swansont

What are you talking about? Electrons do not immobilize the nucleus. The whole atom is free to move. You were talking about creating the electrostatic field with a composite dielectric. How did we get from that to the electron in deuterium? (which has no electron when it’s ionized, as you said it was)

! Moderator Note You need to post the content you wish to discuss. No just a document (that’s for supporting information only), and certainly not a word document

What is inherently quantum-mechanical about holding a nucleus fixed with an electric field? But that’s what you can’t do with static fields. There is an unstable equilibrium point, but as soon as the charge moves, it’s no longer confined.

No, you don’t have charges in a fixed position when you have orbitals. You can’t apply the theorem. The field is a time-average, similar to what you would have classically for charges in motion, which does allow for confinement.

And yet there has been very little discussion about biological differences that goes beyond the chromosomes, as compared to references to XX vs XY.

You can’t trap electrons with an electrostatic field, either. Trapped does not mean they are at rest, but “maximally immobilised and are held near the equilibrium position” sounds an awful lot like trapped. If they are not, then why would the be immobilized?

At such a low speed the difference between the results would be negligible

How does one observe a relativistic phenomenon using this alleged near field light if the object is more than a wavelength away? But you say that relativity holds in the farfield. So using EM radiation with a wavelength of a meter vs a micron, for an object 10 cm away, you’d get conflicting results. If relativity is an illusion, how do you explain all of the experiments that agree with it? The Hafele-Keating experiment, for example.

You said “the interacting nuclei are maximally immobilised and are held near the equilibrium position not by a magnetic field, but electrostatically” and I’m telling you you can’t immobilize a nucleus with an electrostatic field.

And it isn’t based simply on what chromosomes you have.

Harrison Ford tells the broccoli joke

You could ask questions and learn, instead of proposing new science based on insufficient knowledge

Physics tells us otherwise

We have a fairly successful model for why fission happens. “The equation goes toward zero, and whenever it goes past zero, something significant in the atom changes.” isn’t particularly rigorous. Post better science, and your reputation will improve.

Any proposed experiment has to be possible in principle. Out of the many thousands of experiments that have been done, surely you can glean some supporting data.

Chromosomes alone does not indicate any individual’s ability at sports. So any alleged biological advantage has to go beyond your chromosomes. It’s ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

I had a career as an atomic physicist, and never once did I think of atoms as alive, nor would that fiction have helped my understanding. It might have impeded it. But I can only speak for myself. We have QM interpretations to aid in understanding. But you’d need to lay out a case for why this would be helpful to someone. We have a framework in physics for understanding why certain states are stable, and it’s based on energy, and having a pathway to another state.

Even before that, for this thread (or perhaps another, since this one is supposed to be about gender), we need to have participants acknowledge the reality that the notion of sex is more complicated than what chromosomes you have, or what your visible genitalia are.

Except they aren’t necessarily based on biological sex. Some of them are based on gender. Cis males, on average, outperform cis females “biological” determination can be based on chromosomes, or by the visible reproductive organs. And, as has been noted a number of times, either is only a very coarse description - there are a number of biological attributes if you look closer.

Earnshaw’s theorem tells us that you can’t confine a charge with static electric fields.

These equations need to line up with reality, meaning that they need to be confirmed by experiment. What experimental evidence can you give us?

You need to show how this can be tested - how does this match up with real evidence?

! Moderator Note Please note that chatgpt is not a technical resource and has well-documented issues regarding the quality if answers it gives (it makes things up). We don’t permit its use for answers in mainstream threads

The more pertinent question is does the model predict anything? Theories do more than explain behavior. They must have some kind of predictive power. They have to be falsifiable.

And no matter how many neutrons you have, it’s an isotope. So “Atoms would rather not be isotopes” is a non-sequitur