swansont

How will/can you discern between the two?

I'm having a hard time reconciling "I just read this in a textbook" and "I've been doing this professionally for 30 years" Does the power draw change when you change the load on a system? If you've done the experiment, let's see the data.

Limiting friction, aka static friction, does not add with kinetic friction. You would accelerate due to a net force of 15N. The ability to apply a given force requires more energy as you move faster.

Doesn't this negate your hypothesis?

IIRC Kopeikin's experiment to measure the speed of gravity did so, though possibly indirectly. There's controversy over whether he actually measured the speed of gravity, but he did measure the Shapiro delay, which depends on the gravitational time dilation.

I haven't followed through all the discussion, but I searched the thread for this and found nothing, so here goes: Can identical twins have different personalities? (Or did the Patty Duke show mislead us all?)

These might be of interest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdeburg_hemispheres http://physics.kenyon.edu/EarlyApparatus/Pneumatics/Magdeburg_Hemispheres/Magdeburg_Hemispheres.html

Because we can't describe it. The transform from one inertial frame to another diverges when you use v=c, and they physics we know and can test happens in frames we can access.

If this is a continuation of your complaint about mathematical prediction and its role in science, as it appears to be, then take it elsewhere, rather than hijack this thread. That also applies if you wish to discuss the nature of time, rather than the physics of it.

Direction of acceleration is not the same as direction of motion. The force on the stone is upward, but the motion (velocity) is downward. What happens in this case is the stone slows down. The stone could move up, if it were to strike something massive enough — things do tend to bounce when they strike solid things. If you analyze a collision, you will find that a less massive object will recoil when it strikes a more massive object in an elastic collision.

Where is a time? Like, "Where is 2 PM?" That question doesn't make sense. What is implied here is that closed timelike curves can exist, as far as our current understanding of physics goes.

If you built a time machine, you could travel back in time, but only to the point where you built the time machine. Right now, at the particular place you are sitting, at the time when you are sitting there, one of two things is true: either there is a closed timelike curve passing through that point in spacetime, or there is not. And that situation will never change — no matter what clever engineers may do in the future, if they create closed timelike curves they cannot pass through events in spacetime through which closed timelike curves did not pass (corollary of Rule 6). Or in plain English: if you build a time machine where there wasn’t one before, it may be possible for future travelers to come back to that time, but nothing can help you go back to times before the machine was built. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/05/14/rules-for-time-travelers/

Electrostatics is an inverse-square relationship. No, it hasn't. You can't use the effect to communicate faster than c.

Time reversal symmetry doesn't affect conservation of energy. Causality is an issue of relativity and not permitting information to travel faster than c. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged It can; it depends on the measurement. If it's in the same basis, it will be in the same state. If you use a different basis, then the original state has to be viewed as a superposition of states. An example is polarization. You polarize light and send it through another polarizer oriented in the same direction, all the light is transmitted. But if you rotate the polarizer by 45 degrees, half the light is transmitted and half is stopped, and the transmitted light has this new polarization. A polarizer will collapse the superposition, but can allow the light to pass through — this is nondestructive. But to detect a photon, it typically needs to be absorbed. There are exceptions, and lots of possible scenarios, if you look through the literature.

The "motion" of the electron — this tends to lose meaning at the scale where quantum mechanics holds — does not cease at absolute zero. Temperature is related to center-of-mass atomic/molecular motion only. We harness the energy of electrons all the time; a "neon" light, for example, uses photons from transitions between electron states. But once the electron is in the ground state of its system, no more energy can be extracted from that system.

Equilibrium is a minimum energy condition. [math]F =-\nabla U[/math] i.e. we observe energy gradients as forces; they vanish at the minimum

If you measure the spin, you "collapse" it into a spin eigenstate — it's going to be in that state until it interacts again. Whether the particle is interacting before or after depends on the specific experiment and what the experimenters are trying to show. Detection can be different than the other interactions; detection is typically destructive for a photon, but not so for interactions that collapse the wave function.

Elsewhere is someplace other than where you are observing the destructive interference. Real implementations of theory usually have some deviation from the ideal, e.g. you can discuss interference of plane waves, but you can't actually make plane waves, so the real result will be different. I suspect something similar would occur here. What do you mean "it was said?" YOU said it — it's your paper! Did you actually DO the experiment, or did you just calculate from the formula?

Being in the Speculations forum does not mean scientific rigor is going to be ignored. Evidence may be lacking in some instances, but if it is presented, it needs to be scientifically valid evidence. If you can't or won't provide such evidence then there is no point in continuing the discussion. As to the personal remarks: knock it off. Criticisms of the subject matter are fair game, criticism of individuals are not, i.e. attack the message, not the messenger. This applies to everyone (Remarks such as "are you high" are included in this)

The interaction isn't the same if the material isn't a conductor, but then that modifies the boundary conditions. One can view the interaction as the mirror effect of charges. That does not negate the fact that one can also predict/explain it as a ramification of the modification of the zero-point energy spectrum.

I don't see your point. We're discussing the Casimir effect here, which (by definition) requires a boundary that is a conductor. Solving the particle-in-a-box for those boundary conditions is exactly what the problem description is.

The box gives you boundary conditions, the interior is a vacuum. Solve the equation, and the cavity QED effects are there.

We're talking about the vacuum, meaning no atoms. Solve the 2-D "particle in a box" for EM radiation with perfect conductors at the edge. AFAICT, your electronium model is nonstandard. Please restrict discussion of it to Speculations.

buddha elämuni has been banned for a repeated and persistent pattern of soapboxing and refusal to engage in discussion, i.e. trolling.

Polarization of photons and spin of particles are two that have been used. Any relationship of (discrete) states, though, could conceivably be entangled. If your two photons could be made to be different energy, I think the wavelength could be entangled, e.g. a red and blue photon were emitted. They would be in a superposition of the red and blue state, and the photon color would be entangled. Right.