joigus

Well, maybe it's expected, but you don't seem to expect it: Don't you see the inconsistency? You've got two independent sources of magnetic field here, and nobody's talking about "own magnetic field." Well, only you are.

Will you just read what I wrote? What's this, an internet forum version of candid camera?

I'm not talking about the electron's magnetic field. I'm talking about your increasing electric field. You cannot have ANY increasing electric field without it generating a magnetic field wrapped around its field lines. Do you understand? If you don't, this conversation will become pointless very quickly. Of course an electron acts on itself when it radiates; that's called radiation reaction. But that's not what I'm talking about here. Even in the absence of a magnet, and in the absence of self-interactions, your increasing electric field will generate other magnetic field lines around the electron's velocity, and the electron will spiral out of its initial direction. When I have more time, maybe I can draw a picture for you. You must identify all the field sources to account for all the E and B fields. Then there is your external magnet. That will further complicate the motion. It's got nothing to do with electron's self-interaction. You would have to accelerate the electron considerably before you had any radiation reaction (self-interaction) on the electron.

You can keep sustain a constant magnetic field from an external magnet, but if you set up an increasing electric field, it will generate an additional increasing magnetic field of its own. The rate of change of the electric field's flux through a surface giving you the circulation of the magnetic field around the surface's contour. If you set up the electric field's flux to increase linearly with time, you can arrange for the additional magnetic circulation to be constant.

Who are 'they'? How many of 'them' are there? Where are 'they' and what do 'they' want? Can I be one of 'them'? Who chose 'them'? Who chose those who chose 'them'? Do 'they' speak to you? Do 'they' speak to each other? So many questions... Let's not. Let's be reasonable and understand how things happen.

A varying electric field will induce a varying magnetic field, so no, you can't have an increasing electric field with constant magnetic field.

Do you have a point? Do you have a question? What does this have to do with quantum theory? The only thing I have understood is plain wrong: The distribution of probability of an electron hitting a screen can be agreed upon confirmed by all observers.

Many, or even infinitely many, possibilities is not the same as "anything can happen". Physics has room for unpredictability and very stringent constraints at the same time. Nothing that we know can, ie., violate local conservation principles. Quantum laws do satisfy local conservation of probability, for example. Which translates in the fact that nothing macroscopic, nothing with global charge or mass, etc., can just "materialize" at a point, unless a flux of probability has been driven there, by a process which must, in turn, be physical, and satisfy the same constrictions. Nothing we know violates Lorentz invariance either. Quantum mechanics tells you, rather, that Lorentz invariance has to be taken with a grain of salt, and precisely how little salt that must be (HUP). Same for conservation laws. There are no violations of these principles, there is a very strict room for ambiguity in their application. The famous h bar constant is involved in how much "violation" is acceptable. Murray Gell-Mann summarized it very well with his phrase "anything that can happen will happen". But for something to happen, it must be possible to happen.

Cherry-picking, are we? You seem to have missed these other things I said: What time in life is the afterlife that you experience at death, you say? And how do you know anything about the perception of death? What evidence do you have that perception of time is discrete? It looks continuous to me. Or, as @md65536 points out: What is a "heavenly experience"? Actually, I firmly believe that at the moment of death there is no heavenly anything. There is only the universal experience of absolute jerkiness. It's neither hell nor heaven. It lasts somewhere between 24 and 48 hours. And after that, there is three thousand eons of doubt, ending in an eternity of definite moronity. How do you like that? Now, tell me that's not at least as plausible as what you're saying. You have an impressive ability to sidestep every major argument people give you and concentrate really hard on the most irrelevant accessories and adornments. No wonder you can prove anything to yourself. How do you define "heavenly"? My suggested picture of the afterlife I find every bit as compelling as yours.

An argument can be flawed; an analogy can't. An analogy can bee too far fetched, or maybe inadequate to illustrate the property it's meant to address. Analogies by definition incorporate only certain features. They are imprecise by construction. Otherwise they wouldn't be analogies; they would be descriptions, syllogisms, etc. Analogy: a comparison of one thing with another thing that has similar features; a feature that is similar. (Oxford) The discourse that you're quoting really is flawed. It doesn't take much to find inconsistencies or unexamined assumptions. For example: What time in life is the afterlife that you experience at death, you say? And how do you know anything about the perception of death? What evidence do you have that perception of time is discrete? It looks continuous to me. Or, as @md65536 points out: What is a "heavenly experience"? Actually, I firmly believe that at the moment of death there is no heavenly anything. There is only the universal experience of absolute jerkiness. It's neither hell nor heaven. It lasts somewhere between 24 and 48 hours. And after that, there is three thousand eons of doubt, ending in an eternity of definite moronity. How do you like that? Now, tell me that's not at least as plausible as what you're saying.

