swansont

Why is joigus’s question gibberish while yours is not? There was no temporal component to the question.

! Moderator Note Then the discussion here will be medical. Can you phrase your inquiry so it’s a medical question?

None of the numbers you mentioned are 24.999... so why do you think this is relevant? Do you understand what is meant by the ellipses at the end of the number? And I can’t even tell if you attempted to explain what you meant by “To say x is to imply it has a base of +1”

! Moderator Note Is this a medical topic or a legal (political) one? ! Moderator Note A link to the story would be appropriate

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean 24.999 is not the same as 24.999...

.The variable of integration is volume in the equation. Not current. dV, not dJ. You are integrating the current over the volume. “What other components could there be?” doesn’t make any sense. There can’t be any “other components”. The equation clearly says dV. There’s no wiggle room.

Massive particles can’t reach c, and disappearing would violate conservation of both energy and momentum.

This is irrelevant to your proposal, isn’t it?

Can you rephrase this? “in the speed of light” doesn’t mean anything.

How would you test this, and/or what evidence shows this exclusive of mainstream physics? How is disappearing and reappearing in a different place being “fixed” and not motion?

I don’t see any equation that is an integral over current. The equation to which you refer is an integral over volume.

Events are typically not extended in time, so this simply reduces to simultaneity. You can evaluate this after the fact, so transmission of information isn’t really an issue. For the train moving at v relative to the platform, you have x and t. Those are your measurables, in each frame. You can ask about the time order and location. That’s all relativity tells you. No, this can’t be correct. If the means of information transmission changes the answer, then you have a flaw in your apparatus, or your interpretation of the information

Limits involve the behavior of a function that might diverge (e.g. it can depend on the value and the slope of the function). Setting a variable equal to a value only involves evaluating the function at one point. You wouldn’t bother with a limit if you could just do the arithmetic of evaluating the function. e.g. you don’t need to look at a limit for x^2 for any finite value of x.

Taking lim x->0 is not the same as setting x = 0

! Moderator Note You need to post a news link, along with a more complete summary, rather than almost-naked youtube channel links, which violates rule 2.7 You've been told this before. Do it again and we will just assume you're a spammer. Something like https://www.techexplorist.com/single-molecule-electret-keys-molecular-computers/35727/ The important thing in this is that it shows you can create in a molecule two states that cause spontaneous polarization and two switchable states. And this can give people ideas that maybe you can shrink memory down literally to the single molecular level. Now that we understand that we can do that, we can move on to do more interesting things with it.

If you have circular polarization, this is associated with the photon having spin angular momentum of ±hbar. Changing this value is not associated with the wavelength.

So this is all a hand-wave. The details of entanglement do not rely on your model, though. If you can't base your conjecture on already-established physics, then that's where you need to focus your effort. Without the existence of this "entanglement field" you have nothing to base your idea on, and the "entanglement field" is based on a notion that you can create entanglement between these two crystal beam stops. But you can't explain how this physics works, so your conjecture is based on nothing. That's not physics. The photons are absorbed by your beam stop. That's the interaction I'm interested in. And while an experiment would be great, you still need a theoretical basis for this to happen. Entanglement requires the option of two different states existing. What are the two states in the crystal, that could absorb a photon in one state vs the other state? These details matter. You can't ignore them. You're treating it like you're just making up what you don't really understand. Nothing I'm asking deals with your motivation, so discussion of your graviton is moot. This was a question about the experiment and the established physics it's based on, not your conjecture. How can something move at c and also expand at c? And also have the surface be a photon, which also move at c? If something is "expanding at c" doesn't this mean that the opposite sides are moving at 2c with respect to each other? You say that radius r = ct, so the other side must be at r = ct as well, but in the opposite direction. How can that work? And the surface "is a photon" but photons move at c and your sphere is actually expanding faster than the photon can move. So the photons are sent into a fiber that's along the radius. If you're going to use the term "graviton" you are stuck with the properties of a graviton. They are massless, move at c and have spin 2. If you don't like this, make up a new name.

There is a difference between saying something is a wave function, or something is described by (or has) a wave function. Quantum particles are not wave functions, they have wave functions. A wave function is a mathematical expression. They do not have a volume. But they might describe a volume. ! Moderator Note (note that this conversation can and must proceed without introducing any new particles, or new physics; such discussions should take place in their own threads)

! Moderator Note MWI isn't a theory, it's an interpretation (so "empirically-based" does not apply), and we can go look it up in a textbook. It's mainstream. When you are told to not continue posting your pet theory in a mainstream thread, it is neither a suggestion nor a negotiation. You're being told you have crossed a line, that's described by our rules.

The graviton part is your conjecture. I was asking about the experiment itself, and YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED THE QUESTION. One of the unwritten rules here is that getting someone to clarify their speculation shouldn;t be like pulling teeth. The system you described, using a crystal, entangles polarizations. If you want to entangle some other properties, you need a different setup. No, it's not really like having a string attached to it. That's a pop-sci explanation. What is the specific interaction with the beam stop that preserves the entanglement? To answer this, you need to state what properties are entangled. Entanglement is not a magic description you can use to conjure up some physics. OK, then how are you entangling these momentum states and how is this entanglement preserved during the absorption process? Can you point to any established physics that says there is such a field, or is this something you've made up? In your drawing you have P1 and P2 taking different paths. If that's the case, they aren't entangled - you know whatthe momentum states are. If they are entangled, you don't know what the momentum state of a photon is. You would have to have both momentum states present in any beam. Higher momentum and lower momentum. Well, it's a light clock, so we know it's a photon. because we've reserved that name for the force carrier of gravity, should we end up having a quantum theory of gravity. Good for you. Answer the question HERE. Ah, it's more made-up crap. There's a lot to unpack in "the surface of a graviton is a photon" (considering that they're both moving at c, that's a lot to explain) Attached to the radius? How do you attach a photon to anything? But gravitons move at c, so how can it be "between" the electrons or "attached" to the crystals?

Yes, it can. Via parametric downconversion. Is this your answer? The photons are entangled? In this system, the polarization states are entangled. But you have a beam block that seems to be a prominent feature of your experiment. No more photons, if they hit a beam block. No, the photon is destroyed. There is no photon anymore. But the polarization is entangled. Not the momentum. I’m not aware that it suggests this, but even if it does, it says nothing about gravitons What is a centrifuged photon? How would you do this to a photon? How would you “place” it along the x axis? Why would its frequency be a function of x? At some point soon, you need to answer with actual physics, i.e. without making stuff up

I asked what was entangled. Can you answer that question, instead of a different one? How do you “trap” photons “between the electron energy levels of the crystal”? This would give you p and x. What is the relevance? This is mostly word salad. There is no evidence that gravitons exist, and no evidence that they expand.

There is no evidence this is true. Photons interact via the electromagnetic interaction, and there is currently no evidence for the existence of gravitons. What, exactly, is entangled? A beam stop absorbs photons. Not until you have a first part.

What experiment? How does it uniquely establish your hypothesis?

Of course there isn’t. It’s an interpretation.