swansont

Schmelzer has been suspended for hijacking/spamming his pet theory all over the forums

Yes, although they will behave differently. The wavelength of a particle is h/p

Yes. If by "trap" you mean in an optical cavity — put the radiation in a cavity so you have a standing wave, it just sits there, but you can't localize where the photon would be. That's true for anything with a wave nature.

Right. It's in a region, but you don't have a specific location, just limits on where it might be found.

The momentum-position version of the HUP tells you that the particle has no definite location.

There are quantum systems behave like that, so we study it. Such as diatomic molecules. The analysis tells us about their energy states, and that informs us on e.g. how photons might interact with them. We study behavior we can measure of a system in a potential well. Position is not an eigenstate. Energy is. (Do you understand what I mean by eigenstate?)

It’s small and can safely be ignored on the macroscopic level.

Nothing literally oscillates. One is solving the problem at the quantum level, and we use the same terminology as the macroscopic problem.

That’s what a wave function is.

I recognize the individual words but this makes no sense. A quantum oscillator is one example of a quantum system described by the Schrödinger equation, but not everything described by it is an oscillator. Huh?

No. The Schrödinger equation for a particle in a box, for example, gives you energy eigenstates. They don’t vary in time, which is why they are called stationary. The particle has no defined motion, and it’s possible to find the particle outside of a well of finite depth. The solution gives probability of where you might find the particle.

LaurieAG has been added owing to recent posts.

That set of goalposts has already been moved.

Because of biology, or because of cultural norms and constraints? Here are six current ones. https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/g28565280/matriarchal-societies-list/ More, if you go into the history books

(emphasis added) There are a number of claims here that you have not shown are true, and basing a discussion on false premises leads to a flawed conclusion.

A recent suspension was announced for "persistently posting above his level of understanding" and I want to clarify that it's not against the rules to be wrong, but it is against the rules to not back up claims. If you're going to assert that the moon is made of cheese, you're going to have to back that up. This requirement is explicitly pointed out in the speculations guidelines. The underlying rules violation is soapboxing: repeated claims without justification for them. Further, making multiple wild assertions not based in any mainstream science can be considered spamming. Both behaviors are unacceptable.

There seems to be only one source, with no detail as to how it was collected and what biases might exist.

Angelo has been banned as a sockpuppet (Menan, Polinski)

Once the air condenses, it releases the energy. If you shift the equilibrium, you are only storing the energy of that amount of water. Plus, you've made the atmosphere more efficient at trapping heat. It's a feedback term. Can you estimate how much energy would be stored for a 1% shift in humidity? I'll bet it's not a lot, comparatively.

You’re assuming the vapor never condenses. Is that resonable?

Why would it? The thermal energy is still around.

How much water do you use each day for cooking? The energy is being absorbed here on the planet, so I don’t see how the heat island effect would be reduced. To reduce albedo the light has to be reflected out to space. Solar thermal would tend to increase absorption.

Thermal benefits from scaling (bigger is better) — you need a certain number of mirrors to efficiently heat your material, and then you need a way to produce electricity, which also benefits from scaling. This is why it's done at the utility scale, not the home scale. Having direct heat is only useful when it's cold. So only a few months of the year in some places.

leapyear has been banned as a sockpuppet (scifimath, physicaldivide, MultiSingularity, cosmicweb, Joseph Lazar, toolbox, pittsburghj0e) and now yearzero as well. Add The-Oracle to the list.

You say you consider elementary particles, and quarks qualify. Protons, however, do not.