swansont

So what’s the energy density of the sun?

That’s not the only way to produce microwave photons. But yes, the 21 cm transition (1.4 GHz) in hydrogen is a spin flip, just as the picture says. In Cs it’s at 9.2 GHz (a little more than 3 cm), and in Rb-87 it’s 6.85 GHz. Who is “we”? The units of electric field can be expressed as V/m. A strong electric field is associated with a large potential difference.

How are you defining energy state? Regardless, it isn’t the cause. We know that Newtonian gravity depends on mass and distance from that mass. Not correlated with thermodynamics

Where does the equation come from? i.e. how is it derived?

! Moderator Note OK, if that’s how you want to play it: closed. Don’t bring the topic up again.

Please don’t waste my time while you do so.

! Moderator Note Moreno, I don’t see the clarification/framing I asked for. Without it the thread will not remain open.

Einstein wasn’t advocating having no knowledge whatsoever.

! Moderator Note The thread is not about IQ levels. I don’t really know what is about (“end of modern civilization” is never explained), but IQ is a tangent. Moreno, you need to frame the discussion better. Your vague post was followed by unsupported claims regarding immigration, and then straw men in responses to others’ posts. Unacceptable

No, I think you have combined bits and pieces of different theories and created an abomination. There’s no evidence you’ve learned anything.

What perturbation? Under the well? There is no "under the well" In a classical system, if there is no energy, the particle is at rest at the bottom of the well. The only way to go to a lower energy is to change the well. "Perturbation" typically implies you are adding energy in some way. "Vacuum" is not a term I associate with a classical oscillator. It sounds like you are still making things up.

2400 mph assumes it was the same object. These objects appeared and disappeared from the radar, and a positive identification could not be made. So this number does not have the certainty you give it. More to the point, a lot of the numbers given are clearly estimations from the pilots, and not measured by the radar. The size and distances from the planes. If you err on one, you must be in error on the other, when assessing by eye. If something you estimate to be 10 meters long and 500 m away is in fact 20 meters long, then it must actually be 1 km away.

Massless bosons gonna massless boson.

There is also technology that was promised and society has yet to deliver. Flying cars were supposed to be ubiquitous by now, for example. There are always the unanticipated problems that crop up, and not all of them can be solved. Wishful thinking doesn't make them go away. How was that 60 miles measured?

! Moderator Note Any approach that avoids presenting evidence will not fly. That includes appeal to conspiracy, as you do here, or just avoiding answering questions, as others have tried.

How realistic is it to expect everyone to re-install their entire HVAC system? At best this would apply to new construction, in places where people don’t mind hanging out in a wind tunnel.

! Moderator Note The other thread was specifically about the Navy videos. If you have other evidence, post it here, and be sure to comply with the speculations rules.

Do you understand why, for a classical system? A flat-bottomed well has a particle moving at constant speed. In QM that’s equal probability (i.e. amplitude) for any anti-node For a parabolic well, the probability is higher near the turn-around, because the particle moves slower. In QM you have a wave function higher amplitude near the turnaround. The QM solutions are quantized, but the overall trend is the same. What is the distinction between distribution and density? The factor is the value of the potential; it’s a term in Schrödinger’s equation. It should not be a surprise that the wave function will differ if V(x) is different. The time spent in some region dx would be dependent on speed, and be proportional to the probability. Divide that time by the period of oscillation.

The term inside is the gradient of phiE, which is a function of r. In physics, that could describe the gradient of a potential; the gradient of the electric potential is the electric field (with a minus sign in there somewhere). You are taking the second derivative of this gradient.

Some countries? That’s generally not how science is divided up. It depends on how you are approaching this. You can look at it as the category of matter, which contains matter and antimatter and in which case there is no conservation whatsoever. Or you can use e.g. lepton number and say that there’s no net matter when you create a matter-antimatter pair (e.g. lepton number of 1 and -1. Net is zero) In which case it’s mostly conserved, but there are known CP violations. In either case, matter is not conserved. (if you insist that photons are matter then conservation of matter fails spectacularly. Photon number is not conserved)

This should not be a surprise, as energy is not a substance. Motion implies kinetic energy, or if it's vibrations or motion of an ensemble of particles, then you have thermal energy (temperature). Mass is a form of energy, too. Photons, however, are not matter. Matter is comprised of fundamental fermions, and photons are bosons. Comparing matter to energy was incorrect. Matter is not converted to energy and energy is not converted to matter. Matter is approximately conserved; you form matter and antimatter, such that the fermion number remains constant, but this is known to be violated on occasion (CP violation). Soon after the big bang there was another violation that resulted in us having more matter than antimatter; that was what I referred to earlier about not having conservation of matter. Mass can be converted to tother forms of energy, and vice-versa, because mass is a form of energy. Matter has mass, but it is incorrect to say matter is mass.

You might also find a simple QM problem and work through the solution to it.

IIRC it was based on there being some credible evidence against Kavanaugh, and that other claims were not being investigated. That raises doubt about whether he Kavanaugh should be serving in his current capacity. It was not, AFAICT, based on the mere fact that an accusation existed.

I remember many were insisting on an investigation, and there was testimony given. Who was saying he should not be appointed merely because of the accusation?

Which allegations? Ford came forward publicly after he was nominated. Was something wrong with iNow's response that you need to ask this again?