swansont

No. The number could be higher or lower, depending on how the intrinsic brightness and distance vary. Webb has a mirror that has ~7x larger area, so you gather more light, and it’s optimized for a different wavelength range. Both would factor into seeing stars the Hubble can’t detect. (edit: Why are infrared observations important to astronomy? Stars and planets that are just forming lie hidden behind cocoons of dust that absorb visible light. (The same is true for the very center of our galaxy.) However, infrared light emitted by these regions can penetrate this dusty shroud and reveal what is inside. https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/comparisonWebbVsHubble.html ) I think the resolving power of Hubble and Webb are similar. More pixels isn’t necessarily better, since you get less light per pixel, but if they have better signal/noise this would factor into being able to detect faint stars.

AFAIK, that is the case. In any event, it appears to be basically undefined. In physics, if it is not quantum it is continuum.

Why, did you not read my previous post where I did so?

How do you arrive at this number? If the pressure is due to this, you lose the restorative force. There is no differential pressure from translation. It’s like balloon, which does not maintain a position from its internal pressure.

Solar wind is fairly weak in terrestrial terms (1 ATM being ~10^5 Pa) "The wind exerts a pressure at 1 AU typically in the range of 1–6 nPa ((1–6)×10−9 N/m2)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind The differential pressure for a slightly off-center sphere would be much smaller. Not much "correction" would be happening

It's already been pointed out that QM (Schrödinger's equation) deals with energy and not forces - we deal with interactions. One of the issues here is that it's not clear whether the wave packet being referenced is a wave function, or the deBroglie wave. Some statements imply one, and some imply the other. They are not the same thing. How can a wave function feel a force? How does a deBroglie wave have an internal force? One of these, at least, must be addressed.

Asking you to provide citations for data you present is a legitimate request, not something that can be dismissed as a personal tit-for-tat.

And the next step is to compare that to the normal turnover rate. Vaccinations may just be an excuse, or the last item, for some people who were prone to leaving anyway.

You've cited that number a couple of times now, but does it have any real meaning? There have been a number of cases where the number of people who allegedly threatened to walk off the job if forced to get vaccinated, and yet when it came time to do so, the number who actually did was far smaller. It's a mostly empty threat. https://www.npr.org/2021/09/29/1041500566/vaccine-mandate-quit-research

But it's not negligible. Schrödinger predicts an infinite-extent spatial wave function for a single-valued momentum, and you say this isn't true for your idea, but give no information about what the wave function would look like. Plus you haven't made any connection to Feynman diagrams, AFAICT. (Which work exceedingly well, BTW)

You haven't presented a way to test the idea of a cohesive force. You are claiming it without evidence. It's too vague. I can't point out what's wrong if there's nothing to point at. You give an example of a particle with a specific momentum, and point out that "According to the traditional theory, however, finite-sized wave packet and specific energy-momentum are not compatible." which is true. So if the spatial wave function is not of infinite size, as QM says it is, you are discarding Schrödinger's wave mechanics. And not replacing it. You own the burden of proof here. Demonstrate that you are right. Come up with evidence and/or testable predictions.

It's unfortunate that you are seemingly throwing out Schrödinger's formulation and have nothing to replace it with. Do you have anything that would allow your idea to be tested and falsified?

! Moderator Note If you aren’t discussing Djokovic’s situation, you are off-topic for this thread

To be fair, that wasn’t measured until well after the model was proposed, so “contradicted” might not be the best description. It took some time to be sure that unknown masses in the solar system weren’t responsible, and that this was truly an anomaly.

Only one component can be determined. Whether you measure spin up or down (z), the x and y components are undetermined. Measurement of any two components does not commute

Matterga banned as a sockpuppet of MarcoBarbieri

Mathematical model.

I agree that 3 is wrong. QM actively contradicted classical physics, and relativity actively contradicted Galilean/Newtonian notions. It became apparent that these existing models were incomplete and/or had areas where they failed.

I see no equations. You have no model. You don’t have a model, and haven’t presented enough to be able to point out more flaws than have already been identified. You don’t have a model. Copenhagen and many worlds are interpretations of QM, not QM itself.

! Moderator Note Yes, and no. Same poster, but unlike before details are being provided in the thread. (unsure why a new account was needed; the old one has been deactivated) Let’s focus on the discussion and not these trivialities

When are you going to present a model of it? When do we get testable predictions?

You’re referencing standard QM, so your own speculation is moot. Why would I have to read more? Which you haven’t modeled.

AFAICT it means it will be able to observe stars that are 1/100 as bright

Violation of conservation of energy is not part of “traditional theory” Photons don’t just disappear in QM If you don’t want feedback you shouldn’t have posted. Assuming you understand the point of a science discussion board.

That would violate conservation of energy, so no, that’s not a possible result.