swansont

US television saw > 500 new shows + miniseries in 2020 (and 2019, so it's apparently not an anomaly) Just over 1% is hardly an explosion. It would be strange of that genre wasn't explored to this minimal extent, with all the shows being made.

This is an accelerometer using a proof mass. I’m familiar more with attempts using atoms as a proof mass, http://ridl.cfd.rit.edu/products/pfq2 speaker videos/slides/PfQ2 July 2020 Choy.pdf Start with slide 6

But you can do a measurement to see if you’re the one accelerating. If I toss a ball to you and we’re on a platform with perpendicular acceleration, the ball will deflect in the opposite direction. (This principle is used in some inertial sensor designs.)

While velocity is relative, acceleration is not. You can tell if you are accelerating.

tar has been suspended for repeatedly bringing up a pet theory (from a locked thread, no less) in mainstream discussion, and failing to post in good faith (opening up a mainstream thread to bring up the pet theory)

! Moderator Note If you are able to explain the idea, you should have done so when you had the chance. But you did not, and continuing to raise this issue is against the rules. You can insist that you understand relativity, but the evidence is that you do not.

Not periodic motion, as such, since motion is not directly implied. (it’s inferred by imposing classical notions on QM, and that usually ends up causing problems) QM avoids saying anything about trajectories in situations like the particle in a box. It’s one of the things that distinguishes it from classical, and also why free body diagrams are not part of QM.

Didn’t say it was. But generally a society converges on a set of laws. And is it the same as dogs? And for the same reasons? This wasn’t the issue. Also not the issue.

The purpose of the box is to provide the boundaries of confinement, so that have nodes for the wave function and you get quantized energy levels. You get isolation from the environment by not including any interactions, because it’s a physics problem and there’s no mention of any other interactions. It’s not like it’s an actual experiment. It’s a generic particle in a box; we aren’t told if it’s subject to the EM or the strong interactions, (or gravity, for that matter) because it’s irrelevant to the problem what the confinement is due to. The potential term in Schrödinger’s equation doesn’t specify the source of the potential.

The primary reason is that we aren’t 100% certain they are guilty? No other difference in how society treats people vs how we treat dogs?

Matter heavier than U is undoubtedly created in these events, and mergers. But we’d have to detect it before it decayed away, as exchemist notes, unless there’s some method of continued production. This has happened (We’ve had threads on this) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przybylski's_Star Przybylski's Star also contains many different short-lived actinide elements with actinium, protactinium, neptunium, plutonium, americium, curium, berkelium, californium, and einsteinium being detected.

Energy quanta that are localized in points in space. Is that a description of a wave? Because I can detect it after passing through a vapor cell, for instance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics “In pure vacuum, some weak scattering of light by light exists” So I guess we’re done. “many have claimed”? That’s weak. Who has claimed this? Where are the citations, so the specific claim can be examined?

There are invariant quantities, so this is obviously false What relevance does this have to anything? ! Moderator Note This sheds no light on your claims or on outstanding questions. Just more hand-waving. Closed. Don’t bring this, or anything with such weak support, up again

Plenty of scientists understand this without considering the idea of “two nows” The shortcoming, it would appear, lies with your understanding of relativity. Perhaps you should consider addressing that, and not bringing up the speculations topic that’s been locked.

It’s both. A floor wax and a dessert topping. You have a process of entangling particles or creating particles that are entangled, and you have the state of entanglement Regardless of whether this can be demonstrated, “I don’t see” is not an argument that carries much weight. It’s argument from personal incredulity

No, that’s crap. They either have particle behavior or they don’t. You said they never act as particles, and now you’re saying two examples aren’t enough. But that dodges the issue of why you can’t absorb part of a photon’s energy. IOW you’re addressing a different issue than in the example. I’m suggest they cause excitations in atoms, and you’ve already admitted this happens. Light misses all the time. Photon-photon interactions occur, but this is only significant at high energy, but this misses the point. Nobody has claimed that all interactions reflect particle behavior. Afshar’s position is that particle behavior is observed, but I didn’t offer this experiment as evidence, and I only need one to rebut your claim, which (as I pointed out) you’ve already admitted is falso. This is a red herring. That’s not being claimed here.

