swansont

Do the particles involved in Hawking radiation live for a long time? You keep talking about energy waste without establishing that this is a thing. That would require a violation of energy conservation. Basing your idea on a perpetual motion mechanism is not a winning strategy.

! Moderator Note This is a violation of rule 2.12. Conspiracy is not an argument in good faith.

! Moderator Note None of these are questions. What is it you want to discuss?

! Moderator Note No. That's not how this works.

Anything having to with QED or QCD qualifies by that criterion.

Yes, actually. Nothing about gravity is present in the equations*; you are excluding electromagnetic modes in the calculation, which I did once upon a time, and I’m guessing you have not. *this being a quantum mechanical effect, and gravity being classical, and also much, much weaker The longer virtual particles survive the lower their energy. Hawking radiation is not the Casimir effect.

Yes, and there’s a way to calculate the effects (which is not just flinging crap at the wall to see if anything sticks) It’s also electromagnetic, not gravitational, so you wouldn’t have the right boundary condition to make a Casimir-type interaction. Inefficiency is one thing, but conservation of properties is quite another; they involve symmetries and you have to show the symmetry being broken

They’re also virtual. Energy levels (as in atoms or nuclei) come about from bound states with, as I said, an attractive potential. Show the energy level derivation for dark energy. How do they come about? The interaction period varies with the energy involved, such that the uncertainty principle is maintained. What waste product? The particles annihilate.

How so?

Energy doesn't have energy levels. Composite systems with attractive interactions do. How big would these shifts be in a Casimir-type experiment?

Sounds more like revenge/vendetta, and mutual assured destruction. Tit-for-tat in game theory.

If you jump in and recreate the experiment, like a few dozen labs did, you either confirm or refute the experiment, and your reputation isn't really on the line. I don't think anyone remembers any names other than Pons and Fleischmann. Similar with theory. There were people who leapt in with theoretical explanations of superluminal neutrinos (which may be a good example to contrast with cold fusion). Did they suffer any harm to their reputation? Probably not, because they didn't go public with their results, they went through the proper channels. I think perhaps being wrong isn't punished much as long as you do that. Or, conspiracy theorists even try and exploit physics. I don't think it's physics, per se, that owns the conspiracy; it's a rejection of mainstream physics that's involved. Perpetual motion has been around for a long time. Physics wants no part of it. As with my comment above, I think it didn't spawn this as much as gave it a new outlet to express itself. Like some other perpetual motion gambits, it's something an isolated crackpot can work on without being outrageously expensive.

They have a 4.2 sigma confidence interval, with more data to analyze, and this is a re-do of a previous experiment.

I think military pilots, and thus many astronauts, tend to be shorter than average. (anecdotally, the pilots and astronauts I’ve met tended to be on the shorter side) Fitting into the cockpit/capsule, and I suspect being shorter might hep you deal with high-g maneuvers.

! Moderator Note Posting to advertise your site is a violation of rule 2.7.

So many people used “literally” when they should have used “figuratively” (e.g. “I literally died!” while remaining alive) that the definition has changed to incorporate that. So while your examples are extreme, and likely meant to be ridiculous, that’s actually how it works. (I could tell you I was having a gay experience until I tripped over a faggot, with the caveat that you should look up the old definitions and not use the modern lexicon)

No, that’s not legitimate, or realistic. The reality is that the meaning of words change over time, and the person who coins a phrase may not be the one who popularizes it, possibly in another context.

Also: sun rises in east

Certainly rehabilitation is not on the table if you’re dead.

But that’s not the sole goal of the justice system. Protecting society, rehabilitation and impacts on the aggrieved (i.e. “closure”) are factors, too.

! Moderator Note Complaining about reputation points is off-topic, as is vague and unsubstantiated criticism of the research process and the “defective vaccination system” (which also runs afoul of the rule on arguing in good faith)

Take it up with them; I don’t disagree. I was answering the question of why the explanations aren’t making the distinction between matter and antimatter. (i.e. “Why are they keep saying "muons decay to electrons"?”)

Because the distinction doesn't matter here. They're talking about muons and electrons as generations of leptons. Sorting out whether it's the matter or antimatter particle is a triviality.

I’ve only seen a reference to the Brookhaven result, and it’s not just the same design, it was the same storage ring, shipped to Fermilab and reassembled. CERN did a different experiment with muons which also hints at new physics. https://home.cern/news/news/physics/intriguing-new-result-lhcb-experiment-cern It could be rotation. The discrepancy is the decay energy with opposite orientation of the magnetic moment. Here’s a simplified explanation https://physics.aps.org/articles/v14/47

The naming isn’t the issue. This is just moving the problem around, but not solving it. You’d need a model that predicts this imbalance, whichever way you label it.