swansont

I suspect we wouldn’t call them atoms. Surely someone has solved the Schrödinger equation for a gravitational potential to see what the bound states would look like.

Yes, your position is untenable ! Moderator Note I’m not sure what this means. But this, like your earlier conjecture, lacks sufficient rigor to make predictions. We shouldn’t have to ask you for your model; if you have one you should have presented it. As it is it looks like you are just spouting buzzwords without regard for any of the associated physics principles. And that doesn’t comply with our requirements for speculations

You can have two slits but also get “which path” information, and the interference pattern disappears (easier to do with electrons, though)

There are occasions where do have clear evidence that they pass through one slit, but there is no interference pattern in those cases.

How that’s treated depends on the specific formulation of the question. As I stated earlier, one way this happens is something blocking the view. You can also have a situation where you are getting too few photons per unit time, so the image doesn’t register; this is why one would use a telescope and leave the camera shutter open for a length of time, so that you can gather more photons. It’s unlikely that the photons would intermittently leave a blind spot if the source is normally visible. Statistical fluctuations in photon count can be measured, but that’s only significant when the photon count is small. (such fluctuations are called shot noise; It’s like tossing a coin - for a large number of tosses, the results will be close to 50-50, and the fractional deviations will be small.)

But if the light hits your eye, there’s a path from the source to you. No more wave. No, it’s competing with very few things. That’s why it gets to you. If e.g. the moon is in the way, the light hits the moon, but you don’t see the distant star while that’s happening. One issue here is that if a photon gets to your eye, the probability of it doing that is 1. You can’t argue that it might not happen, since it already did.

! Moderator Note Moved to speculations; go ahead and make your case, but there’s nothing here relevant to the original thread (i.e. there’s nothing in the OP about a rotating source)

But you can’t just summon a charged particle into existence by itself. Or a particle with spin. That’s magic, not science.

You keep mentioning Euler force, which is 1) tangential to the rotation, not radial, and 2) dependent on angular acceleration What you haven’t done is quantify anything to demonstrate why this could matter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler_force

Virtual particles are still subject to these conservation laws.

How does that conserve charge and angular momentum?

That’s not what I asked. How do you form the virtual positron, and obey conservation of charge and angular momentum?

What if it’s an electron? How do you form the virtual antiparticle, and obey conservation of charge and angular momentum?

Uneven mass distribution does contribute, but the effect is small. It’s been measured. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth

It’s one thing to say we can discover the unknown. It’s another thing to say what we know to be true will be overturned.

! Moderator Note Posting non-mainstream material in a mainstream discussion is against our rules, too Material also has to be relevant to the question, and you don’t make that connection

You don’t know what you’re going to find, and what impact it will have.

I do; I used to build them. Spin-flip in atoms does not rely on movement.

No. Fusion reactors exist that have zero lasers. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_confinement_fusion

Interpretations are to help in your understanding of QM. You go with what works for you.

Yes There aren’t that many things in outer space in between us and the things we can see. If you assume visible light, with a photon energy of ~2 eV, there are more than 10^18 photons per watt of power. Our sun emits more than 10^26 watts, as Mordred has detailed. Your estimation of trillions is woefully low. What is there to absorb or scatter photons? Yes Probably also yes.

I find “feeling hotter” to be utterly unsurprising. An obese person is better insulated and is also somewhat more spherical than a skinny person. Both promote retaining heat. I don’t see how wearing heavy clothes would incentivize exercise, which raises your core temperature. For me, feeling hot has the opposite effect. Overheating tended to shut down my ability to exercise. It’s easier to keep warm than cool off; in my experience we tolerate a wider range of cooler temperatures than warmer temperatures from a starting point of what’s normally comfortable (“room temperature” or ~22 degrees C)

How big of an effect is this? And why does it have to be on the moon?

You’ve been given examples of clocks that have no movement, or are not based on movement (i.e. the movement is incidentall)

The correlation exists, but saying it’s “physical” implies an interaction, and one needs to explain what that interaction is. The alleged paradox arises from assuming QM is ultimately classical, which is a really bad assumption.