swansont

Energy quanta that are localized in points in space. Is that a description of a wave? Because I can detect it after passing through a vapor cell, for instance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics “In pure vacuum, some weak scattering of light by light exists” So I guess we’re done. “many have claimed”? That’s weak. Who has claimed this? Where are the citations, so the specific claim can be examined?

There are invariant quantities, so this is obviously false What relevance does this have to anything? ! Moderator Note This sheds no light on your claims or on outstanding questions. Just more hand-waving. Closed. Don’t bring this, or anything with such weak support, up again

Plenty of scientists understand this without considering the idea of “two nows” The shortcoming, it would appear, lies with your understanding of relativity. Perhaps you should consider addressing that, and not bringing up the speculations topic that’s been locked.

It’s both. A floor wax and a dessert topping. You have a process of entangling particles or creating particles that are entangled, and you have the state of entanglement Regardless of whether this can be demonstrated, “I don’t see” is not an argument that carries much weight. It’s argument from personal incredulity

No, that’s crap. They either have particle behavior or they don’t. You said they never act as particles, and now you’re saying two examples aren’t enough. But that dodges the issue of why you can’t absorb part of a photon’s energy. IOW you’re addressing a different issue than in the example. I’m suggest they cause excitations in atoms, and you’ve already admitted this happens. Light misses all the time. Photon-photon interactions occur, but this is only significant at high energy, but this misses the point. Nobody has claimed that all interactions reflect particle behavior. Afshar’s position is that particle behavior is observed, but I didn’t offer this experiment as evidence, and I only need one to rebut your claim, which (as I pointed out) you’ve already admitted is falso. This is a red herring. That’s not being claimed here.

Aluminum is used in the US (and was coined by Sir Humphry Davy, who discovered the element) but aluminium was also used to conform to the pronunciation of other element names like rubidium, sodium and potassium, and is used by British speakers, among others.

I've worked with copper, fiber and free-space transmission. The concept is the same. And once again I will ask if you have example of this not happening when it matters. Because I don't have any — people working on experiments that require precise measurements do these things, otherwise their experiments don't work. You're pointing out the obvious Unlikely that a supernova event 10000 LY away is still occurring if we're just getting the photons now. We know how long supernovae last, and it's much less than 10,000 years. Let's say it was 10,000 LY away, and the star was 30 light-seconds across (which is about 9 million km; the sun is about 1.4 million km across) A year is a little over 3 x 10^7 sec, so the distance ratio is 30s *c/10^4 * 3x10^7 *c Ignoring the size gives an error of a part in 10^10, so in some cases this is meaningless — if your experiment has less precision than this. The bottom line is that the speed of light is a known phenomenon and physicists aren't stupid, and your premise is basically that they/we are (and we see similar "point out obvious things" phenomena in discussions on evolution, too). On top of that, we have peer review, so even if one particular experimenter somehow ignored the effect, others would notice when it came time to publish results, either through peer review or in responses to the publication, which would be quickly retracted from any reputable journal. So unless you have actual examples of people screwing up by not accounting for light travel, this is pointless, and just an exercise in you demonstrating that you have no familiarity with how these experiments are conducted.

You need to discuss this matter showing good faith: addressing the comments made to you and not "forgetting" past exchanges. Examples have been given to you, so let's not pretend that this has not come up before. It's not as much what you're missing as what you're conveniently ignoring. So let's not ignore things anymore. You even admitted that light delivers its energy in a localized fashion, which is a particle behavior and not a wave behavior. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/125968-delayed-choice-experiment-split-from-question-does-the-double-slit-experiment-prove-free-will/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-1189287 So I will reiterate my previous example: if light were a wave it would be able to share its energy among multiple atoms when interacting, because that's a wave property, as is losing just part of its energy. But it doesn't do that. The example I used was a 2 eV photon and a bunch of atoms with a transition at 1 eV. We don't see the photon getting absorbed - no partial loss of energy, and it doesn't cause excitations in two atoms. If you insist that light is a wave, all the time, and never shows particle behavior, how do you explain that it doesn't show wave behavior, and shows particle behavior in these instances? (and please note that "I'm not convinced" is not an explanation). You have proposed a model here, and you need to support it.

If it’s meters the time will not be milliseconds. c = 3 x 10^8 m/s. meters means nanoseconds. This issue is as I had mentioned. When I did my postdoc at TRIUMF, the cables were labeled in nanoseconds, so you could account for the signal delay time from different detectors. It’s not that you are worrying over nothing, it’s that you’re not pointing out something that others have missed, and you are framing it as such.