OK. I've watched the video, and it's definitely here where you're getting confused: The described situation of two peaks is about one electron, not about two electrons. You can add two, three, etc. waves each representing the probability amplitude for one among two, three, etc., different incompatible outcomes of an experiment for one particle.

Before Planckian scales are reached, the theory must be changed. Whatever the theory is, point-like object will have no place in it. That much I can say.

I do have a picture of Hell for scientists. It consists of spending all eternity proving every silliest craziest hallucinatory idea wrong. And it's here. I don't know about Heaven, but Hell is nothing like what I expected it to be.

Nothing to solve, as no problem has been posed.

Leonardo was a privileged kid, so I hardly think that would have been the case. I think Leonardo was thinking of immortality and eternity, I'm sure. Only rich people or very special people (like Van Gogh) can afford that. When art becomes supreme the artist is not thinking about profit. Going back to @MigL's argument about Columbus; his trip to Europe was not meant as a replica of Columbus'. A replica is an attempt to clone the thing. There is an extra merit to that. If you went to Guanahani today aboard a caravel, that would be more like it.

There's also work by geometers Michael Atiyah, Isidore Singer, and others which could provide some insights. More topology than local geometry, though. They studied the Dirac equation, harmonic spinors, and such. Atiyah's words are not very encouraging. He said 'I don't know what a spinor is.' And he was a geometer extraordinaire. What's most confusing to me is that the connection in GR has to do with infinitesimally shifting points. But the connection for spinors shifts field identities, not points. I'm assuming that for r-rank spinors it's a tensor product version of the same thing. I don't know what your goal is, but I would keep it as simple as possible. 1-rank spinors, take everything to a Weyl spinor language, and see if I can make sense of connections, metrics, etc. I don't even know if I'm being remotely helpful. As a final reflection, I am of the idea that physicists must change the point of view from the geometer's (God's view: you're given the manifold; you can see all) to the cartographer (you're mapping the territory locally).

That is a very interesting question. Not that I can be of any great help, but if I wanted to go in that direction I would study very deeply 2-spinor formulation of GR and from there try to relate both languages through torsion perhaps. I assume you're talking about the Dirac equation and its higher-order spinor counterparts without 2nd-quantisation.

When you rotate an object, the way it behaves is not necessarily the way ordinary things rotate. The particular model an object follows when rotating is called "representation of the rotation group". A spin 1/2 particle, when rotating, carries what's called a spinor representation of O(3). There can be several intuitive ways to picture this, but in the end it's an abstract property. The one I like best is this Balinese traditional dance. Sorry I wasn't able to find a more dexterous dancer: Spin 3/2 (Rarita-Schwinger) particles are believed not to be fundamental. In fact, there are arguments in QFT for particles of spin other than 0, 1/2, 1 or 2 not to exist. A hypothetical spin 3/2 particle would go back to its original state if rotated an angle of 4pi/3.

Nothing to do with politics: Linguistics, genetics, fossil record, material culture... Most everything checks. Absolutely. Only thing I would phrase differently "ridicule your idea for it".

I really want to take a look at the Kasevich experiment that you mentioned. Does it have to do with gravitation? He's got some experiments that involved gravitation... Well. Maybe there are good reasons to say that as a way of wording the very surprising fact that the energy-momentum of the whole thing really is split. Maybe even the charge density. I wouldn't be shocked if that were so. Detection is a different matter, though. I'm afraid. About that we seem to agree. Thank you for the really valuable info. I'm done for the day, I'm afraid. At least with difficult topics.

I haven't watched the video yet. Thanks for the clarification. I'll follow your pointers ASAP.

Those are very different scales of curvature we're talking about. One of them is controlled by c (the speed of light in vacuum) as compared to the gravitational potential, and c is a very high-value constant in human terms. The other is controlled by the average radius of the Earth (as compared to linear displacements on its surface), which is the order of thousand of Kms, so it's much easier to detect, really. That's why the curvature of the Earth was discovered many hundreds of years ago and the curvature of photon's trajectories came much much later.

The notion of curvature in Einstein's GR is intrinsic, so you would detect it by moving on it without aid from any external projection. You walk around trying to move as straight at possible and you get back to the same point? => It is curved. You walk around along two different perpendicular paths in reverse order and you end up in different points? Example 10º north, then 10º east vs 10º east then 10º north. => different end points => It is curved. Curvature is an intrinsic property.

Leonardo.

The concept of entropy I'm familiar with is itself an average on the particle or state index (sum to all microscopic entities), and does not depend on time or space (sum or integral to all positions). I've sometimes heard the words "local entropy production" but I've always found them confusing. It sounds to me like you're talking about fluctuations, but I don't see anything non-local in that either. Maybe I'm not understanding the problem either. I'm also aware that you know much more about kinetics than I do.