swansont

! Moderator Note I have hidden posts that were pitches, as that's OT. Advertising is against our rules, but if your writers have science questions to ask, they are free to do that here. It's happened a number of times with aspiring authors. Personally, I have consulted with someone working for a prominent space-based show, who was their science consultant and later a writer, story editor and is now an executive producer with another prominent show. A quite expansive one, in fact. Ask away

I think you have to distinguish between deep-water/blue-water navies, and coastal ones (aka brown-water and green-water). A navy not designed to go far from the coast has no need of a carrier. And in that context, one must exclude land-locked countries from the count. I would expect that e.g. Uganda might have ships on Lake Victoria, but they would have no need of an aircraft carrier. Some land-locked countries would have just river boats. And many countries would have no navy at all.

The issue isn't the double-slit experiment. The video merely states that the electron's wave function has two peaks. Explaining the double-slit is getting bogged down in irrelevant (for now) detail, IMO. A wave function that has two sharp peaks basically describes a situation where the electron, if detected, will be found in one of two locations. In this case, the probability is equal, as the wave function has the same amplitude. However, it is not wrong to say that the electron is at both locations before detection. There are experiments other than the double-slit where you have superposition of locations (Kasevich did this with launched atoms into a superposition of states, where the two states would have a physical separation) and the result is not consistent with atoms at one location or the other. (see also: entanglement) The experiments that show this are typically interference experiments, because that's where the results manifest themselves - classical physics can't account for the results. So, both states are occupied before detection. But detection is in one state or the other. How this happens is a matter of what physics interpretation is discussed - that's what was meant by "physicists don't know how this happens." One interpretation is that the wave function "collapses" as a result of the measurement, but that's just a way of understanding the result, not a description of some physical process.

Faulty setup is simply not an issue for a QM concept. The question asked also has no obvious (to me) connection to multiplexing, or necessarily to interference (while it's one way to get to a scenario like what was described, it's not the only one, and such details are moot)

No, that’s not what he said. He’s talking about one electron. He’s also overselling the situation. Nobody* says the detector would be confused, or that we would (or should) detect an electron in two places. At best he’s trying to convince people that this isn’t the right way to interpret the wave function, but IMO it’s a poor way to do it, and you’re confused, so... *Rhetorical. I’m sure if you did an exhaustive search you could find one or two confused people claiming this. It’s not a mainstream, widespread claim/explanation

How is "a giant spacecraft that can travel for decades* without needing anything, except to stop occasionally at an asteroid to collect water-ice for water, air and fuel, and some useful minerals" NOT a generational craft? You expect people to live that long and spend all of their time not having sex? People are going to magically live to ~125 years of age, and be able to actively run a spaceship and do these missions you describe? *which you later clarified to be 100 years

This is probably not the best way to learn QM, but it is a reasonable way to learn a little bit about QM. You will miss a lot by skipping over fundamental concepts. If the waves overlap, you can't say that they are in two locations. (and in this case it doesn't matter if you are talking about the deBroglie waves or the wave functions, which are two separate concepts) The electron is not a tiny ball. (I don't get the comment about the detector flipping back and forth; I assume that's from a specific example, and if it is, it may be true only for that example.)

Creating is generally harder than copying. Some people assign value to that.

IOW they are equidistant. Such signals travel at c. Simultaneity is not really used in this scenario, AFAIK. If the observer gets the signal at the same time, they are simultaneous for that observer. They would not necessarily be simultaneous for other observers. Yes. Charles, meet physics. Physics, Charles. That's not the quest that science is on, but that's a discussion for a different thread (and many already exist)

These are not inertial frames. Time is relative in all of them, but identical clocks can’t be synchronized between these frames. I don’t think the words you are using mean what you think they mean. “interactions between star B and C are mutually simultaneous” makes no sense. You say non-relative for something that is relative.

How can you have this scenario? And what is its connection to my question?

It’s a matter of how much curve, and the thing about physics is we quantify things. So the question becomes “how much curvature?” The amount of lensing from the sun was hard to measure. The lensing from the earth would not be visible to the naked eye.

Simultaneity is a binary condition - either two events are simultaneous in your frame, or they aren’t. This doesn’t change over time. What do you mean by non-relative frames?

Easier? That’s just an assertion. Convince me.

A scalar is something that can be represented by a number (and usually units) Mass, for example. A rock with a mass of 2 kg. A vector has a direction. It has a value, but also tells which way. Velocity, for example. “moving 10 m/s in the x-direction” The magnitude of a vector is a scalar “I am 100m north of you” represents a vector. “I am 100m away” represents a scalar.

Ricky Jay card tricks were the best.

! Moderator Note We have certain requirements for discussion of speculative ideas, and your posts fall well short. This is a science discussion site, meaning there needs to be some scientific basis for the discussion. Your ideas seem to have been pulled out of...an alternate dimension. Don't bring this topic up again.

Also, what evidence do you have for your idea, e.g. that circular motion is converted to linear motion. That concept has...difficulties.

I think he saw a trend in experimental results (his paper is listed in the footnotes here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro's_law and there's an English translation in #2) It's also true that his work was after the formulation of Boyle's law, PV = constant (1662), Charles's law, V/T = constant (1787) and Gay-Lussac's law, P/T is constant (1808) So it seems he was extrapolating that these laws are all dependent on the number of atoms in the sample being constant, and the variables would vary in proportion if you changed the number of molecules.

! Moderator Note It takes a certain amount of chutzpa to say you are going to design a fusion reactor without knowing much in the way of physics. If you are going to post speculations, you must follow our speculations rules. If you are asking physics questions, stick to asking questions, and not delving into speculations.

! Moderator Note Well, we’re a science site, and you have gone far afield of science discussion. Limit your scope. You’re trying to run before learning to walk That’s 0.000145 cubic kilometers, not kilo cubic meters. A cubic km is not 1000 cubic meters. Your own calculations show this

! Moderator Note Locked pursuant to a request from the OP to remove the discussion (we don’t do that)

You could say the same thing about something written down and transported by other means. It’s not time dilation.

logic001 has been banned as a sockpuppet of Trần Thành and Energizer edit: also the craftily-named logic002 edit2: and logic003

We lack a model to do so, and lack the ability to test any model one might propose. Our model works for massive particles. We can only describe photons from our frame of reference.