I find no matches to a member with than username. The only hits on that are in this thread. I will ask again: Under what circumstances will this matter? Alternately, give a pointer to an experiment where this would matter where it was not taken into account. I am familiar with experiments which use coincidence detection, so I know of experiments where this is explicitly taken into consideration, because circumstances dictate that.

Which has nothing to do with the topic of discussion The "leaps" being discussed are ones of energy and not location, so this isn't really applicable.

Natural linewidth is not considered broadening, in my experience, as it is inherent to the transition. It's the starting point, and the other mechanisms give you broadening. Which is why efforts are made to reduce the other effects, such as doing Doppler-free spectroscopy to reduce/eliminate that source of broadening.

! Moderator Note The issue wasn't units (and your argument here is flawed), the issue was your observation that "we should be thinking about the progression of physics *between us and infinity*" and that you have shed no light on that progression (whatever "progression" means in this context) ! Moderator Note Repeating the phrase "manifestations of the Singularity" is not a substitute for a testable model, not does it explain anything about this progression you mentioned. If all you have is hand-waving, I will close the thread. Do you have anything of scientific substance to offer?

This is why we put error bars on results. In science we tend to quantify the uncertainty in results. 1) You haven't, and 2) You don't get to make that assessment. (the two are not completely independent)

You can pick whatever values are suitable. You can pop on whatever exponent of 10 is appropriate, like light-seconds (x10^-6) if your distances are in km But you need the factor of c so that you have consistent units, when doing things like constructing a spacetime interval.

Who is CollinJ and why is this relevant? Under what circumstances will this matter? If I am driving my car and say that I will arrive at some time T, does it matter that the front of my car arrives a fraction of a second earlier? No measurement has infinite precision.

Lifetime, as I said, but that also means you can't tell exactly when the transition took place.

"Reference frame of light" make no sense from a physics perspective; this is an issue of relativity and light does not have an inertial frame. We observe that when you send a photons at atoms they can be absorbed, and the atoms emits light some time later. This observation takes place in the lab frame, not the photons. The physics used to describe this is also based in the lab frame. We don't have physics that can be used in a photon's frame, because there is no transform that gets us there and back; the equations diverge. No, we're talking about a photon being absorbed. Light has both wave and particle behaviors. Photons are most definitely quantum particles. Argument by quotation is pretty meaningless. Similar to the Wolff quote above, it doesn't add to any knowledge.

We're not in the frame of the light. The source of this is the energy-time uncertainty relation. ∆E∆t > hbar/2 The natural linewidth of any transition is related to its lifetime. And since E = hbar * w, you can see that this is just a relationship between frequency and time, which are Fourier transforms of each other. It's an inherent uncertainty from that.

"It is a wave" and "it becomes a corpuscle" is part of the overall problem. It's not that it is one or the other, it's that it has properties of both, and when you look for each of the properties, you will find evidence of that property. Via experiment we can only look for behavior. We can't say what it is, and also, we run into problems trying to use classical descriptions when describing quantum objects.

! Moderator Note Yes, because you were spamming us with jibber-jabber that does not comply with our rules on speculations posts. This one does not, either. You need some combination of a model, a way to test your idea, and evidence in support of it. ! Moderator Note Yes, one must look at this. In this case, that is you, who must analyze the data and present it, because you are the one proposing a solution. You were told this before. It's not very promising that you are ignoring that.

It seems to me that this is just another in a line of boogey men: ill-defined, undefined or wrongly defined terms (when used by the group) that only serve to stoke fear in the base. Welfare queen. Political correctness. Socialism. CRT. Woke. Antifa. Cancel culture. Can you, or anyone, give a precise definition of cancel culture? (and explain how is it being “weaponized”?) And give some examples of someone being “canceled”? Seems to me that people claiming this are behaving as if they are owed attention, or business, and are complaining when held responsible for their actions. This might not be new, but we simply notice it more because of social media in this age of rapid and widespread communication

You’ve provided no evidence of the EM wave or any explanation of what properties (e.g. wavelength) they should have. Why don’t we detect them? What’s the source when neutrons or neutral atoms undergo interference? You concluded that particles don’t give a wave pattern, and that’s wrong.

Please don’t be obtuse. You are not being asked to support the doppler shift. You are being asked to support your claims that are contrary to mainstream physics. ! Moderator Note The thread on this was closed. You passed up your chance to make your case, and aren’t getting another bite at the apple. ! Moderator Note You were going against mainstream science, and you refused to provide the required model and/or evidence. Heaven knows why you think the same hand-waving tactic is going to work

! Moderator Note And you were asked to present it, not spam us with this wall-of-text that you already posted in another thread. If you don’t comply with the rules, you will be banned