swansont

I don’t see artificial enhancements currently being as hard to distinguish as the topic of the thread.

You can’t tell that time passes? That’s too bad, but this isn’t generally the case for people.

No, “we” don’t. Dressed state formulation, for example, uses energy eigenstates. No localization. Position isn’t an eigenstate.

the “dressed state” approach Particle wave function has ground and excited states, with numbers of particles in each, and photon states have an occupation number. The photons and atoms can interact. https://www.quora.com/What-are-dressed-states-in-Quantum-Optics

An EM wave isn’t a component of a particle In my part of physics you can use the “dressed state” approach Particle wave function has ground and excited states, with numbers of particles in each, and photon states have an occupation number. The photons and atoms can interact. https://www.quora.com/What-are-dressed-states-in-Quantum-Optics

I have no idea what you mean by this

A perfectly cromulent view.

Not gravity

Is that what it means? Or is it that time can’t be resolved at that scale? A bullet is significantly larger than the previously described scale, so why is there an issue? We can’t “see” the kinetic energy or momentum, either. Time isn’t spatial, so why would we see it?

As far as I recall, there’s no particular name. In many cases, the region is all space.

I recall experiments where you can have the excited atom or a photon, but that isn’t detecting the fields. That’s absorbing the photon.

! Moderator Note No, this will not fly. How this works is you present specific questions, without requiring anybody to click on links to participate.

We've had discussions here about sex and gender. I know they exist and what the conclusions are, but I can't replicate the discussions themselves. Suffice to say that I do know enough about physics and perhaps chemistry to know first-hand that these topics are far more complex than what gets discussed in high school and college, so it's not at all difficult for me to realize that biology is the same way. IOW, it's nowhere near so simple as penis vs vagina. People just act like it is out of convenience and ignorance; i.e. because they can't or won't learn more. It sounds more like a "bogeyman under the sofa" drill

Usually it's detect by being absorbed somewhere, or having some other interaction. What method are you alluding to here?

It's actually the case for most of physics. We are able to solve a few kinds of problems under simple conditions. Outside of those few, complications are legion.

We don't have consistency now in other areas as people transition from schools to the pro level, and international competition, so this doesn't seem like a reasonable standard.

Or not, since that's a made-up example, not so different from the Mike Tyson example used in the OP. There is no evidence that Bolt is transgender, so they should not be used an example of someone who is. This smacks of the tactic of appealing to emotion to scare people into a political position, seen in other arguments (I think we covered the arguments used against integrating sports in this or a similar thread) where you use an extreme case and offer it up as if it were typical.

I'm not the right one to ask. Never did delve much into field theory and second quantization.

As was I It's the distribution of the electric and magnetic field, to name two things. The classical wave.

Then provide examples of professional athletes being impacted. And also where they bring "fairness" into their rules. If a basketball player is 7' 4" how is this "fair" to someone who is 5' 6"?

No. Waves are waves and particles are particles. You can have a hydrogen atom that's just of order 0.05 nanometer in radius (the most probable electron distance, i.e. Bohr radius) and yet it will absorb light that's several hundred nanometers in wavelength. The wavelength is not the location of the photon. You can't equate the two.

Not observable with photons. The Cosmic Neutrino Background would take us back to about one second, but neutrino detection is much, much harder than light detection.

Yes, probably. Until people who know little about Critical Race Theory start talking about Critical Race Theory.

And so, most likely, is the air in between the dishwasher and the cupboard. The humid air mixes with the dry air, making it less humid. The water evaporates in the dry air. Water is going to condense on surfaces below the dew point, which the glasses probably aren't, or if the air is saturated with water. The latter condition is true in the dishwasher, but not outside of it.

Well, you failed spectacularly. Why wouldn't "housewives" have sleep disorders? Thinking that "worry" is the only cause is rather simplistic. Perhaps investigating causes of sleep disorders would have been a better approach.