Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


swansont last won the day on January 14

swansont had the most liked content!

About swansont

  • Birthday May 12

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
    Washington DC region
  • Interests
    Geocaching, cartooning
  • College Major/Degree
    PhD Atomic Physics Oregon State University
  • Favorite Area of Science
  • Occupation


  • Evil Liar (or so I'm told)

Recent Profile Visitors

156191 profile views

swansont's Achievements


SuperNerd (12/13)



  1. And the next step is to compare that to the normal turnover rate. Vaccinations may just be an excuse, or the last item, for some people who were prone to leaving anyway.
  2. You've cited that number a couple of times now, but does it have any real meaning? There have been a number of cases where the number of people who allegedly threatened to walk off the job if forced to get vaccinated, and yet when it came time to do so, the number who actually did was far smaller. It's a mostly empty threat. https://www.npr.org/2021/09/29/1041500566/vaccine-mandate-quit-research
  3. But it's not negligible. Schrödinger predicts an infinite-extent spatial wave function for a single-valued momentum, and you say this isn't true for your idea, but give no information about what the wave function would look like. Plus you haven't made any connection to Feynman diagrams, AFAICT. (Which work exceedingly well, BTW)
  4. You haven't presented a way to test the idea of a cohesive force. You are claiming it without evidence. It's too vague. I can't point out what's wrong if there's nothing to point at. You give an example of a particle with a specific momentum, and point out that "According to the traditional theory, however, finite-sized wave packet and specific energy-momentum are not compatible." which is true. So if the spatial wave function is not of infinite size, as QM says it is, you are discarding Schrödinger's wave mechanics. And not replacing it. You own the burden of proof here. Demonstrate that you are right. Come up with evidence and/or testable predictions.
  5. It's unfortunate that you are seemingly throwing out Schrödinger's formulation and have nothing to replace it with. Do you have anything that would allow your idea to be tested and falsified?
  6. ! Moderator Note If you aren’t discussing Djokovic’s situation, you are off-topic for this thread
  7. To be fair, that wasn’t measured until well after the model was proposed, so “contradicted” might not be the best description. It took some time to be sure that unknown masses in the solar system weren’t responsible, and that this was truly an anomaly.
  8. Only one component can be determined. Whether you measure spin up or down (z), the x and y components are undetermined. Measurement of any two components does not commute
  9. Matterga banned as a sockpuppet of MarcoBarbieri
  10. I agree that 3 is wrong. QM actively contradicted classical physics, and relativity actively contradicted Galilean/Newtonian notions. It became apparent that these existing models were incomplete and/or had areas where they failed.
  11. I see no equations. You have no model. You don’t have a model, and haven’t presented enough to be able to point out more flaws than have already been identified. You don’t have a model. Copenhagen and many worlds are interpretations of QM, not QM itself.
  12. ! Moderator Note Yes, and no. Same poster, but unlike before details are being provided in the thread. (unsure why a new account was needed; the old one has been deactivated) Let’s focus on the discussion and not these trivialities
  13. When are you going to present a model of it? When do we get testable predictions?
  14. You’re referencing standard QM, so your own speculation is moot. Why would I have to read more? Which you haven’t modeled.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.