swansont

The particle's oscillation is of constant amplitude. The wave function you are showing has an amplitude varying with whatever is on the x axis (position or time), neither of which works with the example. What hyperfine structure? You just have a mass bouncing vertically in a potential well. Even if you had an atom here, what does the hyperfine structure have to do with this?

Electrons don’t move at c

Apologies here, too. Do you have a link?

You forgot the part where Podunk residents are socialists who teach critical race theory. As long as we’re going to try and scare people with made-up scenarios.

Show us the math and I’ll believe it.

No, it doesn’t. Physics isn’t a-la-carte. You can’t just pick and choose parts of it, and combine it as you like.

No, it typically doesn’t correspond to the width of the particle, and in this example the uncertainty in x isn’t going to depend on its height, based on what you’ve provided.

So you don’t know what uncertainty is? I assume you know what position is. It tells us how well we know a variable. You can say a particle is located at x = 1mm, but it can’t be exactly there. If you measure it, the instrument has some limit to its resolution. And owing to QM, there is an inherent uncertainty because everything has a wavelength. If the deBroglie wavelength of a particle was 1 nm, then its uncertainty must be of a similar size. You can’t possibly say where it to any better precision until you measure it.

No, it’s spin 2. Spin 0 particles exist. The Higgs is spin 0. You haven’t explained anything about your model, but I don’t see how you would determine properties, or that interacts via the electromagnetic interaction from what’s in it. And you put in their orbits, rather than the form of their interaction. What I want is for you to learn physics and not try and leapfrog the basics. It would save you from a model that’s doomed to fail because we already know how gravity behaves, and evidence contradicts it. That name is taken. Use another one.

“What is the uncertainty in its position?” he asked yet again. (it shouldn’t be so difficult to get information out of you on a discussion board, where we are discussion your example) Also quantized energy vs not (or not in any meaningful way)

This particular link was to rebut your specific claim. This is not an acknowledgment of the error; this is moving the goalposts. There was no mention of testosterone or sports. The article doesn’t mention testosterone levels or sports.

No such border exists, if you only have the “is” I have no idea. What’s north of the north pole?

spin 2 That’s not what I suggested. But you can’t decide that some element of the model is a photon, just because. Photons have known behaviors. You either put that in the model, or the model produces that behavior. Spin 1, massless, travels at c, etc. Not to me. See above. How can they not be particles themselves, if they interact? Same objection as before. Where does the model show that these are spin 1/2 leptons? Which family of neutrino?

Except this is not true. Reality is not this simple. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/ doctors have long known that some people straddle the boundary—their sex chromosomes say one thing, but their gonads (ovaries or testes) or sexual anatomy say another. …. Gene mutations affecting gonad development can result in a person with XY chromosomes developing typically female characteristics, whereas alterations in hormone signalling can cause XX individuals to develop along male lines.

And so far as we know, only a concept, and not something physically achievable. So no barrier exists.

1mm is the size of the object, or the uncertainty in its position? What is the mass? Once you have that, you can calculate the uncertainty in the speed. It’s straightforward algebra. If the mass is a milligram (10^-6 kg) and uncertainty in position is 1mm, then the uncertainty in the speed is around 5 x 10^-26 m/s which is ridiculously small for a macroscopic object. Which is why QM typically is not applied on this scale. There’s no way to see the effects.

Except it is quanta and has a spin, etc. If you want something else, call it something else. You typically don’t decide what an element of the model is after the fact. The equation you have says i is not a tensor photons have properties a and b are gravitons, and the pair is a particle? I can’t make any sense of this.

One of our members suggested it via the report post function. The system worked as envisioned.

It’s defined near the bottom of the left column. It’s your model. You tell us what it represents. You’ve not explained anything about the model.

You said x=1 and the unit was a meter The uncertainty principle is not relevant to the question of the OP You said it again. Width of 1 “an oscillation of the particle in the form of a magnitude” is a meaningless phrase, and has no relevance to the OP The HUP is a separate topic. Open a new thread. This was started as a discussion of a classical physics problem of a particle falling under gravity You’re spouting nonsense, so what do you expect? ! Moderator Note Do it in a new thread. It belongs in one of your existing threads

And you’ve been asked to support this claim, which you have yet to do. So this is what 30m freefall meant. OK, analyze this in the rest frame of the proton. The physics has to work in all frames. citation, or calculation, please. Rest mass is unaffected. One reason accelerators are big because the radiation charged particles emit depends on the acceleration, and a smaller radius means larger acceleration at a given speed (a=v^2/r; multiply by gamma for relativistic systems). Once the radiated energy gets large enough you can’t get them moving faster. Repeating this doesn’t make it true. There are mass and momentum terms in the GR tensor equation, and a sign difference in the metric. Basically the KE contribution is subtracted out. Relative motion will not turn a star into a black hole. I’ve never seen a formulation of the EP that states this. These don’t, so far as I see, mention linear motion increasing gravitation. I’m not going to slog through citations; you need to do better providing support. And for good reason. The changing shape from length contraction is a wholly different argument, and “should let them collapse” is an unsupported assertion.

Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, called those assertions highly unlikely. In the history of vaccines, he noted, side effects have always appeared within two months of administration. “There are no long-term effects where you find that one year, two years, later your child or you develop some problem that wasn’t picked up initially,” Offit said. “It has never happened.” https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/health/story/2021-05-31/misinformation-remains-the-biggest-hurdle-as-vaccination-effort-turns-to-cash-incentives

More of a postulate of science. Not invoking things that can't ever be experimentally confirmed.

! Moderator Note Unless these are religious beliefs, this is off-topic for the thread.

But this is a business decision. I suspect Toyota looked at who might boycott them and extrapolated what would happen to sales. And Wal-Mart would do the same if they were tempted to announce some similar move.