swansont

It's not stupid if you consider that evolution is merely change over time. We speak of language evolving, or technology evolving. Of course AI is going to evolve. It just won't necessarily be Darwinian. It's not at all apparent to me that, even if one restricted this to the narrow definition, that computer code COULD NOT be written to modify itself. What is the restriction making this impossible?

OK. Why would you expect a Geiger counter to measure length? How is it you've heard the term Geiger counter but not know what it is such that this would be a reasonable question? No, not really

Is this directed anyone in particular? As a rhetorical exercise, I fail to see the point you’re making.

Take it up in the physics section. You made an assertion, and you were wrong.

<snort> Try again. Energy is defined as the capacity to do work.

Why would it be? What causes this?

Tunneling is not an issue of superposition, and yes, reflection is possible even though the particle classically has enough energy to overcome the barrier. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectangular_potential_barrier#E_>_V0

Elegant is not really a consideration. The model has to work, i.e. describe how nature behaves. It's like Huxley's comment about a beautiful theory being slain by an ugly fact.

You can't stipulate something that isn't true. Charge is involved with the creation of electric fields, but the charge is not contained within the field. Nature is under no obligation to make sense to you. The mass of a photon is zero. There is no orbital velocity. You may have a conjecture that there is one, but you need experimental evidence to support it. Thus far you've got bupkus.

So a photon with a 1 micron wavelength will rotate 1000x as fast as a photon with 1 mm wavelength? And they have the same angular momentum?

What is the model, and what is the evidence that it’s correct?

! Moderator Note You agreed to follow the rules of the forum when you joined, so a post from a moderator should not require any justification; it’s not for you to decide such things. One of the rules of the forum is that opening up an account to evade a ban is not permitted. Yes. You were not precise in identifying these letters as archaic. Are you really claiming that the context of current vs archaic was not understood? I said the language of science was English. Science is a recent, not archaic, and this is why your posturing is a bad faith argument.

Spin is explained in a number of places. The short version is that it’s intrinsic angular momentum. Then you shouldn’t propose that the electric field contains charge. It’s not a decay, as such, since it’s a reaction. Then you need to explain this asymmetry in behavior, including the violation of conservation of angular momentum, lepton number and charge, and provide evidence of it.

The specific claims matter. They probably say something like “a quantum computer with a sufficient number of qubits will be able to crack RSA in a short amount of time” https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/01/fear-not-rsa-encryption-wont-fall-to-quantum-computing-anytime-soon/ “The current estimate is that breaking a 1,024-bit or 2,048-bit RSA key requires a quantum computer with vast resources. Specifically, those resources are about 20 million qubits and about eight hours of them running in superposition.” We aren’t anywhere close to having such resources.

How can gyres be responsible for solid earth tides?

It says no such thing “the current letters: A a B b C c D d E e F f G g H h I i J j K k L l M m N n O o P p Q q R r S s T t U u V v W w X x Y y Z z” The letters you mention are listed under “archaic letters” i.e. letters no longer in use. And you were asked not to do that, but you not only chose to persist, you also are insisting on things that aren’t true

Tristan L suspended for repeatedly re-opening a closed thread.

You can equate it, but you would be wrong. An oscillating field is not the same as positive or negative charges. Charges require that the field have a divergence, as shown in Maxwell’s equations. Positronium is a bound state of a positron and electron. It’s not the decay of either one. Show evidence of a single electron decaying.

What sources? What, specifically, do they claim?

Some of it might be, such as the thresholds in certain frequency ranges, but finding electronics damaged by lower-frequency spikes, as from lightning, wouldn’t be. Nukes aren’t the only source of EMPs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse

You can test the formatting of your equations in the sandbox. Try using “math” tags

As Bufofrog said. It’s in rule 2.7.

Do you see the contradiction here? You acknowledge a photon, with an electric field, has no charge. So how can you also claim that you need a charge to be present? It doesn’t work the way you’re describing Let’s have them Is one that we can destroy an electron and get two photons out? Any experimental confirmation of that?

How does a photon move in anything other than a straight line in flat free space? Where does the charge come from? Electric fields do not contain any charge. Spin doesn’t work the way you describe. Is there any experimental support for this proposal?

How do you make a spin 1/2 electron out of spin 1 uncharged photons? How does this happen? Why do photons orbit, and how does that make charge?