swansont

Moderator NoteAs has been explained before, discussion must take place here. Making a thread just to post a link elsewhere is against the rules.

Putting this in speculations (as it’s not science news) while we await clarification.

She’s good friends with OTTO. And wow, her mom likes to TOOT.

That’s not the argument (or the only one), and I don’t see how one vote in 170 years is an endorsement of your plan. Governments make a lot more decisions than that.

Fully developing the skills requires the mature brain, but it’s not automatic; you still have to learn and practice. Same for motor skills — you’re not all that coordinated as a child, but being physically mature doesn’t mean you are suddenly great at sports without practicing.

What matter is length made of? Time? The EM field isn’t a substance, either. Any way to test this?

Yes. The point you made and I responded to was about being critical. “The brain finishes developing and maturing in the mid-to-late 20s. The part of the brain behind the forehead, called the prefrontal cortex, is one of the last parts to mature. This area is responsible for skills like planning, prioritizing, and making good decisions.” https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-teen-brain-7-things-to-know

I think that skill has to wait for brain development to catch up.

One might think that a phone number showing up more than once in a post would qualify as possible spam.

We don’t see accounts that fail to get registered for whatever reason. If that info is available, it would be for an Admin They’re getting through, but as Ghideon pointed out, I think I figured out the scam The phone numbers are bogus, AFAICT, so they’ll likely try and get your credit card or banking info.

Agree. You have to give them opportunity and encouragement but not force it, and try to avoid having anything negative associated with the experience. I think reading to them and then letting them read when they learn how, opens a lot of doors to curiosity and wanting to learn new things. Also spending the time when they do show curiosity.

I canceled my WaPo subscription last fall after the Bezos interference in the presidential endorsement and change in their “direction” It was a buyout; people still have to make a living. And we don’t know what was going on behind the scenes. I don’t think you offer buyouts unless you’ve committed to reducing headcount

Or if two accounts are registered from the same IP address within 24 hours. It’s the cheese dust getting all over the keyboard and into the cracks. (I use chopsticks on the occasions I eat Jax/Cheetos. Not kidding. Saw it on Criminal Minds last year. Genius.)

Apparently not.

It’s got to be a system where it makes sense to apply QM to it, i.e express a wave function and apply an operator.

The “Your substrate model” also suggests it was written by someone/thing else. And no citations with links.

I don’t know what that means.

Moderator NoteMeaning it’s not ready to be shared here

No, but there have been requests to take this action; you’re probably not the only person reading this.

Moderator NoteYou can come back to this when you’ve developed this to the point where it complies with our rules about testable predictions and having evidence to support it.

You’re grasping at straws. Gravitational lensing isn’t localized like this.

Systems can have an infinite number of eigenstates. It depends on the system. The energy states of the hydrogen atom, for instance, has an infinite number of levels. But a simpler finite square well has a finite number. No, to say “due to entanglement” gets cause and effect backwards. Entanglement is a two-particle situation. You can describe superposition in a single system.

In light of the wave of novel ideas we’re getting, most likely fueled by AI, I think I/we have to jump in more quickly to demand specific predictions/falsifiability and math where appropriate. We’re getting walls o’ text that are pretty much all blather and responses are more of the same.

Is that interference? I mean, we’re talking physics here, so one has a reasonable expectation of using proper terminology, especially as interference is discussed elsewhere, and other parts of the discussion speak of collisions with another atom causing emission, which is not required

Moderator NoteTranslation issues aside, there’s no math here, and we require more rigor than hand-wavy explanations. We need the ability to make specific predictions and compare them with experiment/observation. The section on light generation is nonsense, and “single atom cannot produce light without external interference” can’t be reconciled with spontaneous emission, which is a well-established phenomenon. So: give us a mathematical model, or this gets closed.