swansont

Whatever color you got from the mixture, the individual wavelengths would separate when sent through a prism.

If you don't see the sky as being blue, it's not because of physics. And this is the physics section.

The second one is better IMO. Short answer; EM radiation drives currents in a conductor, which give you potential differences. Sharp points are areas from which charge can more easily arc. Aluminum foil is more likely to have sharp points, since it crinkles easily.

You could define dark instead of light, you could define cold flow instead of heat flow. But the models work better with light and heat. Describing stuff works better than describing the absence of it.

sananda has been suspended three days for repeated thread hijacking with his speculation, in violation of rules 2.5 and 2.10. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedGasparri has been banned at his own request

Light can be slowed down, photons cannot. "Stopped light" is absorption, albeit under specially crafted circumstances.

I invite you to review the rules of this forum, which you agreed to follow when you registered. Specifically, 2.5 and 2.10 (emphasis added) 2.5 Stay on topic. Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand. This means that you shouldn't use scientific threads to advertise your own personal theory, or post only to incite a hostile argument. 2.10 Keep alternative science and your own personal conjecture to the appropriate forum (Speculations). Threads in the ordinary science forums should be answered with ordinary science, not your own personal hypothesis. Posting pet "theories" in mainstream science forums is considered thread hijacking. This is not to be construed as an invitation to discuss your views on the matter in this thread.

My guess is that this is another weird condensed matter/collective system behavior, similar on spirit to fractional charge and charge/spin separation that has been observed; Dirac predicted monopole behavior in some systems. "magnetic monoples don't exist" refers to bare monopole particles in conditions where Maxwell's equations apply; I imagine that these are quantum systems where those classical rules must be modified. But condensed matter gets out of my physics comfort zone very quickly.

More photons will look brighter.

The annihilation never gives one photon, because that violates conservation of momentum. If you have the singlet state (antiparallel spins), you get two photons. The triplet state (parallel spins) gives you three photons.

"Many waves" isn't a well-defined term. There is a minimum amount of energy you can have, and that can be green light. You can have many of these, which we call photons, and have brighter green light. If you look at the wave aspect, the wave will have a higher amplitude.

That's not what you asked. You asked for the explanation of the double slit, and it's interference. And we still see it with a single photon. Asking how a photon interferes with itself is a different question. But a photon is a quantum of energy, and you only notice this so-called particle property when it interacts with the detector. While in transit, it's still a wave. Waves interfere. What are you meaning by "standard" scientific theory? QM is the accepted theory, and incorporates this phenomenon. Therefore, it can be explained by "standard" theory. QM is not, however, synonymous with the interpretations of QM.

I would be delighted if you presented some math/topology, here. You can be moved out of P&S, but you have to earn it.

Keep in mind that sananda's views are his/her own, and are not representative of the greater science community's.

Color addition is biology, not physics. Still: D'oh! Yellow and blue.

Be nice, and remember you are subject to random urinalysis. ———————— I really dislike videos as a substitute for writing, even when they aren't from some speaking slowly and sketching badly. You can't quote them to address specific topics, and much like simply copy-paste word wallpapering from some other site, it's far too easy to simply create a BS overload. If you want a critique, take the time to type in a summary of the hypothesis. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Mod note: mobius strip discussion moved here

Do you mean one wavelength, or one oscillation? Assuming you mean wavelength, it depends on the circumstances. Color is not only dependent on the wavelength, but how your eyes and brain interpret the signal they get. Green can be green because it's one wavelength, but it can also be green because it's multiple wavelengths, e.g. adding red yellow and blue light.

That's one of the big unanswered questions of cosmology and particle physics. Antimatter can change into matter in some rare circumstances, called CP (charge+parity) violation, but the observed events (in Kaons and B mesons) do not happen often enough to account for the disparity.

You are not free to hijack other discussions with your own alternative physics. This is a clear violation of rule 2.5

So why does mass of a particle remain constant in its own frame? It's moving with respect to the vacuum medium frame, yet relativity has an invariant mass. You have to state that c is a constant in all frames, because it's not generally true. The speed of a moving car, or indeed any massive particle, is not the same in all frames. Light is special in that way, and this was not broadly recognized.

That's a necessary part of science. Formulas allow us to make specific predictions, and make attempts at falsification possible. So when you say it means very little until you make a prediction of how much the light will slow down, under a very specific set of circumstances, so that the idea can be tested. Anyone can blather "the ether is real!"

Almost certainly. I'll bet the bastard didn't even put a moderator note in, linking/explaining where the posts came from. If you had explained it this way, perhaps it would have. But you didn't, you said QM was indistinguishable from magic, and followed it up with later statements on QM. And yet it doesn't confound science. "Weird" is subjective. Nature has no obligation to be understandable to you. You fooled several of us. How is one to interpret "not understood in the slightest" as something else?

Be nice, and remember you are subject to random urinalysis. ———————— I really dislike videos as a substitute for writing, even when they aren't from some speaking slowly and sketching badly. You can't quote them to address specific topics, and much like simply copy-paste word wallpapering from some other site, it's far too easy to simply create a BS overload. If you want a critique, take the time to type in a summary of the hypothesis.

By whom?

Superconductivity will reduce your electrical transmission losses, but will not put you over-unity or even let you achieve break-even. It takes energy to cool superconductors down and to maintain a temperature below ambient, as you have noted, so you still have losses in your system.