swansont

How does this happen? How was the superposition created in the first place? Does it even make sense to talk about the second law for such a system?

There is no outgoing neutron

Sure. But the superposition also includes the low-entropy state, so the average of the two (weighted by their amplitudes) is less than the entropy of the final state, so there’s no conflict with the 2nd law.

What, precisely, is the problem?

Yes. There’s no violation of the law when you have a superposition.

So in what way is 1/137 “about 1”? What is your source that this is 0.998 of the experimental value?

You did read that, but perhaps you saw that it was disputed and no example was given to support the assertion. In this example, half the energy is in each state.

! Moderator Note Threads merged

To add to Genady’s response: you don’t know the exact trajectory, so the photon passes through both slits and interferes with itself

A stepper motor might be (part of) the solution..

No, because each state has an amplitude, and the probabilities of being in the states add to 1.

Do you have an example? Quantum states I can think of will have an energy, and you need to add energy to put a system in the ground state into a superposition of energy eigenstates (unless they’re degenerate)

In my experience yes. I’ve used commercially-available systems that lasted around 1.5 years or so; generally the failure was degradation of the anti-reflection coating, and the laser wouldn’t stay at the desired frequency, but they would still lase. If it’s a homemade system, it’s critical that the electronics prevent the laser from seeing voltage spikes. Those will destroy a laser diode.

! Moderator Note The description of the sandbox: This forum is provided for members to test BB code, learn how to use the various forum functions, and generally get to grips with the system IOW it’s not for discussion. Do not expect anyone to respond.

But you are, apparently, a word-salad smith. A neutron contains mass energy of this amount. But where is the “pure energy” that you claim it contains? How much is there? What is the evidence it exists?

We prefer to discuss only one proposal per topic, so let's focus on your first "theory" What evidence is there of "pure energy"? Has it ever been observed? If not, how would one do so? If this energy can be converted to mass, why haven't we seen a violation of E=mc^2? One glaring problem here is that you have no mathematical framework for your idea, so that nothing can be quantified. That's a fatal shortcoming for a physics proposal.

The length of the day is very different from what it was hundreds of millions of years ago, the length of the year isn’t constant, the orbit of the moon changes, the magnetic poles flip on occasion. Cellular functions can’t be too dependent on such external influences.

! Moderator Note Among the issues here is that this is a series of speculations built on top of each other, and that’s not allowed. There’s not much in the way of actual modeling and evidence, and far too many instances of a claim supported only with a youtube link, which is not permitted. It also suffers from the “wall of text” problem. While this isn’t inherently a rules violation, it’s discouraged, and given the broad spectrum of the material, it is contrary to our preference of one topic per thread.

The phrasing of these articles is that the evidence is quite weak, that they are teasing out small correlations in data. The links you provided don’t present any of the science; they’re just summarizing other studies, so there’s not much science to discuss.

Yes, plausibility is important; the moon would not draw anything up - things don’t fall upwards when the moon is overhead. The earth’s gravity still dominates, even though one can measure a small reduction in the net acceleration toward the earth. There’s also an effect from the change in local mass from tidal effects, so one would expect any effect to be accentuated near coastal regions. Also perhaps see an effect in skydivers and astronauts on the ISS What would aid in a plausibility argument is the calculation of the physics involved, such as a comparison of the moon’s attraction as compared to e.g. wearing a hat. (I know that this has been done to debunk the notion that astrology has some basis in science by comparing the gravitational attraction of planets vs that of the attending staff when a baby is born)

! Moderator Note I think we’ve covered this same ground more times than is necessary. Soapboxing, not science. Locking such threads makes me feel safe

If the moon does not exert a force on the earth, why does the moon orbit the earth? (consider Newton’s third law) In any event, tides present no conflict with Newton’s laws, and nothing is being ignored. The issue is your lack of understanding of physics, which is not going to be fixed by looking at this exercise; there are too many issues to address. (coordinate systems, linear vs rotational physics, action-reaction) Basically, if you think that physics is wrong, it’s invariably your understanding of physics that’s wrong or missing.

Provisionally. I don’t see the relevance. That does not follow, but, again, probably irrelevant. Measurements give some sense of security? I thought you were in the camp that thinks we can’t tell what others perceive or feel. So at best you can claim it gives you a sense of security. And you’re describing the act of measurement, rather than what that measurement is. I think you did not, despite your claim to know everything. You forgot the red and orange of the fire that you’re playing with I thought we were talking about science - the study of how nature behaves.

Fine. Answer my question, then. How is a physical measurement, like how far a kangaroo jumps, a function of human nature?

So, not everything we know is based on human nature, as you had claimed.