Aluminum is used in the US (and was coined by Sir Humphry Davy, who discovered the element) but aluminium was also used to conform to the pronunciation of other element names like rubidium, sodium and potassium, and is used by British speakers, among others.

I've worked with copper, fiber and free-space transmission. The concept is the same. And once again I will ask if you have example of this not happening when it matters. Because I don't have any — people working on experiments that require precise measurements do these things, otherwise their experiments don't work. You're pointing out the obvious Unlikely that a supernova event 10000 LY away is still occurring if we're just getting the photons now. We know how long supernovae last, and it's much less than 10,000 years. Let's say it was 10,000 LY away, and the star was 30 light-seconds across (which is about 9 million km; the sun is about 1.4 million km across) A year is a little over 3 x 10^7 sec, so the distance ratio is 30s *c/10^4 * 3x10^7 *c Ignoring the size gives an error of a part in 10^10, so in some cases this is meaningless — if your experiment has less precision than this. The bottom line is that the speed of light is a known phenomenon and physicists aren't stupid, and your premise is basically that they/we are (and we see similar "point out obvious things" phenomena in discussions on evolution, too). On top of that, we have peer review, so even if one particular experimenter somehow ignored the effect, others would notice when it came time to publish results, either through peer review or in responses to the publication, which would be quickly retracted from any reputable journal. So unless you have actual examples of people screwing up by not accounting for light travel, this is pointless, and just an exercise in you demonstrating that you have no familiarity with how these experiments are conducted.

You need to discuss this matter showing good faith: addressing the comments made to you and not "forgetting" past exchanges. Examples have been given to you, so let's not pretend that this has not come up before. It's not as much what you're missing as what you're conveniently ignoring. So let's not ignore things anymore. You even admitted that light delivers its energy in a localized fashion, which is a particle behavior and not a wave behavior. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/125968-delayed-choice-experiment-split-from-question-does-the-double-slit-experiment-prove-free-will/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-1189287 So I will reiterate my previous example: if light were a wave it would be able to share its energy among multiple atoms when interacting, because that's a wave property, as is losing just part of its energy. But it doesn't do that. The example I used was a 2 eV photon and a bunch of atoms with a transition at 1 eV. We don't see the photon getting absorbed - no partial loss of energy, and it doesn't cause excitations in two atoms. If you insist that light is a wave, all the time, and never shows particle behavior, how do you explain that it doesn't show wave behavior, and shows particle behavior in these instances? (and please note that "I'm not convinced" is not an explanation). You have proposed a model here, and you need to support it.

If it’s meters the time will not be milliseconds. c = 3 x 10^8 m/s. meters means nanoseconds. This issue is as I had mentioned. When I did my postdoc at TRIUMF, the cables were labeled in nanoseconds, so you could account for the signal delay time from different detectors. It’s not that you are worrying over nothing, it’s that you’re not pointing out something that others have missed, and you are framing it as such.

I find no matches to a member with than username. The only hits on that are in this thread. I will ask again: Under what circumstances will this matter? Alternately, give a pointer to an experiment where this would matter where it was not taken into account. I am familiar with experiments which use coincidence detection, so I know of experiments where this is explicitly taken into consideration, because circumstances dictate that.

Which has nothing to do with the topic of discussion The "leaps" being discussed are ones of energy and not location, so this isn't really applicable.

Natural linewidth is not considered broadening, in my experience, as it is inherent to the transition. It's the starting point, and the other mechanisms give you broadening. Which is why efforts are made to reduce the other effects, such as doing Doppler-free spectroscopy to reduce/eliminate that source of broadening.

! Moderator Note The issue wasn't units (and your argument here is flawed), the issue was your observation that "we should be thinking about the progression of physics *between us and infinity*" and that you have shed no light on that progression (whatever "progression" means in this context) ! Moderator Note Repeating the phrase "manifestations of the Singularity" is not a substitute for a testable model, not does it explain anything about this progression you mentioned. If all you have is hand-waving, I will close the thread. Do you have anything of scientific substance to offer?

This is why we put error bars on results. In science we tend to quantify the uncertainty in results. 1) You haven't, and 2) You don't get to make that assessment. (the two are not completely independent)