swansont

Moderator NoteMeaning it’s not ready to be shared here

No, but there have been requests to take this action; you’re probably not the only person reading this.

Moderator NoteYou can come back to this when you’ve developed this to the point where it complies with our rules about testable predictions and having evidence to support it.

You’re grasping at straws. Gravitational lensing isn’t localized like this.

Systems can have an infinite number of eigenstates. It depends on the system. The energy states of the hydrogen atom, for instance, has an infinite number of levels. But a simpler finite square well has a finite number. No, to say “due to entanglement” gets cause and effect backwards. Entanglement is a two-particle situation. You can describe superposition in a single system.

In light of the wave of novel ideas we’re getting, most likely fueled by AI, I think I/we have to jump in more quickly to demand specific predictions/falsifiability and math where appropriate. We’re getting walls o’ text that are pretty much all blather and responses are more of the same.

Is that interference? I mean, we’re talking physics here, so one has a reasonable expectation of using proper terminology, especially as interference is discussed elsewhere, and other parts of the discussion speak of collisions with another atom causing emission, which is not required

Moderator NoteTranslation issues aside, there’s no math here, and we require more rigor than hand-wavy explanations. We need the ability to make specific predictions and compare them with experiment/observation. The section on light generation is nonsense, and “single atom cannot produce light without external interference” can’t be reconciled with spontaneous emission, which is a well-established phenomenon. So: give us a mathematical model, or this gets closed.

You said you don’t know the mass of the mirror, so how do you know the force? The gravitational force is 8 orders of magnitude bigger than the radiation pressure, according to you. How does it blow the mirror away? The radiation intensity from Jupiter is several thousand times smaller than that from the sun (according to your numbers) yet you say it exerts a much, much larger force.

No diaphragm “The diaphragm is what pushes out our burps. But insects don’t have body parts that allow them to push gas from their foregut out of their mouths. And this might be why insects cannot – if you’re real technical about it – burp” https://cals.ncsu.edu/news/do-bugs-burp/

Then it should be no problem to link to it. Where is this mirror and what is the significance of 9.5m? The angle depends on where the mirror is, and, again, the significance of 9.5m is not explained. “Down” is not defined, and there is radiation pressure and gravity from both the sun and Jupiter That’s not obvious; light rarely takes the same trajectory as massive objects unless you’ve got a carefully crafted scenario. Horizontal is not defined here 95 or the mysterious 9.5? What two Newtonian forces?

If you said child - everyone who wants to. Aren’t we referred to as her children? (John 3:2)

I’m not sure what the motivation is to respond to obvious spam, but when you quote them, and include the link, you’re helping them do their damage. When we ban them their original posts are hidden, but not anything in the responses. It’s extra work to hide those posts, too, and if we don’t notice then the spam link persists.

As npts2020 said, we have metal printers; we’ve had them for some time. But the one’s I’ve read about don’t use liquid metal. They use metal powder which is sintered using lasers, similar to laser welding. https://www.hubs.com/knowledge-base/introduction-metal-3d-printing/ A thin layer of metal powder is spread over the build platform and a high-power laser scans the cross-section of the component, melting (or fusing) the metal particles together and creating the next layer. The entire area of the model is scanned, so the part is built fully solid. When the scanning process is complete, the build platform moves downwards by one layer thickness and the recoater spreads another thin layer of metal powder. The process is repeated until the whole part is complete

You haven’t explained enough about how all this is allegedly connected (How are these things connected> what does Jupiter have to do with this?) It looks to me like you just threw a bunch of equations up there that are only loosely related but have no obvious significance to the very-poorly-defined example. It’s word salad with some math croutons

Fields are literally mathematical constructs in physics; they are not made of anything since they are not something that physically exists. They are mathematical conveniences for describing/predicting the behavior of things If one offers a position that they are made of something, it’s incumbent on them to present scientific evidence. Are there lots of children inquiring about quantum field theory or the finer points of general relativity? I can offer math-free explanations of E=mc^2 that don’t rely on either, but they would be somewhat limited, since there’s no math, but perhaps more importantly, because the underpinnings are missing. Feynman did an IMO excellent job of discussing the issues here in telling an interviewer why he couldn’t explain magnetic repulsion to him. There’s a lot to it, but it ends with “But I really can’t do a good job, any job, of explaining magnetic force in terms of something else you’re more familiar with, because I don’t understand it in terms of anything else that you’re more familiar with.” https://fs.blog/richard-feynman-on-why-questions/ Included in this is the problem with using analogy-type explanations So if you try and do a fields-are-sheets-of-particles you might just end up with questions like I asked in my first post, which you can’t answer, because fields aren’t made of particles.

But fields aren’t made of particles. Conveying incorrect information might be easier but it’s ultimately self-defeating. Physics is driven by math and you have to understand that language. There are things that get lost in translation if you try and simplify it. The common approach is to start with simple concepts like motion and force and build on them. I don’t think anyone’s scared out of physics by what’s going on in the math of grad-school topics like QFT. If you get scared off by math wouldn’t that happen in calculus? And if you can’t handle the math of QFT or GR or whatever, you can choose an area where you don’t have to deal with it.

Because you had an existing thread on referendum democracy, as I hope you can see. No need to cover the same ground all over again, but any new ground should actually be on-topic.

You’re missing the point; this is not in question. It’s other things that you said.

No. An eigenstate is a particular state of a system. A superposition is a linear combination of multiple eigenstates. e.g. a two state system has eigenstates |1> and |2> (they could represent energy states, or spin states, etc.) A superposition would be a|1> + b|2> where a and b are amplitudes such that a^2 + b^2 = 1 so that the probability of being in one of the two states is 1

Moderator NoteSimilar threads merged

What does that have to do with using referendums?

Moderator NoteWe don’t care where they’re posted. All material for discussion must be included here. Not as links, or uploads.

Yes, but I’m talking about your other comparison — you went on to talk about the shorter bat and choking up: “longer bat the striking surface is going to be going faster than it will with a stronger bat” — and you can’t say that the shorter bat will rotate at a slower or the same speed, either angular speed or tip speed. As far as the angle is concerned, a drawing would help significantly

I’m curious about what AI you’re using on this. Is it ChatGPT, or Gemini, or something else?