Mordred

Exactly thats an excellent example. Made worse in that there is multiple values changing at each coordinate of the complex field which is composed of embedded fields example different overlapping Hilbert space. Another example being the electromagnetic, Higgs, strong force,weak force overlaps. Each being a seperate field, each with their own values at every coordinate. So if you measure one particular wavefunction you collapse that particular wavefunction without affecting other quantum wavefunctions of the particle.

I was at work so didn't have time (pardon the pun) to give a proper explanation. Lets start with a light beam emitted from say the CMB.. Yes you have a higher density than now. However that doesn't matter. What matters is the spacetime mass distribution at each hyperslice during the lights travel. So the universe at each each moment in time has a uniform and even mass distribution. The lightpath remains straight. Spacetime at each moment is of a uniform distribution. In essence Euclidean flat regardless of the density value. As you track the history of the light beam leading edge this remains true. At no time in the history of the lightbeam leading edge does it encounter a non uniform mass distribution so it never encounters a curvature term to alter its path. Its path always remains straight.

If you ever want irrefutable proof this is incorrect all you need to do is compare the null geodesic Worldlines between the FLRW metric (Einstein field equation equivalence) and the Schwartzchild metric. In the former there is no spacetime curvature of the Worldline. In the latter there is. ( the key is two terms proper time of a metric and coordinate time of a metric.

k thats what I figured I described it by the commutations. However in essence the same

Its a tricky issue, there is numerous models that have some undetectable element. Not counting those where the best we can do is indirect evidence. Indirect is still evidence.

I'm not quite sure myself but the definition I'm familiar with is Von Neumann algebra "non commutative probability space" where as classical probability is commutative and satisfies the axiom if x and y are two real or complex random values then xy and yx are the same random variable.

Your welcome

In the classical system the infinite potential barrier. You are correct no tunnelling. In the QM scenario there is still a probability due to the HUP. The position is uncertain the particle could be on the other side. In essence. The energy is uncertain the particle may have enough energy to tunnel. Whether its described as mounting the crest or fluctuations arising on the other side is in essence equivalent. In essence you will often come across a term called quantum current and even the infinite barrier will have a quantum probability current.

hrrmm tempting, tempting lol

I wouldn't consider a facebook group an authority in Physics. Let alone a judgement of what is mainstream.

Start with the Hamiltonian of the hydrogen atom.

Thanks I will refrain from answering questions here to preserve the test +1 on the testing ground idea

In GR there is a class of solutions the the Einstein field equation called the Newton limit. The lecture notes by Sean Carroll gives a good coverage https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9712019.pdf

lol yeah I was digging up a reference to cover that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_polarization also the Jones calculus is handy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_calculus "in which the arbitrary (scalar or vector) function τ ↦ f ( τ ) {\displaystyle \tau \mapsto f(\tau )} {\displaystyle \tau \mapsto f(\tau )} gives the variation of the wave's amplitude, and the fixed unit" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_wave here is an example of the arbitrary vector or scalar. in the last link. In essence the arbitrary waves function is just some function that gives rise to the variations in amplitude. In this example however you can also have arbitrary direction as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_wave#Arbitrary_directione one the better definition of arbitrary is An arbitrary function simply means that it is a function that you are free to define in any way you want. The simple constraint is that it should be a function when its arbitrary you are free to define it any way you want.

Yes phases matter when the waves are in phase you have constructive interference.

Yeah its a typo good catch...+1 must have had a blonde moment when typing in the latex... I like differentiate better will fix up both. edit:Both fixed also repaired the latex mistake in another line.

It is the assigned values or state of the field at each coordinate that in essence flow. The geometry coordinates doesn't flow. Other than that detail your correct. The flow of water analogy in essence describes Young's double slit interpretation. http://web.mit.edu/viz/EM/visualizations/coursenotes/modules/guide14.pdf

added the details I mentioned to the above.

Yep according to Strange they are usually pink.

Excellent answer +1

If the Universe was orbitting something (assuming the possibility) our universe would be inhomogeneous and anistropic. We would notice a preferred direction in expansion with a higher mass density as you approach the orbitting body. If our own universe is rotating upon itself we would also see a non uniform mass distribution. Our universe however is homogeneous and isotropic which combined has a uniform mass distribution.

Yeah in its simplest form it states that the probability density of finding the particle at a given point is proportional to the square of the magnitude of the particle's wavefunction at that point. However its actually a complex conjugate. A wavefunction is a complex conjugate probability amplitude. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function Here is a good paper covering the two slit experiment with the Born rule applied in terms of degrees of freedom. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP20110100004_79863016.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi5yO2p0ILUAhWIr1QKHXHGDOcQFggeMAE&usg=AFQjCNFaMYu6gR4z1qkC_Lkp3KF0aw5Urw&sig2=JgDkvaMiaNUluyGGAxAVcw

If the destructive interference leads to less than a quanta of action. No detector can detect these fluctuations. Not even an idealized perfect detector. The photgraphic paper (idealized) will only ever record the amplitudes of the excitations in excess of a quanta. Side note photographic paper is insensitive to wavelengths greater than 600 nm. This allows you to work with it under red light. (recall the photon is a packet) a tightly bundled excitation of the field. Now there is with work function associated with any detector. (including your eyes This is called the photelectric work function. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_function Changes in frequency will only affect the kinetic energy not the intensity of light (increasing intensity only increases the number of photons in your light beam.

I am well aware of Diracs plate. I asked for the mathematical details under Corpuscular theory describing the rotations for those bands. QFT agrees with waveparticle duality. The burden of proof is up to you to show there is no waveforms involved in a particle. Your vixra article is not proof. Here are the assumptions under spin statistics for those bands The theory has a Lorentz-invariant Lagrangian. 1)The vacuum is Lorentz-invariant. 2)The particle is a localized excitation. 3)Microscopically, it is not attached to a string or domain wall. 4)The particle is propagating, meaning that it has a finite, not infinite, mass. 5)The particle is a real excitation, meaning that states containing this particle have a positive-definite norm https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin%E2%80%93statistics_theorem Explain particle spin under Corpuscular theory without applying assumptions 1 thru 3.

Now this thread is taking the correct approach. Also stresses the importance of ergonomics and efficiency. +1 on both last two comments. I have to ask the same question. studies are crucial.