swansont

What is the equation for which this is a solution? How is it that 0 represents an attractive force? In QM it represents no coupling between the states

Agree. Peer review would not catch a reasonably well-executed fraud, because the description of the method would be acceptable, and the data would support the conclusion. It would look like good science. Peer review might not catch plagiarism, either.

Yes, we do. We also know that the frequency shifts in the presence of electric and magnetic fields. We also know why these shifts occur. And what is the source of this equation? (e.g. a textbook, or journal article) Because that's not time dilation.

That’s why we take great pains to make sure such perturbing effects are minimized. IOW, this is taken into account. (to call it fake time dilation is to admit that one doesn’t understand time dilation)

The evidence itself would be a fact, but the theoretical framework that incorporates it is not. One might posit a model of motion that depends on invisible fairies. That's not factual, even though a ball dropping a certain distance in a certain amount of time is an experimental fact. Of that I have no doubt.

We already know E=mc^2, so this is nothing new, and "when the wave function collapses at the edge of space-time" , "energy will be inverted in direction" and "sending a CBMR back into the space-time reference frame" is word salad. And a second course. Wanting science at a science discussion site. The very idea!

If there isn't any measurable effect, then time changing doesn't matter - there is no effect. I will borrow and analogy I've read elsewhere: if you propose that there is a massless invisible gorilla in the room, and there are no gorilla effects that can be detected, then your proposition is not a scientific one. It's meaningless. What people investigate is whether dimensionless constants change over time, such as the fine structure constant. And the limit on how much that might have changed is quite small (a part in 10^17 per year as an upper bound)

Some fissions of heavy nuclei will release only one neutron. In general you will not find heavy nuclei that release only one neutron, on average, because they have a large neutron/proton ratio, so the fission fragments are very neutron-rich, so they are highly unstable and shedding the extra neutrons is energetically favorable. Sometimes the neutron emission is immediate, and often you get the lowering of the N/Z ratio via beta decay afterwards. To get only the one neutron out you would need to fission a much lighter nucleus (with a lower N/Z ratio), and that would require a lot of energy to be added.

They aren't, actually, when one gets down to the brass tacks. It's a subtlety that few people care about, but I am one of them. Frequency standards measure a frequency, and can be used as a clock, of sorts, but they are more like a stopwatch, measuring a time interval. Many of them get turned off (often for months at a time), and when they are off you aren't keeping track of the time, so they can't be considered clocks by themselves. Most people just call them clocks, though, because the distinction isn't important to them. The same people (generally) refer to THE atomic clock, as if there is only one, rather than many clocks that make up a master clock that keeps track of the time in the larger countries. (There are undoubtedly some countries that have just one atomic clock contributing to the BIPM) The clocks that I have helped build do not measure a frequency (and most do not use cesium). You can calibrate them with a cesium frequency standard so you know the length of a second. But they run continuously, so you can keep track of the time. That's why the second is defined at the geoid, and in the absence of any other perturbing effects. You make corrections for the elevation of the clock.

! Moderator Note First rule of the speculations section: Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure. I see nothing here that is testable or constitutes evidence. There is no measurement that is suggested. Your diagrams convey far less information than you think they do.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. You can brag about how good it is, but at some point we need to have the pudding. How does one test your ideas? What confirmable predictions does it make?

Yes, and we don’t know which state it’s in once entangled That’s not the point in dispute. Before the measurement the spin is undetermined, so to say it changed (“particle A must change its identity”) has no meaning. It’s not a model, it’s an analogy, and one that (when properly presented) acknowledges that the indeterminate state aspect is not covered by it.

Point 1: if you went to church, you might have a passing familiarity with the Bible. (I haven’t been in literally decades, and yet I know there are passages talking about spiritual rebirth. Googling them isn’t difficult). Try and be minimally informed. Otherwise it just has the appearance of bashing religion. Manufactured outrage.

Really? I’ve always understood it to be a spiritual thing, because that’s how it’s presented. Do you have any evidence that people are under the impression that they will be resurrected, when they aren’t actually dead? I disagree. You could look at the Bible itself and see what it actually says. Is that somehow unreasonable? Like John 3. https://web.mit.edu/jywang/www/cef/Bible/NIV/NIV_Bible/JOHN+3.html It’s pretty clear it’s referring to something spiritual, and explicitly denies that it’s physical.

! Moderator Note You posted a picture, without any scientific basis why the setup should do anything. Word salad isn’t science. Don’t waste any more of our time on this

! Moderator Note The issue is what you can demonstrate. You need an actual model and ways to test it. The rules require it.

A doesn’t “change” its identity, since it doesn’t have one in the first place. Its spin is not determined until the measurement

Decay is a spontaneous reaction, and you are describing an induced reaction or a scattering reaction Fission is one possibility; thermal neutron-induced fission of U-235 releases 2.43 neutrons on average, so one would expect some fraction of the fissions to release just one neutron. For the scatter, a change into a different atom requires the ejection of a proton in addition to the neutron. A possible candidate would be something that undergoes beta+ decay, and the scatter excites the nucleus, which then decays more readily from the excited state.

No, not me, and it’s singlet (as opposed to triplet) Better is in the eye of the beholder. If you look at the wave function, it’s a superposition of the two states (|ud>-|du>)/sqrt(2)) so there’s nothing wrong with saying that.

In a limited fashion. You can send a clock signal into a long optical fiber and there will be a time delay which you can compare with the current output of the clock.

! Moderator Note Responses in science threads need to be mainstream science, and also relevant to the discussion

Is it possible to measure Hawking radiation? Yes. https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.6612 (the journal version is paywalled) Not sure why you have to be at the event horizon to do this; that’s an unreasonable restriction, as is requiring that one be at the edge of the observable universe.

You’re the one pushing non-constant time. If you have no way to test it, then it can’t have any measurable effect. Same is true for comparing a clock with itself.

Why can’t it be with another clock at another location, but in the past?

The individual states are indeterminate, but the correlation is there.