swansont

There was an inquiry about why this was closed. We’re a science forum, and you need to post science. For physics, this means equations describing the phenomenon, which permits people to see if it’s supported by evidence. It’s not a WAG that you just assert multiple times.

We’re currently in the range where quantum limits come into play, but there are tricks to try and improve precision. One limit from the HUP is the fact that the lifetime of atomic (or nuclear) states correlates with the transition width, i.e. the energy level has a fuzziness to it. Narrower levels have longer lifetimes, so it’s harder to cause the transition, which affects signal/noise. A lot of the practical effects on the fountain clocks were at the part in 10^17 level, which was O.K. because the measurement itself started at a few parts in 10^-13, and it took more than a year to get down to 10^-16. (white noise reduces with the square root of the number of measurements) Optical clocks start at a better short-term precision, and have to work hard to get their error contributions small enough to get their part in 10^18 (or better) results. As far as quantum limits go, there are tricks using “squeezed” states - you let one error that you don’t care about be big, so you can make (“squeeze”) the conjugate variable’s error smaller JILA and NIST have been exploiting entanglement https://jila-pfc.colorado.edu/news-events/articles/entangled-time-pushing-atomic-clocks-beyond-standard-quantum-limit “Each atom behaves independently, and their random quantum behavior adds noise to the measurement. This randomness is what defines the Standard Quantum Limit. It’s like trying to hear a single beat in a noisy crowd. To reduce this noise, scientists often increase the number of atoms. The more atoms you measure, the better your estimate—kind of like averaging more coin flips to get closer to 50/50. But packing too many atoms together causes them to interact in ways that shift the clock frequency, introducing new errors. So instead of adding more atoms, the JILA team tried something different: they made the atoms entangled. Entanglement is a quantum connection between particles. When atoms are entangled, their random quantum behavior becomes linked—even if they’re not touching. In this experiment, the researchers used entanglement to make the atoms behave more like a team, reducing the noise in their collective signal. This approach allows the clock to beat the SQL, achieving better precision without needing more atoms”

To add to this - science can inform us in many ways, but can’t compel people to act. We see this currently in the US, where science is being ignored because it conflicts with personal and political agendas. Science does not have agency by itself. Its influence can be broad or narrow, but that’s constrained by the collective will of people.

Moderator NoteI don’t see a model here. No predictions, no evidence, no avenue for falsifiability. i.e. the things we require for discussion Just AI slop.

It’s practical considerations, but the Heisenberg uncertainty principle would be a limit even if experimental precision were improved.

No, because that ignores the “overall” part of the statement. That they asked about immune systems is not opinion. It’s an easily-discernible fact - the very first sentence of the first post, and title of the thread Your answer here is an answer to some question, but not to the issue asked in the thread’s title. There are a number of good answers in the thread explaining why cancer, or an uptick in cancer, can occur without it being due to some recent compromise of the immune system.

And thermodynamics, which you continually ignore, along with other areas of nuclear and atomic physics and mechanics. Do you use QFT to explain galaxy/star/planet formation? As I pointed out earlier, least action requires use of potential energy, which means the forces must be conservative. As soon as a dissipative force appears in a process, it doesn’t work. That limits the scope where you can apply it, and time symmetry. LIGO detects gravitational waves; it can’t distinguish between advanced and retarded. So we are testing, but that’s not the issue. The advanced waves have to exist in order to detect them, and the reasons they don’t exist are a separate problem and have nothing to do with LIGO.

But that won't matter; the liability lies with whoever is at fault. So I think that we won’t get true autonomous vehicles until the companies accept that liability, or con the customers into accepting it. But to get to the customers to accept the computer being better than the average driver isn’t enough, because most people think they are good drivers. The computer has to be better than people think they are. And that includes accident avoidance that I mentioned earlier - I think most people won’t accept getting into an accident even if it’s the other driver’s fault, owing to injury (money compensation vs chronic pain/permanent disability) and just the hassle if getting a car fixed, even at minimal monetary cost.

Another way of looking at this is that there’s a limit to how long you can run the movie forward or backward before something happens that is not accounted for in the equations, and you no longer have the required symmetry. Between the big bang and big crunch is a whole lot of stuff not covered by GR.

Without the science we wouldn’t have the technology. It’s not like you’re going to stumble on cell phones, etc. by accident.

No. We require equations as part of this kind of conjecture. Simply repeating your assertions is not sufficient, regardless of how many exclamation points you use.

You need to do a better job of explaining it. The rotation of electrons (but not actually physically rotating) does not cause the electric field of the protons. Yes, if you’re looking at more atoms vs fewer of the same kinds of atoms, but that wasn’t your claim. Also it’s not necessarily true if you compare different atoms. A mole of hydrogen has less mass than a tenth of a mole of iron. Depends on the atoms, and “energy to rotate the electrons” is an awkward and ambiguous description of atomic structure. There’s no physics that I can contort to interpret this as a valid description. Explain your research, using some sort of rigor (i.e. we need equations) which is required by our rules An engineer should be able to supply valid equations Simple, and wrong. You have provided no evidence that atoms “consume energy” to “rotate their electrons” and such a description shows a decided lack of understanding of basic atomic physics.

Yes, but not both at the same time. Hereditary means lifestyle isn’t a factor. And the point was they’re sort of a package deal. It’s difficult to disentangle things that give good health outcomes from bad, but overall we have better outcomes. The OP asked what’s wrong with our immune system and used cancer as a dubious example

I don’t know what the BC of the big crunch would be, if that happens to be the fate of the universe, and neither do you. Least action ceases to apply once there’s an energy that you can’t write as potential energy, so I don’t see how that’s the “standard” answer. The issues of cosmology involve more than general relativity, so “solving GR” is insufficient.

I have no idea why you think the big crunch would be a time-reversal of big bang.

Man is also responsible for the improvement in diagnostics and treatment, and as was pointed out, when you mitigate mortality from infectious disease, you live long enough to die from something else, including cancer. It’s not like people didn’t die of cancer >100 years ago, and many of the factors you list aren’t an issue of one’s immune system

You mentioned gravitational waves. We see them from black hole mergers. For a time-reversed solution, the boundary condition would include where the waves came from, and how they could all arrive at the site of the merger at the same time. The wave itself exhibits time-reversal symmetry, but the entire scenario does not, an issue you continue to ignore.

Solutions can exist but be considered unphysical. e.g. there are times you solve a quadratic and discard the negative results because it’s not possible or otherwise makes no sense - it violates a boundary condition of the problem, although it might not be an explicitly stated one. You’re getting dangerously close to this being a reopening of a closed topic.

In physics (actual physics) we quantify things. You claim that gravity depends on the number of atoms; you should be able to present an equation that represents this assertion, and then compare it with experimental evidence . I think you will run into trouble, because there will be a conflict with Newton’s laws of motion. But it’s up to you to come up with the equations.

Causality would be the primary reason.

I misread something; I retract my objection.

No mention of dark matter on that page. A link needs to point to the actual relevant information. Not a place to dig for it. You’re providing, at best, a veneer of physics. Not any actual substance.

Moved to ethics, because this isn’t science news To echo previous points, Gen-AI is at its core plagiarism, so I’m not sure how you give it “authorship” Do we extend authorship to spellcheck and autocorrect?

Moderator NotePosting to advertise your book is against the rules, as you were previously warned. It needs to not happen again.

Non-staff apparently can’t, though there was an iteration of the software where you could soon after you registered but it went away after a certain number of days or posts. The likely rationale being that changing display names will confuse people in discussions once they can associate content and/or a style with a name. I think one can see how that could be abused, much like a thing that some sockpuppet accounts try to leverage.