swansont

More useful would be the chapter of the book, and better yet, page numbers. Zero point energy, giving rise to particle-antiparticle pairs. Except they don't break conservation laws. You either have the zero-point energy, or in the context of QM the classical conservation laws don't apply in light of the various uncertainly relations, such as ∆E∆t > hbar/2 You can't tap into the zero-point energy, so it isn't free energy It would be unusual for a physicist to co-opt an existing term and use it to mean something completely different.

No, we won't be doing that. It would anger the Audubon society, and they would instigate Operation Hitchcock, with me playing Tippi Hedren's role. (again. I was dive-bombed by a B1rd some years ago)

If birds are imaginary you need to rotate them 90º

I use upvote and downvote as they have no chance of triggering the self-destruct sequence.

Where does gravity show up in your model's equations?

You still need to know the physics you are trying to mesh with.

One being that if you change one part of physics, it affects so much elsewhere in physics. And all of it has to work. So if you are ignorant of those other parts, you will have no idea how many ways your idea is wrong. Taking the blinders off means learning more (much more) of physics.

And saying rest mass is unaffected does not contradict this. The point behind this is not why accelerators are big, it's your mistaken notion that gravity is affected by linear motion, which, of course, is relative. You are arguing that gravity will increase because some other object moves with respect to it. edit: The bottom line here is that you can do a solution in the rest frame, which must be valid, and the you can do a coordinate transform into the moving frame. Whatever happens has to be able to happen in the rest frame of the particle. You've been asked for your calculation of the wavelength of the emitted light, and your response is to insult me, which strongly suggests you don't have one to share. No, this is not true. Not for rest mass. Which is beside the point, since we are talking about the KE of the CoM. The total energy of something is E2 = m2c4 + p2c2 Any CoM motion, which would result in linear momentum, is accounted for separately from the mass. None of the items you listed result in momentum of the uranium nucleus.

I think a surprising majority of them would somehow assert that this is all perfectly consistent with their beliefs, and in fact foretold in some heretofore obscure passages of their holy books.

IOW you're just making stuff up There is no solution for v=c. The equation diverges This isn't magic. You don't get to just claim stuff happens without regard to physics, and if you have new physics to propose you need to develop a testable model. This one fails, because an electron does not become a neutrino, and the EM field of an electron does not cause the charge to disappear. This DOES. NOT. HAPPEN. Therefore you are wrong and your model is wrong. End of story. ! Moderator Note Speculations have to have models or be backed by evidence. It's not the WAG forum.

In atomic physics, hyperfine structure is defined by small shifts in otherwise degenerate energy levels and the resulting splittings in those energy levels of atoms, molecules, and ions, due to interaction between the nucleus and electron clouds. What if your bouncing object is an electron, which is what you use in another thread. An electron has no hyperfine structure. What if the bouncing object is an atom with nuclear spin of zero? Then it has no hyperfine structure, ! Moderator Note Word salad. making stuff up without a testable model violates the rules of the speculations forum.

Can you write down the tensor for us?

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?