swansont

What is charges that gives rise to this current, and how does this happen considering the photon is massless? What keeps these charges separated? Why are they not separated by external fields? How does this behavior depend on photon energy?

True but I didn’t say we don’t notice results of relativistic effects. I said we don’t see the corrections - the differences between Newton and Einstein as relative speed changes (the context of the discussion). Neither of these are manifestations of time vs distance. They are energy corrections, and it’s not something that changes with relative motion.

It’s the usual situation one is in. And the corrections of relativity are usually not noticeable under virtually all circumstances the average person encounters. How are the “roles” reversed? Do you suddenly see time? Does stereoscopic vision assist with time perception? Claimed, but it never stands up to scrutiny. Not a good notion on which to base anything

Does this matter? Time and distance in a single frame - no relative motion - are experienced differently. Motion doesn’t enter into it.

What, specifically, needs to be “solved”?

That's a different question. We know things will looks different, but I don't think that really changes the fact that we don't experience time and distance the same way.

What needs to be "solved"?

That would be true of any model that was incorrect. It works for one phenomenon, but fails elsewhere. We see this today with e.g. MOND to explain what GR explains with dark matter. It works at one range of parameter, but not others. I think there is little doubt that we would. It would be a matter of when. Was GEM advanced as a solution to this issue?

Those aren't really visualizing distance, they are visualizing objects moving at high speed. You use your eyes to visualize distance. You are literally visualizing it. I don't know about you, but I don't experience time the same way. I can see a meter stick, and I can picture something a meter away, or even a point where nothing that exists that is a meter away (well, these days it's more like two meters). Not the same with time.

It also needs some analysis to say "it's baryon number non-conservation" Where is this analysis? It's a weak argument to say it's not your idea. You started the thread, you associated the idea with certain phenomena. You have to claim ownership of that, and with it comes certain obligations.

You can visualize distance. I think that's the big hangup. Time is experienced in a different way.

That also requires that to be a common event Baryon decay happens all the time. You are, I assume, referring to free proton decay, in the context of baryon number non-conservation (per the title) These are not interchangeable descriptions. If it happens in the core of a neutron star but not outside of it, that implies it is not a decay process that is occurring. You seem to be once again referring to baryon number non-conservation, rather than any particular decay. And, as above, this would require the process to be fairly common. I don't know, but I would imagine that the circumstances that make fusion more likely would not be part of a design of a proton decay experiment.

I'm not sure what the premise is of the OP: what happens if Einstein doesn't come up with GR (he tragically dies in 1906, or something), or if GR doesn't exist at all. If the former, then the matter of someone else coming up with it at a later date has to be a possibility. If the latter - basically you are discussing alternatives to GR that are ultimately incorrect. According to the link, GEM was introduced a few decades before GR was finalized. What were the reasons it was not pursued further? I see nothing in the link about it explaining the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. This was a problem known in 1915, and solved by GR. Would an alternative theory have taken hold in a GR vacuum, if it could not explain this effect? Anything that could not would start out with the handicap of knowing it was not complete. In addition, someone would have likely investigated light bending around the sun during an eclipse at some point, and showing that Newton was wrong. And model that could not explain this would likewise be considered incomplete, or wrong.

Why would we see excessive energy? If the process were massively exothermic, as you are implying with "1,000 times brighter than researchers previously thought was possible for neutron stars" then perhaps it would be more common. But I can see no reason to think that violation of baryon number requires the process to be exothermic. BTW, a fusion reaction can happen at room temperature. Reaction ≠ chain reaction (i.e. sustained fusion doesn't happen at room temperature) But proton decay must be something that happens spontaneously, if it's a decay. If it requires a system to be at some temperature, then it's an induced reaction, not a decay. So if we observe for some period of time and don't see evidence of a decay, we can place a lower limit on the lifetime of the process.

! Moderator Note Tangential discussion on the details of GEM has been split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/122841-gem-split-from-thought-experiment-how-would-physics-develop-without-einstein/

Brahms has been decomposed as a sockpuppet of Drakes and Delberty

And that was about the time we crossed from being more rural to more urban. 750k per rep vs 120k is a large imbalance in representation

Unless you heat the water and then remove it from the room, it won't have a cooling effect. You would just be moving the thermal energy around, but it will still be there.

I'm pretty sure they are aware, especially ones who have gotten to the level of being elected to congress. Gender discrimination is a subset of sexism. The former is against the law in some settings, but the latter, while many rightfully frown upon it, is not.

That really hurt Trump, didn't it? The problem here is there is no "right" way to be a woman in politics. People who don't like them will make up excuses not to like them. True of men to some extent (tribalism is real), but amplified with women, since it includes many metrics never used on men.

! Moderator Note Appeal denied

That was Heisenberg’s original argument, but it’s incorrect. The uncertainty is inherent, owing to the wave nature of QM. The variables are Fourier transforms of each other, and the uncertainty drops out of the math. Experiments I’ve seen use polarization states for photons, or spin projection for electrons. Easier to prepare, I would imagine.

And, I will add, this is not just true for the Schrödinger equation. In all of physics, there is the tendency to analytically solve only the simplest systems. It’s one reason we tend to look at ideal systems, and ignore complicating factors as much as possible.

That doesn’t support the claim. (though “most rape victims, who don't know their attacker, are attacked out of the blue and usually from behind“ is ambiguous. Is the claim that most rape victims don’t know their attacker, or of the small fraction that don’t, are attacked from behind? The former is debunked, the latter isn’t supported)

"There are some gray areas so all areas are gray" is failed logic