Leaderboard

I am not going to watch a 16 minute video that you claim supports your view. The video may be mistaken, or you may be misunderstanding what they say in their alleged support. Q1. No energy needed. The total energy involved remained constant. While in the material the photon is interacting with the material, and this cannot be ignored in considering conservation of energy. Q2. As others have stated, the photon always travels at c. But time is spent interacting (virtually) with the medium. Q3. Nonsensical question. There is no "halfway out." The border is not well-defined at this scale, and you either have a photon or you don't. It's not a scaled-down version of a submerged beach ball rising out of a pool. Q4. The classical picture is a little different, but the notion of light interacting with the medium and consequently slowing down the speed of propagation still holds. It just does so in with the bulk medium, rather than on an individual particle basis. The wave outside of the medium travels at c, the wave inside at c/n. To add to this: it's because the interaction is with a virtual state of the atom in the medium - the photon can't impart energy or momentum to the atom because there is no state to do so with, so the photon must be re-emitted with the same energy and momentum, with none imparted to the atom.

There was no truth in either of the above stories. That it is or is not connected to biological weapons research is not verifiable, and the Wash Post claim that the association is false is not supported by the article. Experts cited clearly doubted the association with weapons but none was in a position to prove their expert opinions. The headline should be unproven and doubtful.

Wow, can you imagine if that were true?! All that meticulous methodology, all that gathered knowledge, for all those centuries, down the drain! Everything we trust reduced to individual "logical beliefs"! A true hell indeed, since nothing could be relied upon. Oh, you must be joking. You scoundrel, you had me going there for a minute.

I've had a passing interest over the years in people claiming Big Pharma blocking 'cheap' or 'natural' cures and, so far, I've seen no justification. They just don't pass peer review. Most of it's answered in your link. Conspiracy-based paranoia is a way for some people to avoid the fact that they are largely responsible for how their life turns out.

I think the first part is spot on. Not so sure about the last sentence. Yes, the macroscopic concepts we are familiar with in everyday life emerge from the underlying quantum reality, in ways we don't fully understand. But I think it would be going a bit too far to say we do not understand the quantum realm "at all". Arguably, we understand it as well as any other area that we have accurate models for. Perhaps it feels like we don't understand it as well because it is less intuitive than some of the other models we have.

Let's try an analogy that might make it easier for the OP. Look at a waveform on a scope. You now have a 2d image, this can be described by a Hermitean space using 2 by 2 matrixes. (Just to include how extensive this analogy applies) What is the position of that waveform? What is its momentum ? What is its size ? Now consider all observable particle states are described by Operators and are wavefunctions.

They all spoke well (I thought Biden started poorly but he recovered well) . The winner depends on if you buy what they are selling. If I had to pick a winner it would be the Democratic Party. The debate was well moderated, and candidates generally respected each other and weren't talking over and interrupting each other as in past debates...and no overt personal attacks. Much better performance by Warren, attacking other's positions without seeming to attack them personally and getting her points across. I wouldn't say she won but this should help her IMO. I would say Bernie did very well. If you want socialism you have to like how he performed, and was as always forthright in his responses. So if you believe the economy won't sputter while he redistributes goods and services in a fairer manner then he won the debate hands down. How do you pay for Health Care for All? It's already being spent, just not evenly or equitably, while profits are being made. Besides...there are unlimited $15/hr government jobs for everyone...even for those in the health care insurance industry that he will end...to fall back on... Klobuchar might have had her best debate yet. Having moderate positions make it harder respond than when you believe in magic...and she still did very well. For me, outside of Yang, she won the debate. Biden still had centre stage...I wondered how it would look with the same responses in say Pete's position, Pete who is now ahead of him after Iowa. Steyer seemed in command at times, though mostly attacking Trump. Yang spoke well. I wish he would focus even more on the positive secondary economic effects of UBI, his freedom dividend. ("Ask not what your $1000 Freedom Dividend can do for you...ask what the Freedom Dividend X 1,000 can do for your community" JCM circa Feb 2020 ) Buttigieg, as usual, spoke very well but I think he lost out on a chance to appeal to Black voters, currently the achilles heal of his support. He struggled with explaining why Black convictions for marijuana possession went up significantly during his tenure as mayor. He seemed to be taken blindside and answered in a way that I don't think he would have if better prepared for it. Warren was asked if his answer was substantial enough (IIRC), and replied "no" but instead of attacking him further made her own points on systemic racism...I think that looked much better for her, and the damage was already done to Pete by the moderator.

Ok. You seem like you’ve got it all figured out. It’s no wonder you hate others so much. I suspect the feelings are mutual