geordief

Louie Louie as performed by the Kingsmen https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/jan/23/louie-louie-ultimate-rock-rebel-anthem

Did the results of the tests justify his prior interpretation?(if that is a sensible question)

Would I be right to guess that most instances of the former lead to a QM development because the tests results run counter to what the interpretation suggested?

Is there a good book for the layman that describes the historical steps that came in the development of QM Did any of the researchers rely on their interpretation of what was "actually " happening or was it just a case of accumulating observations and finding models to predict behaviour as a result?

Just a throwaway observation that the line in the (very great) song can be interpreted to be saying that apparent knowledge of a situation is a mirage and that the meaning lies further down the road One of my favourite songs and I used this thread to shoehorn it into the public arena since I do see a parallel of sorts(not scientific admittedly)😉

"To understand you know too soon" "It's all right Ma" B.D. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_Alright,_Ma_(I'm_Only_Bleeding)

The upgrade to our local road was held up by objections to it on the grounds that these were populations in danger of extinction. I am not sure what the outcome was .Perhaps the route was diverted or abandoned.I am trying to find out . At the time these objections were held up to ridicule. I can't say how important an issue this is as we are in the middle of a mass extinction . Is the fate of the freshwater mussel especially important in that context?

Thanks @Mordred and @Genady Time for my bed😀

I thought that as we went back in time that particles like protons were torn apart and only existed as their constituent parts and at enormously high energies

Seems to me like @Mordred is saying that no matter is created either in the inflationary or in the expansionary period.(so I assume that as we "roll back" to a smaller and denser universe the particles just get smaller and more energetic. Anyway ,if it is the case that the creation of matter **is not what distinguishes the expansionary/inflationary models from "my " scenario where the protons repel each other,what is /are the differences? Is my scenario (just) an explosion? ,Would it still be an explosion if done with particles that were of a comparable size to those in the ecpandionary-/inflationary period?(ie not with protons but with more primitive particles) **it doesn't happen in any scenario

Are you referring to the ongoing expansion of the universe?(at first I understood you to be referring to the expansion of my system of protons-in the event that their configuration does not lead to a gravitational collapse which I had not thought about in the OP) If that is indeed what you are saying ,does this also apply to the inflationary period? I was under the impression that the universe may have begun with a quantum fluctuation where the amount of matter was initially very small If so ,wouldn't the inflationary period have created matter so long as the inflation continued (I hope that that is something like the model but I have not studied this at all and am just repeating / (mis?)interpreting things I think I have heard in passing)

Well how would you tell the difference between the two situations? Aren't distances between objects increasing in the same way? Is "my"scenario that of an explosion rather than isotropic expansion? Does matter have to be continuously created for an isotropic expansion (or inflation?) to occur?

I am familiar with the idea that as the universe expands ,then space expands (as per that the distance between non gravitationally bound objects such as galaxies) in an isotropic(if that is the correct term) way. I wondered if there might be any parallel between that behaviour and the kind of scenario I was presenting. Would these "ionized hydrogen atoms" create space in the same way as in the expansion of the universe model?

A group of protons that have been corralled together to the exclusion of other particles? Would they repel each other and would the group fly apart so that the volume of space they were in expanded? If that didn't happen with protons could it work with other quantum objects(I suppose I was thinking of quantum particles,with only one kind such as a proton for example ) As for why they might repel each other I don't know if they would** but don't like charges repel and don't protons carry a charge?) **my scientific education level is pretty low

Suppose we find a region in space without (or practically without) fields and we introduce a system of quantum objects which subsequently fly apart due to their mutual repulsion ( would protons behave like that?) Would the space between the objects that made up the system be "new space" and would there be a new gravitational field extending throughout it?

So we can talk about curved 3d space or curved 4d spacetime? They are different models..... I was only familiar with the concept of curved 4d spacetime. Could you perhaps explain(or give me a pointer) how one would measure a curvature in 3d space .** I think I understand the principle of curvature in 4d spacetime. **I suppose it must refer to the surface of a sphere?

You can have gravity in flat space?(apologies for naivety or misunderstanding)

A comment in the ongoing "Nature of Time" thread made me wonder what gravity would look like if the Galilean version of Relativity was correct I have seen the animations depicting Galilean spacetime diagrams and wonder whether or not they can be extrapolated to a model of gravity in a similar way to how AE moved on to GR from Special Relativity. Just to say,I am not attempting to attach any credence to Galilean Relativity. I just wonder if that model might be stretched to incorporate a kind of Galilean General Relativity and what "Galiliean Gravity" might look like.

A friend used to carry a pet mouse in his pocket.. When I once worked in a fish factory we used to fill the freezer storage room at the end of the day and my fellow workers included me in their ongoing game of locking each other in. I didn't take the joke one bit well and I don't remember it happening again.

If a muon is modeled** as a perturbation in its field,does this perturbation have a frequency? Could that (if it exists and is as I dimly imagine it) be considered as a kind of internal mechanism even it is unchanging ? (A bit like the standing waves or seiches presently being discussed over the Great Lakes in Canada) ** in QFT

Ah,now I think I understand Markus' point From the muon's perspective no time passes ? The decay is spontaneous and randomly timed from an observer's frame?

They don't lose a small amount of mass every time they decay? Does the mass of the muon somehow remain the same even though it is continuously losing mass to the environment? (if indeed it is) Is it because the mass is relativistic?

What happens when muons decay?Do they not lose mass with each particle they emit? If so ,is that not change?

But it is only noticeable/quantifiable under those circumstances** isn't it?(even though it does occur at any relative speed or in the slightest gravitational field) **ie at relative speeds and in very strong gravitational fields,

Do you have radioactive decay in mind? Any other examples? Would it be useful to define "change" and how it is quantified? Is it another way of saying "entropy"? Unless they were snowed under? Does that just happen when frames move at relativistic speeds wrt each other or in intense gravitational fields?