swansont

Amplitudes and superposition There has to be a measurement. In your example, as an analogy, the paths are entangled. Even though you didn’t find the monitor after your first two measurements, as you note, it gave you information. You made a measurement. It just returned zero as an answer. Not getting a photon can be a measurement, as in some quantum zeno effect experiments. If you’ve prepared an atom to be in one of two states, knowing it’s not in one state tells you it’s in the other.

What paper? Is there a link?

No, and it shouldn’t be reasonable to expect that. The atmosphere is much smaller in extent and density. A quadrillion is 10^15, so this is 5.5 x 10^18 kg, as opposed to 6 x 10^24 kg for the earth. So about a millionth, which they say in the article

A radiometer such as the one that was depicted does not work by radiation pressure. It rotates in the opposite direction. I don’t see that there is a connection here with a light clock, which is an idealized device and shows time dilation’s relationship with length contraction (owing to the invariance of c), rather than any real processes.

Yes, that’s what relative means, That specific comparison is not what is meant by absolute. For example, observer C will not get the same answer. When different observers get different results, the results are relative. So yes, you need to pick a new term.

! Moderator Note The OP mentions one topic - “Sacred Geometries” - which doesn’t seem to include psi. It’s off-topic.

! Moderator Note Posts on layer logic have been moved to that thread. Please keep that discussion separate.

! Moderator Note Congratulations, but advertising your book here is against the rules. URL and images deleted.

A claim that demand evidence. You can’t formulate one speculation on top of another one. Speculation has to gave at least one foot in established science. If math is different, you need evidence of it. Not some unsupported conjecture.

Atmosphere: ~5.5 quadrillion tons https://www.britannica.com/story/how-much-does-earths-atmosphere-weigh

! Moderator Note ‪ I was not under the impression the psi was being discussed, nor was the general need of rigor in science. These would be topics for other threads.

Is math different? (i.e. the number changes between prime and not prime)? Or is it the computer? If the latter, why, specifically, does it err? Not testable, then. Thanks for playing. No, it cannot work that way. If an event happens, it happens for everyone. It doesn’t. Now you know.

Delberty has been banned for repeated violations of civility rules and not arguing in good faith.

Does this make it so that you could e.g. tell electrons apart, based on their interactions? How would you test your conjecture?

! Moderator Note I see the threat to cross the line of arguing in bad faith has been followed by a large leap into that territory

Explain how time dilation makes me fall down.

! Moderator Note This violates our rule #1, which states that you aren’t allowed to post slurs against groups or individuals. Other posts are threatening to cross the line of not being in good faith (rule 12)

Add me to the list. Clock rates are relative to your position in the well.

There's a reason for that. Only radial movement gets you to a different gravitational potential. Your use of "absolute" here is not in keeping with how relativity uses it. Pick different terminology.

If you take Myclock - Yourclock, the difference has a different sign for the two observers. And neither one can say theirs is "the" correct one

pi * diameter does not get you an area. Wrong units. A = pi * r^2 = pi * d^2/4

There are some illuminating examples, I think. When you look at the structure of Hydrogen, you don't get quite the right answer if you assume the nucleus is a point particle, because it isn't. The proton has an extent, and therefore using a point mass and point charge in the theory lead to subtle differences in the spectra as compared to experiment. The fact that the electron spends time near r=0, for example, means there is a difference between assuming a point and an extended particle. The result is that the hydrogen spectrum is more complex than it might be, if all of our first-order approximations actually represented the situation. In a similar vein, you can do scattering experiments with an electron, where you can model the interaction coming from a point particle, or a particle of finite size. Lo and behold, there is no size you can assign to the electron. Any nonzero result is indistinguishable from the experimental error. It is interacting as if it were a point particle.

Wind tunnels literally have fans like this, but irrelevant if you are getting the same airflow from multiple fans. The air speed will be the same if you are moving the same amount of air through the same area. But if the air is moving slowly, it will not get sucked out of the top quickly. Here's where analysis comes into it, where you can avoid making potentially contradictory statements like this. Continuity matters in situations like this. You can't be moving more air in than you are moving out. Moving the air slowly is not in keeping with your desire to move air away from people quickly. Wild-Ass-Guess i.e. a proposal with no basis in modeling or analysis I suppose I was thrown by your statement in the OP where you said "You want the air to circulate so fast that if someone sneezes the water droplets will remain inside the room only a few seconds before it is sucked out the ceiling vent. " I've been basing my responses on what you said. Is this the scenario, or not?

They have to have an energy input of some sort. Beyond that, you are limited by chemistry and biology. Some reactions, somewhere, need to be exothermic, to release energy to the body. Even if it's just photons being absorbed, doing work. A funny cartoon I recall (from the 60's, I think) was a "martian" crawling way from a flying saucer that has crashed in the desert, saying, "Ammonia! Ammonia!" (Instead of the standard "Water! Water!") So while some are limited by their thinking, not everyone is.

A confounding factor is that the particles interact. So electrons can "act bigger" than a point particle because of that. Also, photons can't exist in an optical cavity or a waveguide if the wavelength is too big, but that ties back to the fact that the electric and magnetic fields have to satisfy certain boundary conditions at the surface of the waveguide (one of the electric field components has to be zero at the edge, forcing it to be a node of the field) so that, to me, muddies the water a bit. It's hard to separate out the interaction from the particle, but there are experiments and analyses which do so. When we say e.g. an electron is a point particle, the implication is that there is no "ball of material" that contains the charge. This is perfectly consistent, I think, with the idea that the charge is a property, and not stuff unto itself, which might require a volume. (A lot of this confusion, I think, is a residual effect of thinking about things in terms of classical physics)