swansont

Look at any species that has subpopulations; sometimes this results in speciation if the populations remain isolated and enough time passes. But you are correct in one thing; it’s my understanding that the races are arbitrary.

Nobody is making the argument that it was. You’re attacking a straw man. The argument is that localized interaction is particle-like behavior, and inconsistent with wave-like behavior. Please take the time to notice that this does not mention the behavior at other places or times. Also that this is inconsistent with “never acts like a particle” No, light doesn’t act that way, but waves do. If you have objects floating on water and a wave goes by, the wave interacts with all the objects. It doesn’t pick one. This is not merely my opinion, this is what physicists deduced over a century ago.

The primordial atom was Georges Lemaître‘s idea. But speaking of temperature, it was too hot to have nucleons until about 10^-6 sec, according to Big Bang theory. https://astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2018/12/the-first-element

How is that consistent with "never"?

You said you have a 1 mp at t = 1 tp and now you say you have 1 nucleon. As I stated, these are different by ~19 orders of magnitude in energy. Well, not really. It's the shortest time we can make sense of in current cosmology theory (i.e. in GR)

Pretty sure this is not part of Big Bang cosmology, and is not consistent with your model, either. A nucleon's energy is around 1 GeV, while the Planck energy is ~10^19 times bigger

My.interpretation has announced their desire not to return with a foul-mouthed tirade, and we have taken them up on their offer

The equivalence between a charged sphere and a point charge (and similarly with mass and a uniform sphere for gravitation) is shown in the shell theorem. Can you point to the error in its derivation?

And yet you previously stated that it does not exhibit any particle-like behavior. ("I see light as a wave and never as a particle.") If it exhibits particle-like behavior, you can't then deny it does so. You can't have it both ways. No, I don't. My position is the opposite of this, and that's the point: such wave behavior is not observed when the light interacts. This is the second time in as many posts you have misread/misconstrued what I wrote. You stated that your view is that light never behaves as a particle. I am rebutting this claim. Thus, I am giving examples of where particle-like properties are observed, and contrasting them with what wave behavior would be expected but is not observed.

That wasn’t the example I presented. It was a 1 eV transition. A wave doesn’t deliver its energy in a localized fashion.

Because we investigate all possibilities. You don’t just look at circumstances that support your thesis; that’s cherry-picking. I gave examples that show your claim to be wrong.

Setting values to 1 is a trick used by theorists who don't care about calculations and don't want to carry extraneous terms in their equations. Its usefulness is lost when you actually want to compare to an actual measured or predicted value. 1 planck mass per planck volume is a density. The problem is the critical density is a far, far different value. Why is there a difference?

The critical mass density of the universe equates roughly to 10^-123 planck masses per cubic planck length, and we're thought to be very close to this number You are claiming this number is 1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#In_cosmology) That's a pretty large disparity All the more reason to be meticulous in citing accepted physics, and distinguishing your own ideas.

Doesn't want to be quoted? Isn't this in the literature anywhere? If you can't point to a textbook, or at least a peer-reviewed articles, then it's a dubious claim. Further, "single particle" is not synonymous with "Planck mass"

Where does the BB theory tell us this?

! Moderator Note To all: Please note that the discussion here will not focus on Lazar or his claims. If it helps, simply substitute "unknown stable element" as the target Yes, your spectroscopy would yield an unknown (previously unobserved) spectrum. You could pop a sample into a mass spectrometer and get the atomic mass. You could try to fully ionize it to get the atomic number. If you can make it into a hydrogen-like state (i.e. one electron), the spectroscopy would be easy to predict and compare. There is also Moseley's law, which predicts the x-ray spectrum https://protonstalk.com/physics/moseleys-law/ You could bombard it with some energetic particle (e.g. neutrons or protons) and look at the particles produced.

NIH: Statement on Misinformation about SARS-CoV-2 Origins Unfortunately, in the absence of a definitive answer, misinformation and disinformation are filling the void, which does more harm than good. NIH wants to set the record straight on NIH-supported research to understand naturally occurring bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, funded through a subaward from NIH grantee EcoHealth Alliance. Analysis of published genomic data and other documents from the grantee demonstrate that the naturally occurring bat coronaviruses studied under the NIH grant are genetically far distant from SARS-CoV-2 and could not possibly have caused the COVID-19 pandemic. Any claims to the contrary are demonstrably false. Full statement: https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/statement-misinformation-about-sars-cov-2-origins

AFAIK the electrons that allow them to conduct are not part of the covalent bonds https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zgq8b82/revision/2

Except, as you point out, a single slit still gives diffraction, which is a wave property. The experiment under consideration is a which-path experiment. The salient detail is that quantum particles have wave properties and show interference. It is not required that they exhibit particle properties when which-path information is present. ! Moderator Note As such, and since we've strayed from the OP, I have split this into a new thread That's actually one reason why it's described as a particle. Also the localization, which I think I mentioned earlier. You might have a 1 eV transition in an atom, but a 2 eV photon will not cause two atoms to be excited, even though the light could interact with both particles, and is what you would expect if you had a wave. It will not absorb 1 eV of a 1.5 eV photon and let the rest pass by, another thing you would expect of a wave.

The claim was not that everything is quantised, and a constant isn’t something that qualifies for consideration We’re discussing a physics topic in the physics section, so it’s reasonable to take as given we’re discussing physics.

That’s a pretty big leap to say it “follows” from that, considering the article makes no mention of any Planck units, or Hubble. Can you show a derivation? Preferably starting from some verifiable equation or identity.

Permanent magnets do not rely on current flow to create a magnetic field. The magnetic moment of an electron arises from its intrinsic angular momentum (i.e. spin), as exchemist has already noted

That’s grossly inaccurate. The double slit is generally considered to be evidence of the wave nature of light. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment The detection or ability to detect is what causes the loss of interference. The detectors are not merely present; e.g. sitting in a corner of the room is insufficient.

I've noticed on occasion that it doesn't work if the page hasn't fully loaded. Reloading sometimes fixes this. You can highlight a portion of text and click on the "quote" popup (but that doesn't properly attribute the quote if you are highlighting quoted text) On occasion, hitting return/enter will simply not break up the quote boxes as it should. I don't know why. An alternate option to using the quote function directly is to copy/paste text, select it, and then hit the quote button in the toolbar (the double quotation mark) but that won't attribute the quote, so the person will not be notified of the response.

Unless the person in question prefers it. You never know if anyone from the Addams Family is online.