swansont

Put another way, the evidence has to be as solid as for any other phenomenon. You don’t get to lower the bar just because you want it to be true.

Can you confirm what you mean by “real” That it physically exists, or that it is not illusory? A mirage is real in the former sense (there’s a physical phenomenon), but not in the latter (the object you see isn’t actually what or where you think it is). Other things are concepts, so they are not real in the former sense - a hole, for example - but the lack of material is not an illusion. You seem to be advocating both that the wave function is a physical object (a real phenomenon), and that the collapse is not an illusion. Do you have evidence that the wave function physically exists?

This is hardly a defense. Belief of this sort has no place in the discussion.

! Moderator Note Well, that’s potentially a problem, because we discuss accepted, mainstream science, and “purposal” (sic) evolution is not accepted, mainstream science. ! Moderator Note If you want to discuss this, you need to do so in speculations. But you need to support your conjecture with evidence

The “throw everything at the wall and see if something sticks” approach does not enhance credibility. Ever heard the story of the boy who cried wolf?

! Moderator Note This discussion was split into its own thread https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/131819-wave-function-collapse-split-from-informational-diode/

! Moderator Note From rule 2.7 We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it Why wouldn’t charged particles, subject to the electromagnetic force, be affected by a “positive electric field”? What is the charge of a ryton?

Wait, what? The length of the rod is not a fixed length in “classical” physics? This is all irrelevant. Ah, but it can. In your mind, but not in actuality/ But you have not actually presented the distance traveled. That’s the key here. Einstein’s equation gives the same result, but there is a little algebra involved in arriving there. For simplicity, the elapsed time will simply be t, and the length of the rod r For the co-propagating case, Einstein’s equation is t = r/c-v The rod moves at v, so in the time t it has moved a distance of vt So the light has to travel d = r + vt We already know that d = ct, so r + vt = ct r = ct-vt = t(c-v) Thus t = r/c-v, which is Einstein’s equation. So Einstein’s equation uses distance traveled/velocity and is correct. It is left as an exercise to do the reflected case No. It’s becoming clear that the math is confounding you. The good news is that this is no longer a measurement. The speed of light is a defined quantity. And physicists rarely use miles. We use SI units.

The next post included their technical challenge. Correct. If we used distance traveled, the equation would be t=d/c That’s the equation Einstein gave in section 2, c=d/t, rearranged to solve for t But since the rod moves, the distance traveled is greater than rAB when co-propagating, and less when counter-propagating

It’s clear to me (and others) that the equation is correct, so just asserting that it’s wrong is meaningless. You’ve been asked for a derivation of the “correct” equation. Where is it? You just stated the it was, in your previous post. Pick one answer, please. Is c a constant, or not, in “classical” physics? The motion of the rod is accounted for in the equation. That’s why we have c+v and c-v terms. v is the speed of the rod, hence at accounts for motion. But at least you now admit we are measuring time, and not distance. The v term, as I’ve mentioned. If the rod isn’t moving, v is zero. The numerator is simply the length of the rod. It’s not the distance the light travels, as measured in the rest frame. That’s accounted for with the c+v and c-v terms. But since the equations is for time, the distance the light travels isn’t explicitly stated. You can find it by multiplying the time by c, since d=ct

That never happened in this thread. The only mention of being banned is where Mordred explained that it only happens for rules violations. Since the premise of this is untrue, this is moot. Back this up. There would be no need for it to be a postulate in relativity if it was the case. I have no idea what “origin of the measurement” is supposed to mean. And what does this have to do with anything under discussion? You’re tap-dancing again. Stick to the issues that have been raised, and which you’ve not addressed, like the”correct” equation for the time difference, to replace the one Einstein gives.

Constancy of the speed of light is not part of what you are calling “classical physics” It was assumed that the light speed would be added to the speed of the source.

If it’s sold in a country that regulates EM emissions/interference, yes.

Laws in physics tend to be top-level, and also when big-picture concepts were being discovered - Newton’s laws of motion and of gravitation, laws of thermodynamics and ideal gas laws, Coulomb’s and Gauss’s laws in E&M, Ohm’s laws in circuits. The naming of laws petered out as people got more into the weeds and fields got more specialized.

Since it’s not ionizing radiation, the damage would be from heating tissue up (unless someone has found some was there is a resonant interaction at the associated frequency that impacts chemical reactions). The power levels of things like bluetooth and wi-fi are lower than levels that cause damage. There are also regulating bodies in many countries that prevent the sale of “poorly made” devices

Wave function collapse is part of the Copenhagen interpretation and don’t appear in other interpretations. So no, it’s not real. It’s a concept to help understand QM, like all elements of these interpretations.

! Moderator Note The recognized common language of science is English, which is used on this site. If you can translate your post, you may open a new thread.

They say impression, not depression. No impact crater, just a crop circle. And nobody’s seen the video they allegedly shot. The impression diameter is about the same size as that van in the lower left, so we have the scale. Several ~10’ tall beings had to fit in there, along with propulsion, life support, etc. The craft crashed, but they were able to take off minutes later, even though the crew were off scaring the locals.

“Newton's first and second laws of mechanics were known and proposed in separate ways by Galileo, Hooke and Huygens before Newton did in his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Newton owns the discovery of only the third one” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_examples_of_Stigler's_law No entry for Kepler’s laws, though. But there are a lot of entries overall.

Or who popularized them. It’s not uncommon to find someone else got there first. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler's_law_of_eponymy

Yes The measurement of time comes at the end of section 2. He starts with definitions. The only equations I see are where he defines velocity and where he gives the time difference for light travel with and against the direction of motion. Do you see another equation in section 2? The whole point of this example is that you don’t get a ”sensible” result! The contemporary physics say the times should be equal, and with a constant c they won’t be. Or you’re just measuring time, which is not surprising, as he talks of clocks not being synchronous. Which means he’s comparing times. You can convert that to a length because d = ct Sure he does. “rAB denotes the length of the moving rod” It immediately follows the time difference equation You’re wrong in claiming that this is a flaw. Einstein says the times will disagree, and you confirmed it. Congratulations! Why not? What is the valid equation? Please derive it

That’s not what he showed in section 2. He showed that the observers would disagree on the time it took for the light to travel the length of the rod and back, and conclude that clocks on the rod ends are not synchronous. I don’t see how your example rebuts this.

carlosfan87 has been banned as a sockpuppet of gamer87 and mariob87

A photon causing an excitation of an atom is destroyed - it no longer exists - so it can’t be entangled.

! Moderator Note …and we’re done here