Jump to content

swansont

Moderators
  • Posts

    52584
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    254

Everything posted by swansont

  1. Yes, they would. But they would be tiny differences. The index of refraction for the different frequencies would not be the same, so the delay in parts of the atmosphere would be slightly different (GPS uses this effect to help improve positioning). But, again, the effect would be tiny. (e.g. GPS signals through the ionosphere can be delayed up to about 70 nanoseconds. Using a second frequency with a different delay allows you to calibrate a more precise value)
  2. "Explained in other terms" has to include a quantitative part, though. Science (and physics in particular) doesn't just stop with general statements about effects, you have to say how big they are and what the ramifications are. "Objects go downhill" is a vague prediction, and not very rigorous science. Being able to predict the speed of the object, and make specific statements about the difference of speeds between a sliding and rolling object — which we can do — makes for much more powerful science. So unless you have a model that predicts how quickly the energy would be lost, a hazy prediction about planets getting further apart is not very useful and not worthy of serious consideration.
  3. I am wondering how you can visualize something you can't comprehend. If I can't comprehend a four-dimensional object, how can I visualize it? Doesn't visualization require some kind of comprehension? Otherwise, your visualization is going to be of something else.
  4. The data for the other planets is available via your friend Google.
  5. One of my bosses invokes Murphy a lot. My colleagues are in a 24/7/366 operations business, and thinking about Murphy's Law helps change the mindset from "if something goes wrong" to "when something goes wrong" because things will eventually go wrong. Power goes out, equipment breaks, people make mistakes, etc. So that leads you away from doing maintenance or installing patches on a Friday afternoon, for example. Because you don't want to be dealing with an unanticipated problem that you inadvertently caused on a Friday afternoon.
  6. Sea ice floats not only because seawater is more dense than fresh water, but also because ice is less dense than water for fresh water — it expands by around 10% when it becomes ice. Ice floats better in seawater — more of it protrudes — because of the higher density of the water. It doesn't look like you are accounting for the reduction in volume of the water when the ice melts. If you have 1 kg of water, it has a volume of 1L. 1 kg of ice will displace 1L of water, but the ice will take up a volume of around 1.1 L. If this is in a pool of 9L of fresh water, then the water line will be at the 10L mark, and that won't move as the ice melts. (I'm ignoring changes due to temperature, which is a separate effect) What you need to do is apply that to a pool of salt water, using the density of salt water, which for the ocean surface is 2-3% higher than fresh water. A wrinkle in that is the change in salinity, but that will be a much smaller effect in the oceans than in the example I described, because the ratio of ice to water is markedly different.
  7. A problem here is that in many cases, "Think outside the box" is merely shorthand for not being burdened by the restrictions of well-established science. IOW, not having your idea reflect (or be reflected by) reality, which is one thing that distinguishes science from daydreaming.
  8. But as I stated, the smallest distance we can measure is a technical limitation, so that's not something you can use to define a standard. It will be different depending on the equipment you use, and the people doing the experiment.
  9. No, it says if something can go wrong, it will. That's has very different implications. As Strange noted, your version is trivially true. And as others have noted, it's not like this is a law of nature. It's an aphorism, a principle, a pithy observation.
  10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation "If the axis passes through the body's center of mass, the body is said to rotate upon itself, or spin. A rotation about an external point, e.g. the Earth about the Sun, is called a revolution" Words have meanings. Don't blame others because you were imprecise in your terminology. We are not mind readers.
  11. No, it's been claimed that the systems do not behave that way. Deliberately botching a detector design to give bad results is not the same thing. "The detectors are rectangular holes that consider the pin detected if the pin passes through the hole without touching the edge. The vertical dimension of the hole is 1.5 times the length of the pin. The horizontal dimension is 0.99 times the length of the pin." So if the detector is vertical and the pin is at 45 degrees to that, what happens? You detect it as vertical, even though it's not. All you've done is design a horrible detector. The photon detected with vertical polarization is actually vertically polarized. What you've done is just an iota short of simply hardwiring perfect correlation into the detectors. The state of the particles is not independent. Moving the angle of the second detector re-defines what you would mean by zero for an entangled system. I don't think you are appreciating the details of the physics involved. You appear to be thinking about this classically.
  12. You said spin in the OP. That's what spinning implies — motion about an axis for an object that incorporates the axis.
  13. There's no functional difference between the cases. It's just an angle difference. What part of not depending on the details of the detector did you not understand? The polarization explanation above did not depend on any material details of the detector. Having this rest on the detector design means the issue is with the detector, not the physics. Present an explanation that doesn't depend on how the detector actually works.
  14. I said nothing about alignment. The additional force is due to E/c^2. It will be very small - celestial bodies have limits to how fast they can rotate and stay together.
  15. One way that spinning could exert an additional force is that the spinning represents energy, and more energy means a greater effect of gravity. The is a relativistic effect, not a classical one.
  16. This just appears to be word salad, throwing around terminology with, at best, some circular references. It doesn't appear to mean anything. We can solve for time-independent states in QM. An atom in the ground state, for instance, will remain in the ground state. This can be described without reference to position, so all three spatial dimensions and time are removed from the description. And yet, atoms exist. Short version of this is that if you're going to be discussion QM, you need to go and learn a bit about QM. Actual science learning, not pop-science.
  17. So? We're talking about the theory, not the physical manifestation of the experiment. And nobody has brought up antimatter in this thread except you, so how is it that we're talking about it?
  18. Length is a quantum state of matter? Time is a quantum state of matter? They are all entangled? How can that be? Why is it so hard to create entangled pairs of particles if everything is already entangled?
  19. I count myself as one of the people that were more disappointed by ascribing the force to biology than by the introduction of Jar-Jar Binks.
  20. The first hole to fix is explaining what you mean by dimension, and translating the above statement, because it sounds very Deepak Chopra-ish.
  21. Perhaps it implies you are outside in an urban or suburban environment where this kind of transit exists. How does that point to any kind of personality trait? Why would you expect that? What kind of supporting evidence can you provide that this is the case? I typically use a car or bus twice a day, if not more. It indicates I need to get to work and back, and run errands. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
  22. In the context of a game or story, it's far more important to have consistent rules than to have mechanisms that tie into the real world.
  23. Your detector details are irrelevant. We're talking about the underlying physics, so the detection is assumed to be perfect. Why will a perfect detector of bowling pin orientation measure the wrong spin the fraction of time you claim it will?
  24. As soon as you link to experiment you were talking about, since I am unfamiliar with the details.I didn't need a link confirming the stuff I mentioned. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
  25. The Bell discussion does not detail the detection method; IOW the detection is assumed to have no error. Your example does not appear to me to agree with that condition.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.