TA. Estrogen levels regulate the subcellular distribution of phosphorylated Akt in hippocampal CA1 dendrites. J Neurosci. 2003;23:2340–7. [PubMed]