swansont

That wasn’t the example I presented. It was a 1 eV transition. A wave doesn’t deliver its energy in a localized fashion.

Because we investigate all possibilities. You don’t just look at circumstances that support your thesis; that’s cherry-picking. I gave examples that show your claim to be wrong.

Setting values to 1 is a trick used by theorists who don't care about calculations and don't want to carry extraneous terms in their equations. Its usefulness is lost when you actually want to compare to an actual measured or predicted value. 1 planck mass per planck volume is a density. The problem is the critical density is a far, far different value. Why is there a difference?

The critical mass density of the universe equates roughly to 10^-123 planck masses per cubic planck length, and we're thought to be very close to this number You are claiming this number is 1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#In_cosmology) That's a pretty large disparity All the more reason to be meticulous in citing accepted physics, and distinguishing your own ideas.

Doesn't want to be quoted? Isn't this in the literature anywhere? If you can't point to a textbook, or at least a peer-reviewed articles, then it's a dubious claim. Further, "single particle" is not synonymous with "Planck mass"

Where does the BB theory tell us this?

! Moderator Note To all: Please note that the discussion here will not focus on Lazar or his claims. If it helps, simply substitute "unknown stable element" as the target Yes, your spectroscopy would yield an unknown (previously unobserved) spectrum. You could pop a sample into a mass spectrometer and get the atomic mass. You could try to fully ionize it to get the atomic number. If you can make it into a hydrogen-like state (i.e. one electron), the spectroscopy would be easy to predict and compare. There is also Moseley's law, which predicts the x-ray spectrum https://protonstalk.com/physics/moseleys-law/ You could bombard it with some energetic particle (e.g. neutrons or protons) and look at the particles produced.

NIH: Statement on Misinformation about SARS-CoV-2 Origins Unfortunately, in the absence of a definitive answer, misinformation and disinformation are filling the void, which does more harm than good. NIH wants to set the record straight on NIH-supported research to understand naturally occurring bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, funded through a subaward from NIH grantee EcoHealth Alliance. Analysis of published genomic data and other documents from the grantee demonstrate that the naturally occurring bat coronaviruses studied under the NIH grant are genetically far distant from SARS-CoV-2 and could not possibly have caused the COVID-19 pandemic. Any claims to the contrary are demonstrably false. Full statement: https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/statement-misinformation-about-sars-cov-2-origins

AFAIK the electrons that allow them to conduct are not part of the covalent bonds https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zgq8b82/revision/2

Except, as you point out, a single slit still gives diffraction, which is a wave property. The experiment under consideration is a which-path experiment. The salient detail is that quantum particles have wave properties and show interference. It is not required that they exhibit particle properties when which-path information is present. ! Moderator Note As such, and since we've strayed from the OP, I have split this into a new thread That's actually one reason why it's described as a particle. Also the localization, which I think I mentioned earlier. You might have a 1 eV transition in an atom, but a 2 eV photon will not cause two atoms to be excited, even though the light could interact with both particles, and is what you would expect if you had a wave. It will not absorb 1 eV of a 1.5 eV photon and let the rest pass by, another thing you would expect of a wave.

The claim was not that everything is quantised, and a constant isn’t something that qualifies for consideration We’re discussing a physics topic in the physics section, so it’s reasonable to take as given we’re discussing physics.

That’s a pretty big leap to say it “follows” from that, considering the article makes no mention of any Planck units, or Hubble. Can you show a derivation? Preferably starting from some verifiable equation or identity.

Permanent magnets do not rely on current flow to create a magnetic field. The magnetic moment of an electron arises from its intrinsic angular momentum (i.e. spin), as exchemist has already noted

That’s grossly inaccurate. The double slit is generally considered to be evidence of the wave nature of light. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment The detection or ability to detect is what causes the loss of interference. The detectors are not merely present; e.g. sitting in a corner of the room is insufficient.

I've noticed on occasion that it doesn't work if the page hasn't fully loaded. Reloading sometimes fixes this. You can highlight a portion of text and click on the "quote" popup (but that doesn't properly attribute the quote if you are highlighting quoted text) On occasion, hitting return/enter will simply not break up the quote boxes as it should. I don't know why. An alternate option to using the quote function directly is to copy/paste text, select it, and then hit the quote button in the toolbar (the double quotation mark) but that won't attribute the quote, so the person will not be notified of the response.

Unless the person in question prefers it. You never know if anyone from the Addams Family is online.

Don't forget gerunds (verbs used as nouns), and verbs being used as adjectives

And none of that has to do with the wave-particle nature, which is the source of my comment. The experiment is, as you confirm here, about which-path. Which is an issue for philosophy and not physics. Yes. If you can't know which path, you get interference. I wouldn't say that detectors interfering is an obvious solution, because that makes no sense. Fixed

A squeeze could potentially still have a striking mechanism internal to the workings, but the bottom line is generating a voltage from pressure, so it could be you are able to generate that with a squeeze. Perhaps the piezo geometry is somewhat different - several of them stacked, and/or a different material that generates a higher voltage, but is brittle and you don't want the physical shock to it.

Much like GR encompasses Newtonian gravity. Quantum gravity might take us back a tiny slice of time earlier in describing the hot dense state. But probably without addressing the origin.

! Moderator Note None of this recent discussion seems relevant to the topic of the OP; I suggest if you have continued thoughts along these lines you start a new thread. Seeing as the thread starter has been banned and the dubious nature of the OP, I am closing this.

The characterization that "the wave becomes a particle" lacks the nuance of the physics; it's a shorthand that tries to keep us grounded in classical physics (and there are multiple examples of this lazy description), but QM is not classical physics. Waves don't become particles nor do particles become waves. Quantum objects have characteristics of both, and we observe those characteristics depending on what kind of observation we do. Particle characteristics include being detected (interacting) in a localized region (and also possibly in time) so if you are detecting photons in a double slit experiment you have evidence of light behaving as a particle. A visible-light photon is of order half a micron in wavelength and an atom is much, much smaller than this (e.g. Si lattice constant is about half a nanometer) meaning the absorption of that photon by a single atom is a localization inconsistent with its wave nature. The point of a which-path experiment is not to confirm the wave/particle nature of light; that's already done. So the observation that we see a diffraction pattern isn't a revelation here. The salient detail is whether or not you observe an interference pattern, indicating you have which-path information.

Again, it would be so much easier to discuss specific examples.

This lies outside of the scope of the theory.

Since iNow made no such claim, this is pointless.