swansont

No. A deBroglie wave of a particle with momentum p has a wavelength of h/p. The probability of finding it would be the same over all space. Yes. But the wave function is related to how well you know the velocity (i.e. the momentum), not the approximate value of it.

That’s still not it. The wave part of the duality is the deBroglie wave, which is not the same as the wave function from the Schrödinger equation.

If you squint really hard the proposal resembles the ergodic hypothesis combined with the totalitarian principle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergodic_hypothesis#:~:text=In physics and thermodynamics%2C the,a long period of time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarian_principle

! Moderator Note Boltzmann brain discussion has been split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/131924-boltzmann-brain-split-from-137-the-magic-of-the-fine-structure-constant/

As Eise has hinted, this is not what folks versed in physics call the wave-particle duality.

Ran across this, saying that carbon fiber doesn't have great compressive strength, and repeated dives probably caused defects, making it even worse https://twitter.com/TheMcKenziest/status/1672234182553264128

You don’t have to explain away fringe theory stuff. The fringe theory claimants need to provide evidence. They own the burden of proof. And a fringe theory is never a viable response for an argument, be it mainstream or fringe.

You get an alpha emitter (such as a suitable isotope of Polonium) and a material that emits neutrons (such as Be-9) when struck by an alpha. The products are C-12 and a neutron. A high-activity source would have a short half-life and wouldn’t last long You’d place them such that they came together when you’d set the bomb off; details would depend on the bomb design. IIRC Frederick Forsyth describes this in one of his books (The Fourth Protocol), leaving out some details, of course.

I don’t see an equation “on the right” and I see more than two equations in that link If you’re referring to the Einstein rate equations, that look like dN/dt = BN, please show what time reversal does to these equations The target on the left doesn’t get any photons. Why do you think it gets photons under time reversal?

Did you mean quark?

IIRC Musk has gotten into trouble for not following safety regs for the recent launch that blew up. But there is more oversight, since he’s dependent on federal funding.

One difference is that Musk doesn’t ride in his own rockets. It’s also not clear how “hands on” Musk is; I get the impression that Rush was a little more involved, but it might be a case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. And safety, or lack thereof, is part of the culture of an organization. It flows from the top.

CPT is a set of transforms. x —> -x, q —> -q and t —> -t A photon causes an excitation in an atom would become an excited atom emitting a photon. If you have to add lamp, you don’t even have the same system, so any application of CPT is irrelevant.

Yes, but what does that have to do with CPT symmetry, when the setup isn’t symmetric?

To continue my previous thought, much of their procedure seems to have been “if there’s a problem, we surface” rather than having redundancy, other than multiple ways to surface . But there’s no recovery from loss hull integrity once you’re past a certain depth, be it from fatigue of the carbon fiber or a problem with the viewing port, or a weld, etc.

How does the lamp appear in the problem? Specifically, how do you get it from a time reversal, charge or parity transform?

If you’ve got a separate way to shed ballast, the unlikely loss of the controller would be moot. You surface. You can’t steer, but there isn’t much you’re going to bump into.

Asserted but did not provide anything to support the assertion. The Coast Guard was informed by the Navy about the bang, using their sonar net. https://www.npr.org/2023/06/23/1183976726/titan-titanic-sub-implosion-navy If it turned out that the noise was something other than an implosion, it would not have looked very good, and who was talking about air supplies - the coast guard, or the pundits and consultants, who did not have this information? The testing was an actual dive to to Titanic, and then more dives. What they apparently didn’t do was test the fatigue of their device, other than this event.

Seems to me the time reversal of a photon absorption would be an excited atom emitting a photon. Not stimulated emission.

Then you could get stimulated emission, but there’s no need to apply CPT to get it, and you’re changing the conditions of the experiment, so you’ve removed the existing symmetry - it’s a different experiment. Basic examples of CPT I’ve seen don’t do this. It’s possible an issue here is that AFAIK time-reversal symmetry is not the same thing as the thermodynamic arrow of time; an entropy increase does not violate CPT, even though such a process is not reversible.

There’s nothing to put the target in an excited state. How does stimulated emission happen?

The stimulated de-excitation can happen with the laser causing the excitation. It’s why a two-level system can’t have more than 50% of the atoms in an excited state. And since de-excitation requires that the atom be in an excited state, the situations aren’t the same.

How is this tied to minimum wage being increased?

Color blind doesn’t mean grayscale. “In all animals, including humans, the perception of colour is determined by the presence of cells in the eye called cone photoreceptors. Cats and dogs have two kinds of cones, which are sensitive to blue and green light. This means they have a useful level of colour vision. The level of colour vision in other animals depends on the presence and types of the cones.” https://www.vetwest.com.au/pet-library/can-animals-see-colour/#:~:text=Only one animal cannot see in colour&text=The only animal that has,no cones in its eyes. Also: “The only animal that has been confirmed to see only in black and white is a fish called a Skate. This is because it has no cones in its eyes.”

Opposite to the direction of motion 12 hours earlier. You are aware that the earth rotates, right? Or is that something else you contend? That’s a spectacular failure to understand what is meant by relative. There is, in physics literature, so you’re just making stuff up. Again. If one quantity doubles and the other is cut in half, what happens to their product? Or just increases/decreases by the same factor? (I know math, or using a calculator, is difficult for you, so I’ll tell you the answer: it stays constant. “No experiment is conclusive” is the battle cry of crackpots everywhere. Who never seem to be able to figure out how to properly use the quote function. You can, but of the two of us, only one has a PhD in physics and has been employed as a physicist. No, it’s me expressing how tedious you and your seemingly willful ignorance are. ! Moderator Note Seeing as you are not following the rules of the speculations forum, and the direction not to bring up a closed topic, this is closed. Just repeating your ignorant statements is not how science is conducted