swansont

Moderators
  • Content Count

    42581
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    27

Everything posted by swansont

  1. The paths in the integral aren’t real
  2. Which is bigger: the wavelength or the singularity?
  3. As I just explained, that’s not valid. You’re on the wrong side of the inequality. The singularity has size zero. You can ignore QM for something smaller. Obviously, there’s a problem here
  4. Bollocks. There is no “proven” (much less prooven), there is evidence. You are artificially narrowing what evidence you will accept. That’s inconsistent with intellectual honesty
  5. You’ve said a lot of things. You’ve not established that any of them are true. It was one of the motivations for going from hot thermal beam cesium frequency standards to cold-atom systems like atomic fountains*. The reduction in the speed of the atoms (which are put in a superposition) reduces the frequency errors introduced by time dilation - since atoms move at different speeds - giving better accuracy and/or stability of the clocks. All consistent with relativity. *a kind of clock I have built. It’s my job.
  6. And what is mu? (Usually we use p). I mean, the value. It’s pretty big, right? But not infinite, so the wavelength is bigger than the singularity GR predicts. We ignore quantum effects when the wavelength is a lot smaller than the scale of interest. IOW, we’re on a scale where QM applies.
  7. Eratosthenes showed it was round ca 240 BC by measuring its circumference. The Greeks already knew it was spherical https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200606/history.cfm
  8. QM came a few decades afterwards. Since you don’t do math, what kind of predictions can you make? But no, superposition does not change how time dilation works.
  9. ! Moderator Note A great many post having nothing to do with Pascal’s wager have been moved to the trash
  10. More like 10 nanoseconds, and it would depend on the mountain. Someone I know did this experiment on Mt Rainier in Washington state http://leapsecond.com/great2005/ "Clocks that run fast gain time, so given our high elevation and how long we stayed, the prediction was that these clocks would gain about 22 nanoseconds. This, not because the clocks were moving (they were in a parked minivan), but simply because the clocks experienced a lower gravitational field by being 5400 feet above sea level for two days." (It's actually gravitational potential that's important. The field strength is one part of that) About a third of a meter, and it took several hours to get statistically significant data, but then this was a few years back. Optical frequency standards today could do it in a shorter time, or measure smaller distances, if anyone was interested in doing such an experiment again. (But it's kind of a stunt at this point, because we know the phenomenon will happen, and who wants to waste the effort of engineering it when you could be doing real physics?) No, that doesn't work as an explanation. It doesn't depend on the kind of clock, and you wouldn't expect a physical mechanism to interact in identical way with atomic clocks made from different elemental species (and there are a bunch that are used). Plus, one of the basic assumptions that makes physics work is that the physics is the same in any inertial reference frame. If that fails, basically all of physics falls apart, and physics works pretty well. Having it be the result of a force means you have to identify this force, and why it's present at differing amounts in different frames. It leads you there being a preferred frame of reference, and physics doesn't work that way. Time dilation is a direct consequence of c being invariant and finite. The result is that length and time are relative to your own frame of reference.
  11. Then if anti-gravity relies on it, you need to establish that it's true. What evidence is there that inertial frames are made of anything? What happens to this substance when you move to an accelerating frame? What experiments can we do to verify this? Other than virtual photons being the intermediary in the electromagnetic interaction, they really don't come into play in timekeeping. You can put a system into a superposition of states with different energies (e.g. the two hyperfine states of Cs) and they oscillate between those two states at the frequency that's associated with the energy difference. The measurements are done with photons that are real, not virtual. I don't know what a "vacant frequency state" is. That's what you need to demonstrate, rather than assert.
  12. Just saying it's the observer effect doesn't make it the observer effect. Time dilation follows the predictions of SR. There is no observer effect cited in the derivation of the phenomenon, or application of the theory. It's not even clear you know what the observer effect is. Him "struggling with the problem" lacks any evidence to support it. It's a consequence of c being invariant. There's no further explanation needed. What all does that have to do with superposition?
  13. The eliminated one has already been shown to be wrong, if theory does not match experiment. Why would you keep it? True but partly in a trivial sense. Completely wrong models tend to be discarded quite quickly (unless they are posted in speculations, seemingly). There has to be something that supports the idea, even if it’s accidental, as with phlogiston
  14. Thank you for correcting this in a way that is completely unhelpful in answering the question or clarifying what's going on. Quantum physics says zip about gravity. Quantum physics has proven to be the best model for situations where the scale is small (typically though not exclusively small distances, small masses) Relativity superseded Newtonian physics when it comes to gravity, and GR and QM don't get along when at scales where it matters.
  15. If evidence supports two different models than you need to do a better experiment that eliminates one of them. "Interpretation" is the wrong word for this.
  16. ! Moderator Note Yes. Such discussion has been split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/119717-theories-and-proof-split-from-quantum-theory-of-gravity/ Please confine discussion here to quantum theory and gravity As with QT, I don't know who you are addressing.
  17. That's just it. If you don't use the proper definition, we assume you are saying one thing when in reality you are saying another. Why should we agree to a blatantly false premise?
  18. But that's not required. Good-old rest mass will warp spacetime. Science tends toward using more precise definitions.
  19. You have yet to establish that the observer effect is in play. We're not going to let you hopscotch past this claim Let's see the theoretical (i.e. mathematical) support for this. Prestige isn't the issue. Rigor is.
  20. That's part of the point of asking. Can you show your toy model doesn't break? Even slightly simpler, with 13 nucleons, which in this view is one central ball surrounded by 12 others, close-packed. C-13 is stable, N-13 is not. But you don't explain how big of an effect this has. N-13 would have all of its protons being next to another proton. Would that make it massively unstable, i.e. having a super-short half-life? Is that more or less of an issue as compared to e.g. Be-8, which would have fewer protons near each other, but has a much, much shorter half-life? Once you add a new layer onto it, can you say that no protons will be adjacent? Can you even say how the nucleons would arrange themselves — would they tend to go toward the gaps in the previous layer, to minimize r (close-packing)? Does something with ≠ 13 nucleons still try to be spherical? You should be able to look at the electric quadrupole moment to see. (zero meaning the charge distribution is, indeed spherical)
  21. That's not the model being proposed. And if it were, you'd still need a model to explain the activation. The focus is on the molecule, not the virtual particle. Having two hydrogen molecules that don't interact gravitationally is not an instance of a virtual particle without a partner to interact with.
  22. You gave examples — simple ones — where that argument might hold up. I'm saying that there are hundreds of ones where it is not clear you can treat a nucleus this way. What about e.g. K-40 vs Ca-40 vs Sc-40? Or Kr-86 vs Rb-86 vs Sr-86?
  23. What constitutes "large"? Why doesn't gravity exist below this threshold, whatever it is? And what is that threshold? This is your conjecture. You can't hand-wave your way around this. What stress is there? Why would e.g. ten molecules exert gravity, if each individual molecule exerts no gravity?