swansont

What’s being manipulated? It’s a small deviation. A bump or divot on the billiard ball, so to speak. From your link: The "Cold Spot" is approximately 70 µK (0.00007 K) colder than the average CMB temperature

As you point out, it’s not sealed, so why would they take that into account? But it’s the concept of why the components don’t fall into the sun; you’ve just added a new element. No doubt it would be more complicated, but the point is that the pressure is not going to keep it centered, since there is a similar pressure at all points. You need a different pressure on opposite sides to give a restoring force in a given direction. No, I don’t agree. The mass loss due to the solar wind is negligible. The sun would have “evaporated” long ago if that were the case. The pressure of the solar wind comes from the momentum of the particles. Their velocity is significant (many keV of KE) and some of this will be lost upon impact with the structure. So there aren’t a lot of atoms. It’s about 1.5 million tons (3 x 10^9kg) per second, as compared to the mass of 2 x 10^30 kg. https://slate.com/technology/2014/07/solar-wind-versus-fusion-how-does-the-sun-lose-mass.html

! Moderator Note You've been told before that this is insufficient for discussion. Get an instagram or tumblr account.

Is a tree homogeneous and isotropic? A human? The universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a large scale. i.e. the scale used in astronomy and cosmology. Sometimes this is not explicitly declared, but often it is. http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec05.html (emphasis added) "if the Universe is isotropic then this means you will see no difference in the structure of the Universe as you look in different directions. When viewed on the largest scales, the Universe looks the same to all observers and the Universe looks the same in all directions as viewed by a particular observer. Homogeneity, when viewed on the largest scales, means that the average density of matter is about the same in all places in the Universe and the Universe is fairly smooth on large scales."

! Moderator Note If you want to blog go start a blog somewhere. This fails as science - there is no rigor. It's just hand-waving. You claim 2 decimal point accuracy but describe no experimental results.

It's part of how my atomic clocks work. You measure the |g> and |e> state populations of the hyperfine transition, but that's not what collapses the superposition.

It's all cumulative, but I don't think mirror quality, per se, gets you all that much. Or other optics advancement. How much advancement in mirror surface quality has been made in the span we're discussing? It's not like you're going to get a factor of even two in how reflective mirrors are as compared to a few decades earlier. So these factors could be in play, but I don't think they're the prime movers.

An interaction counts, I think. I shine a pi/2 pulse on atoms and it puts them in a superposition of states (|g> and |e>), and I shine another pi/2 pulse on them and they end up in one of those two states. I then measure the populations of the two. It's the second pi/2 pulse that ends the superposition, not the measurement of the populations.

The static contribution is less than the value of the pressure, to be sure. It can at least be approximated by looking at the gravitational potential energy. The pressure should vary as pgh, where p is the density, g is the gravitational acceleration (which varies with r) It wasn't clear that this was the case. But to "break off" implies that there is some amount of rigidity involved. And this has nothing to do with correcting its position, i.e. the metastable equilibrium issue. What you are describing here is closer to a Dyson bubble. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere#Dyson_bubble

Then the next question is what does it take to collapse a wave function thats in a superposition?

Superposition state implies quantum mechanics. Is being dead, or alive, a quantum state?

But it's not from the sun (in direction), if the pressure is building up. Then it's just a gas contained inside a sphere. Solar wind gives a radial force that depends on distance from the origin. A gas in a container, by itself, does not give a force that depends on distance. Then you need to calculate how big this will be. It's the gradient that gives you a restoring force, not the pressure itself. There needs to be a different pressure on one side vs the other to give this force. I was responding to your first post. But why does the sphere need to be supported? That's a different effect than keeping it centered on the sun.

In addition to studiot's observation above, is there a connection between the quantum states of the individual atoms and the condition of being alive or dead?

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?