Jump to content

swansont

Moderators
  • Posts

    52587
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    254

Everything posted by swansont

  1. 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.
  2. "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.
  3. 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.
  4. swansont

    Mobius

    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.
  5. Keep in mind that sananda's views are his/her own, and are not representative of the greater science community's.
  6. Color addition is biology, not physics. Still: D'oh! Yellow and blue.
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. You are not free to hijack other discussions with your own alternative physics. This is a clear violation of rule 2.5
  11. 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.
  12. 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!"
  13. 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?
  14. swansont

    Mobius

    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.
  15. 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.
  16. You have provided no evidence that this is the case. In any event, you are merely repeating your claims. Repeating the responses serves no purpose. Closed.
  17. Got a radio? In your car? Maxwell's equations yield a wave equation for electromagnetic waves, as long as c is constant. So if you still have a radio wave, i.e. your radio works, c is constant. I have personally verified this thousands of times.
  18. Magnets produce a static field, which does not radiate. It is no more a perpetual motion device than a rock sitting on a table, which has a constant amount of potential energy. I hope we can agree that a rock sitting on a table is not perpetual motion. If you were to tap into the energy, it wouldn't be constant anymore. You run into a problem, though: magnetic forces do no work. The force is always perpendicular to the field. (F = qv X B) And we do exploit this type of system — a motor, for example. But that requires electrical energy to run it.
  19. It depends on how good the detection is. You need a material that absorbs sound, so that little sound is reflected. But if you have that, one might be able to detect you by ambient sound that is blocked/absorbed.
  20. Argument from authority aside, the quote is not the same as "nobody understands anything about QM," which is how you are presenting it. QM is a very broad and deep subject, and any person's understanding of it is incomplete. It is less complete for some than for others. Interference is a fairly straightforward concept; the real eye-opener is the evidence that the photon interferes with itself, because you get an interference pattern even if you send in light one photon at a time.
  21. Double-slit discussion moved
×
×
  • 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.