Help
Welcome to ScienceForums.Net!
|
Welcome to ScienceForums.Net! We welcome science discussion at all levels — from beginners to researchers, covering topics from biology to computer science, and much more. Registration is fast and free, and allows you to post on the forums, so register now and join the discussions! After you've registered, come in and introduce yourself, or visit the forum index. If you need any help registering, posting, or if you just have some questions about our site, please feel free to contact us at staff at scienceforums dot net.
|
|
| Guest Message © 2012 DevFuse | |
Sign In »
Register Now!
swansont's Profile
User Rating:
Find My Content
Display name history
Reputation: 2024
Glorious Leader
- Group:
- Moderators
- Active Posts:
- 21,866 (6.93 per day)
- Most Active In:
- Speculations (2886 posts)
- Joined:
- 04-October 03
- Profile Views:
- 22,018
- Last Active:
Today, 05:26 PM- Currently:
- Viewing Board Index
My Information
- Member Title:
- Shaken, not Stirred
- Age:
- Age Unknown
- Birthday:
- May 12
- Gender:
-
Male
- Location:
- Washington DC region
- Interests:
- Geocaching, cartooning
- College Major/Degree:
- PhD Atomic Physics Oregon State University
- Favorite Area of Science:
- Physics
- Occupation:
- Physicist
Contact Information
- E-mail:
- Click here to e-mail me
- Website URL:
-
http://home.netcom.com/~swansont
Posts I've Made
-
In Topic: Energy levels
Today, 03:23 PM
juanrga, on 26 May 2012 - 11:16 AM, said:Search the concept "energy eigenfunction" in some textbook.
That might be useful if I was unfamiliar with what an energy eigenfunction is.
juanrga, on 26 May 2012 - 11:16 AM, said:The Heisenberg uncertainty relation is for non-commuting operators. Time is not an operator.
I noted the relation for non-commuting operators. Nevertheless, it also holds for energy and time. Which is explained in the wikipedia material you selectively quoted:
Quote
A state that only exists for a short time cannot have a definite energy. To have a definite energy, the frequency of the state must accurately be defined, and this requires the state to hang around for many cycles, the reciprocal of the required accuracy.
For example, in spectroscopy, excited states have a finite lifetime. By the time-energy uncertainty principle, they do not have a definite energy, and each time they decay the energy they release is slightly different. The average energy of the outgoing photon has a peak at the theoretical energy of the state, but the distribution has a finite width called the natural linewidth. Fast-decaying states have a broad linewidth, while slow decaying states have a narrow linewidth.
BTW, excited states are energy eigenfunctions. -
In Topic: Gravitational time dilation
Yesterday, 10:57 PM
Bart, on 25 May 2012 - 05:41 PM, said:2.Relativistic gravitational time dilation is just a technological feature of the light clocks, which does not apply to passage of time itself.
On the contrary, time dilation affects clocks of any construction equally, because it is an effect on time rather than a mechanical effect (i.e. a force)
Bart, on 25 May 2012 - 05:41 PM, said:According to the GR theory, time indicated by such clocks at the poles of Earth, runs slower than at the equator, due to the difference of gravity. But whereas the other clocks, pendulum clocks, using just gravity, indicate that the time run faster at the poles than at the equator.
Thus, the indication of which of these clocks show the correct passage of time on the Earth?
The period of a pendulum clock has an explicit dependence on g, for which you must compensate. In reality, clocks on the geoid at the equator or poles would run at the same rate, since the kinematic and gravitational terms cancel.
Bart, on 25 May 2012 - 05:41 PM, said:No response !
You do realize you have to wait for a response, don't you?
Bart, on 25 May 2012 - 05:41 PM, said:The conclusion is that the measurement of time must always be referred to some accepted reference clock, and must be counted in the same units for all clocks.
Conclusions based on flawed logic are invalid. -
In Topic: has aether been disproved?
Yesterday, 10:50 PM
One must remember that Bradley had shown that we could not be stationary with respect to the aether in ~1725, via the observation of stellar aberration. M-M showed we were not moving through it. -
In Topic: Gravity is the aether wind
Yesterday, 10:46 PM
!Moderator Note
Split for the gravity thread, because pet theories are not to be offered as answers to mainstream science questions. Also, please refrain from advertising your other speculative theories. That, too, is against the rules.
Responses to this moderator note should not be posted in this thread. -
In Topic: What is Time ?
Yesterday, 03:45 PM
Your scenario is at odds with the predictions of relativity, but even ignoring that, how will a round trip of 100 LY take only 50 years moving at c/2? 100 LY/c/2 = 200 years.
Comments
Pix
09 Apr 2012 - 13:55Thanks Pix
Pix
02 Apr 2012 - 16:55!.
But I've got to know .
Anyway Thank you for your time .Pix
Guest
15 Mar 2012 - 15:17I have read some of your posts and would appreciate any involvement in our
new science and philosophy forum.
We are 100% Not for profit ... All ad revenue will be only used for human
development we are going to use our forum as a way to bring together the right kind of
people to not only discuss philosophy and science but to establish an organization of<...
homie12
08 Feb 2012 - 07:44homie12
05 Feb 2012 - 10:49superball
23 Nov 2011 - 19:16You may have been quick on the trigger double 00 after all,The axiom is assumed to be true.
Appolinaria
14 Nov 2011 - 19:00Schrödinger's hat
23 Sep 2011 - 00:32Faraz Ahmed Nizamani
12 May 2011 - 04:16keelanz
22 Apr 2011 - 15:56keelanz
20 Apr 2011 - 06:55rktpro
23 Mar 2011 - 12:37keelanz
19 Mar 2011 - 23:09Grouchy Hermit
21 Feb 2011 - 00:59dragonstar57
08 Nov 2010 - 03:24I presented an idea and all the other users wanted to do was tell me that my idea would make the great lakes vulnerable to "laser sharks" and when i pointed out that this was unscientific and violated the rules i was banned from the chat!