• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


swansont last won the day on December 14

swansont had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6279 Glorious Leader

About swansont

  • Rank
    Evil Liar (or so I'm told)
  • Birthday May 12

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Washington DC region
  • Interests
    Geocaching, cartooning
  • College Major/Degree
    PhD Atomic Physics Oregon State University
  • Favorite Area of Science
  • Occupation
  1. Which is not the accepted physics model. QM does not have orbits.
  2. Yes, it is. Very much so.
  3. Neutrons in some bound states simply can't decay. There is no decay channel, i.e. it happens when there is no available state for the proton they would become, at a lower energy. If you can't solve hydrogen, the simplest system, going to more complex atoms is not going to save you. Stick to hydrogen.
  4. Why does this ball go faster than c?

    If the speed is limited to c and you have horizontal motion, you can't have the same vertical speed. Look at fig 4 where this is used; there's a diagram https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment What 90 degree angle?
  5. Interferometers and Superposition

    Distinguishable paths is the very definition of a which-path experiment. If they are indistinguishable, then it is not a which-path experiment. That really shouldn't be tough to figure out. Path length is not a force. Polarization is not a force. You're just making stuff up, and have no physics to support these claims.
  6. Interferometers and Superposition

    That's the part where it said "We have no way of knowing by which path it arrived, since two paths are possible. These two paths are therefore indistinguishable, and the effects of interference are present." which you quoted.
  7. At what speed? Not anywhere close to the speed of an electron in your model. There is no stable isotope of hydrogen 4. It would be unstable. But it would still contain only one electron and one proton, by definition. That's not up for negotiation. If it has more than one proton, it's a different element. A neutral atom has the same number of electrons as protons. You will have to work within that framework.
  8. Anything but a straight line will have a nonzero angular momentum
  9. Disappeared Argentine Submarine

    Redundancy of systems is an important design criterion, but it's also in competition with limits on size and weight, so there are always going to be trade-offs. There are spaces in subs that (in some designs) if flooded past a certain point, or multiple spaces flood, it is impossible to surface. I'm not one of the smaller guys; my day on a sub felt quite cramped when I was in some of the spaces.
  10. A number of problems arise here. The simplest form of Hydrogen has no neutrons, and the nucleus would be essentially stationary, so there is no relativistic correction to cite. It would be an absolute requirement of the model to explain this. You have not presented anything that suggests that there is such thing as a ground state in your idea. Why would an atomic model explain this? Neutrons have a mass even when they are free neutrons. Then you have some work to do. Those predictions would indeed come from a model, at such time that you create one. But you have already predicted that the angular momentum of hydrogen is non-zero (it has a circular orbit) which we know to be wrong.
  11. Interferometers and Superposition

    You are citing 4 devices. Are these the 4 you have presented? Because the first two are not interferometers (fig 1.1 and 1.2), in which case they are moot. The author points out that there is no interference. If 3 and 4 represent 1.3 and 1.4, they are interferometers, and the author has declared that they are not which-path devices (and where have we heard that before?)
  12. What is the reason that a photon could not be emitted to reduce the energy of the system? You need to have a model, first. Which would include the energy levels, etc. You are implying that there are effects that you would be predicting. Has anyone ever observed behavior that needs explaining, which is not covered by existing theory? You must have used some numbers in your simulation (I wouldn't call it a model). How did you calculate trajectories without knowing these various parameters? Why won't you say what they were? The Bohr model included the interaction between the electron and the nucleus. Along with other assumption(s), it gave the correct energy levels. But it failed because it predicted an angular momentum for the electron which we know to be wrong. Your simulation makes that same prediction. And you have less than the failed Bohr model.
  13. Interferometers and Superposition

    Stop already. I never said anything about what Scarani was talking about. All I said was that the figure you posted from the book does not depict a which-path experiment. I am not going to "budge" when this is simply a straw-man argument. How would one observe interference with this device? if there is no possibility of interference, then this is not equivalent. Where is the interference pattern? Give a reference to the experiment where interference is observed with that configuration.
  14. Interferometers and Superposition

    Both of those statements are true. Knowing the path changes the outcome, and the device depicted does not allow you to know which path is taken. You can lead a horse to water... You haven't presented any alternatives. You were the one who wasn't sure such experiments existed, remember? I'm "fixated" on one because it was the first one I found, and it's usually a disaster when you start discussing variants on an experiment, since the different versions get mixed up. (much the same as you are peobably "fixated" on Scariani, i.e. you aren't, but that's a book you have available and there's no point in finding another reference with some superficial differences that have no effect on the concepts)