swansont

iWhen you solve Schrödinger's equation for the hydrogen atom, the potential term is just the Coulomb potential energy. Completely classical. And as Serg pointed out, the value for the gravitational potential energy is ~40 orders of magnitude smaller. There's nothing here that suggests you need anything but Newtonian gravity, since deviations from that would only happen for exceedingly massive entities (which we don't have) or exceedingly short distances. We already know the effect can be safely ignored, so GR deviations from it can likewise be ignored. I wasn't even referencing virtual particles, which we acknowledge not to be real. Phonons, for example, are just a convenient way of describing the quantized nature of vibrational states. It makes understanding the behavior easier, but phonons don't have to actually exist in order to do the analysis. Or semiconductor holes; they are literally the absence of an electron, so the hole is not some object that independently exists. It's purely for convenience of understanding and ease of calculation. So are electrons actually particles, or are they excitations of some field? It depends on what you're trying to do. In science you use the model that is going to give you the answer that is in best agreement with how nature behaves. It doesn't matter if elements of that model don't physically exist; the model works.

I don't care if the thinking is out of the box, but there has to be some physical basis for the ideas, and at the end of it all, a model has to be compared to experiment/observation. OTOH, words have meaning, and concepts are laid out on some sort of framework. You can't make up new definitions on a whim, or whip up a concept out of thin air.

At some level, we don't know if they are real (there are lots of things in physics we know aren't real). But the nuclei behave as if they are. We make models and compare experimental results with the models. The best model for what we observe is that neutrons and protons are made of three quarks, which interact in a certain way, as Markus has mentioned. The models do not lay claim to reality of existence, just the reality of behavior.

The increase has to be taken in the context of the distance. A 5 cm increase starting from 5 cm doubles the linear distance of the field of view. It quadruples the area. If the field of view is ~ 60 degrees, that’s going from a 5 cm x 5 cm patch to 10 cm x 10 cm. If you’re aiming at your forehead, you now start to include things that are not your forehead. Your hair has a different temperature and emissivity than your skin.

Not being absolutely certain does not mean anything goes. Assuming that because you don’t know that nobody knows is fallacious reasoning. Making it up is still making it up.

It’s not just that you increased the distance 2 cm, it’s that you see something with a different temperature when you do this. If the object was huge, you’d be OK at a larger distance. There’s no calculation, as such - it’s all driven by geometry. The device collects all the photons in its field of view. If those include photons from something other than the target, the reading will be off.

From rounding the 2.9979... And that value comes from our choice of the meter and the second

“Theoretical” doesn’t mean you can make up anything you please

I don’t know what this means No, an untested model is an untested model.

No, it doesn’t.

“In 1782, the Eye of Providence was adopted as part of the symbolism featured on the reverse side of the Great Seal of the United States. It was first proposed as an element of the Great Seal by the first of three design committees in 1776, and is thought to be the suggestion of the artistic consultant, Pierre Eugene du Simitiere.[4]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Providence

Arbitrary is not random. A meter is a defined length. We could choose a different length, but we can’t use a random length once we have done so (inches? really? inches are not SI units) Yes, they are. You have given no units here. None at all. “velocity is a stright (sic) line to a circle” makes no sense. The words have meaning, but the sentence does not.

Modeling the observations is modeling something.

Because it can tell you if things can’t be equated. It’s a scalar. No direction. And the equation gives that (specifically, the gradient), not any constant used in the equation The PEE is not heat flow. Gibberish

A model has to be modeling something. Otherwise it’s just equations.

The W and Z bosons (which mediate the weak interaction) are massive, so having mass is not an indicator of being matter. Matter is an indicator of having mass

No, it isn’t. Planck’s constant is not a direction

You keep saying the muon has to know things A particle doesn’t have to “know” when to decay. We observe that particle decay follows a certain law, and this law holds in the rest frame or the muon’s frame, consistent with SR.

Why does it have to? You are anthropomorphizing this.

I’m not sure if your two statements here are connected, but curved coordinate systems are (or at least can be) orthogonal. Physicists tend to use orthogonal coordinate systems.

Why would you do this? The spin projection is along the z axis. It doesn’t disappear, and projecting this along the xy plane doesn’t make it go away.

Yes. Both. It’s nothing specifically related to waves. An electron is a point particle. Talking about a physical rotation makes no sense. (similar to how other classical concepts fail to work in quantum systems) The wave function is a mathematical description. It doesn’t rotate. I don’t see where you’re going or how you arrived at this. That makes no sense.

It’s an intrinsic property. The spin axis is referenced to whatever coordinate system we choose, but if there’s a magnetic field, we usually use that for simplicity, since the spin axIs will have a known alignment related to the field. It has nothing to do with the earth’s axial tilt

"Why would you do this?" certainly comes to mind.

Since you are defending this hypothesis, can we now revisit the claim "Sternglass imagined these two particles forming a sort of primitive atom, with the electron and the positron orbiting each other at very high relativistic velocities, producing a single particle with incredibly high mass." and discuss how this would be possible?