swansont

Moderators
  • Content Count

    41622
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Everything posted by swansont

  1. swansont

    Is Born's rule verified

    But there are a bunch that rely on it being true. Why are you ignoring this? You do not need explicit verification. You do the verification that's experimentally available to you, not some arbitrarily-demanded confirmation. The latter is intellectually dishonest.
  2. It's more specific than that. Barr is conveying that the report says campaign did not conspire with IRA, or with the Russian government about the hacking. "the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts" "the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts" IOW, anything about other Russian interference was not investigated, nor was quid-pro-quo for sanctions relief. If he is exonerated, as he is claiming, there is no reason not to release the report. And, as you point out, the report concludes that Russia interfered, and the administration has done precious little to protect future from interference.
  3. That's why at least one mirror of an optical cavity is typically concave. This will not prevent there being much more light in the cavity than in the laser beam, if the reflectivity of the mirrors is high enough. Protons? Photons crossing paths is not an issue here. They don't "collide" The concept you describe is actually done in some optical systems, though perhaps not how you have envisioned it. It's called a power build-up cavity. In a laser, the gain medium is inside a cavity. It absorbs and amplifies. But "it is often preferable to separate the absorber from the laser, in order to extend the experimental flexibility and to characterize better working parameters." See "Signal Enhancement and Optical Field Buildup Inside Cavity" https://jila.colorado.edu/yelabs/sites/default/files/uploads/4101-Bederson-001_corrections.pdf
  4. That's a summary written by someone hand-picked by the president, and also, the Mueller investigation apparently only proceeded along a specific line of inquiry. IOW, there was no evidence of a specific form of collusion. "We are now being told that *Mueller never investigated* the collusion allegation Trump was facing—on a money-for-sanctions-relief quid pro quo—and *instead* investigated the allegation *as Trump saw it*, which was whether he struck an agreement with the IRA or Russian hackers." https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1109913558333210629 In part, because it was not Mueller's job to conclude guilt. It was to gather evidence, and let others do their job. IOW, it is up to Congress to decide if he obstructed justice.
  5. Really? The uncertainty principle is a result of the wave nature of QM. If a particle did not have a probability distribution, it could not e.g. be in to places at once and go through both slits of a Young's diffraction experiment. A hydrogen atom needs an electron cloud rather than a precise trajectory to behave as it does (not having an electric oscillating dipole, for instance). You need a wave function to describe it, and therefore you have an uncertainty relation. The HUP is also part of the argument of why the electron doesn't collapse and stick to the proton. Yes, that's how science works, but that's irrelevant to the discussion, and does not diminish my rebuttal. You can derive expressions without doing an experiment to get the theoretical result.
  6. swansont

    Global/Generalized Sagnac Effect Formula

    You should identify what the variables mean.
  7. swansont

    Global/Generalized Sagnac Effect Formula

    You should identify what the variables mean. Interferometers come in multiple shapes, so it’s not clear what you mean. Does “new” imply some difference from what the textbooks say?
  8. ! Moderator Note You’ve been told multiple times that if you want to discuss something, the discussion must take place here and not via external links.
  9. swansont

    Spacetime is doomed?

    The notion of a material aether was discarded a long time ago. I’m not aware of any. Relativity is a fantastically successful theory.
  10. It isn’t? Only some atoms do this. Noble gases don’t, and lots of combinations aren’t readily found in nature. Other combinations are. It depends on the bonds they are able to form. After that, over time, materials congregate via processes known as differentiation. Density/gravity and chemistry play roles. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_differentiation
  11. swansont

    Is Born's rule verified

    The evidence is that QM relies on the rule, and QM works. Science doesn’t deal in “proof” as in mathematics.
  12. An optical buildup cavity. Often not a loop, but you can do it that way. A folded cavity. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-folded-optical-cavity_fig2_50316125
  13. What do you mean by “loop and not go back to its source”? Combining inputs 1 and 2 into a separate output is not a loop, and does not go back to the source.
  14. swansont

    Is Born's rule verified

    So? You need to explain that. How is that a cheat? If I put atoms in a superposition of two states, and then measure the population, how does that not rely on Born’s rule? If your engine is running, do you need independent verification the the fuel injection is working?
  15. swansont

    Is Born's rule verified

    When you use it in the proper equation it has a physical meaning. And there are experiments that rely on Born’s rule, and thereby confirm it. Much like GPS is a confirmation of relativity, while not being a test of relativity.
  16. swansont

    Is Born's rule verified

    Does an imaginary number have a physical meaning? By itself, no, but when you square it, it does. It’s not like the wave function is unique in this regard, and such an objection is meaningless. Yes, the “unreasonable standard” gambit.
  17. swansont

    Is Born's rule verified

    So, when we have a complex term, as in e.g. a complex index of refraction, that’s somehow not physics anymore? Or complex numbers in electric circuits?
  18. swansont

    Is Born's rule verified

    I have no idea what you mean by this. “Magnitudes of physics?” What is that?
  19. Yes, to a degree. A beamsplitter would do this, if set up to operate in reverse. Depending on the conditions, you would not necessarily get all of the light combined.
  20. swansont

    Banned/Suspended Users

    ntdsc has been banned as a sockpuppet of t686
  21. swansont

    Banned/Suspended Users

    This will be a listing of users that have been banned or suspended for rules violations (other than spambots that have been immediately deleted) Automatic suspensions for exceeding the 25-point limit of infractions are three days. Other suspensions and bans are from explicit moderator action. "Sabbatical" refers to a user-requested suspension/ban (update 4/24/09) ———————————————————— Zephir has been suspended for 1 week for repeated highjacking via off-topic posts of alternative theories in the physics section (including violations of rule 2.5, use of scientific threads to advertise a personal theory)
  22. swansont

    Exact scientific definition of weight

    What we perceive as weight is the force exerted on you by a scale when measuring your weight. Whatever force you feel to make you remain at rest in your reference frame (including an accelerating frame) Your weight is the gravitational force, but your perceived weight doesn’t have to be the same.
  23. swansont

    Anyone read "Darwin's Black Box" ?

    ! Moderator Note So why is this posted in religion? ! Moderator Note What is it you wish to discuss, the book and ID, or Darwin and evolution?
  24. They all apply, and are present even if there is no measurement. Physicists derive equations all the time. Bose and Einstein derived the physics of the condensate that bears their name 80 years before the experiment was done.
  25. swansont

    Why do rockets work in space?

    No, the rocket's mass does not stay the same. That's actually what's going on, if you look at Newton's second law F = dp/dt = d(mv)/dt = m dv/dt + v dm/dt Usually the second term is zero, and you end up with F = ma. But if your mass changes and you are moving relative to that ejected (or added) mass, there must be a force. If you are adding a horizontally stationary mass to a moving object, like a dump truck or train, it slows you down, because you have to bring that added mass up to your speed. A rocket is essentially doing the opposite of that.