swansont

we already have a definition for speed. Call it something else. Relativity has beat you to the notion. We already know that the frequency depends on the frame of reference, and I’m not the first to point this out. Repeating an explanation/analogy without responding to questions about it is poor form

What would this interference look like? The point of the example was to show that applying QM to macroscopic systems leads to absurdities.

The magnification of a simple telescope/microscope is the ratio of the focal lengths of the objective lens and the eyepiece. If you have a more complicated system, you are changing the effective focal length when you turn the knob. You can change the magnification by changing the eyepiece

This is irrelevant. The source is further away when it emits the second photon. It has to travel a greater distance. That in no way means it’s traveling at a lower speed. I will reiterate what others have said: you are redefining “speed” to mean something new. You aren’t allowed to do that. It already has a definition

I said nothing about perpetual motion Your “pin” is not the center of mass. The system should not freely rotate about that point. The fact that it does is unphysical. There should be no expectation that the laws of physics will be followed by this simulation. You say it shifts its gravity, but didn’t you also say there is no gravity? You don’t show gravity as a force in your diagrams.

So it takes longer for an atom to absorb a photon from a receding source, than from a stationary one, with the photons at the same frequency in the absorber’s frame?

No. I expect that will change in the future.

Then this philosophy already must exist, since science exists.

You’re just asking this now? It’s been clearly “yes” for two months or more now, on this particular topic. (Earlier for others)

You appear to be mixing science and philosophy.

That’s not how we measure speed. We care how fast the photon moves. Not anything that depends on a different photon. Does a photon swell its chest while en route?

I will note that physics textbooks are full of problems that fits into the category. The issue as I understand it is that an object starts to move when the net force on it is zero. But it also apparently rotates around a point that isn’t the CoM, so there is an implied force that is not being accounted for.

I don’t understand why a reaction force would be represented here. An object’s acceleration is the result of the forces acting on it, not the force it exerts. The laser, in your example, is actually irrelevant. How the force got there is also irrelevant - the object in question doesn’t care. If it feels 1N of force, the acceleration doesn’t rely on how that force is exerted Where is that calculation? How did you determine the CoM?

So it has a mass. Why is it a pivot point? Objects tend to rotate about their center of mass, and your pin isn’t it. If you force an animation to do otherwise, there’s a reason why the physics it represents wouldn’t be working.

You mean 100%, right? The number you arrive at is the most likely correct value, based on the information you have. But the problem is that all you can do is make more measurements - there’s no way to peek inside the black box and see what “truth” is.

and? Length is a convenient way of describing space, too. Is length also solely a human notion? what about length. Does it not exist in empty space? Again: same for length. gravitational potential, which also includes position within the field. Then you should be able to develop a theory based on this concept and measure this force, or effects based on it. (This requires overturning relativity, BTW)

It’s both, isn’t it? If you have a normal distribution, you are indicating a probability the true value is within the error bars because your error bar represents some number of standard deviations

It says no tuning for the P-T Solution. The key seems to be the circuit, and the gain device. But there’s no detail in the abstracts.

I wasn’t talking about virtual particles. I was talking about a thermal distribution of massive particles. The only bit in that post that’s about Hawking radiation is the last comment. The first one. That it’s explained as particles in describing the mechanism, but claimed to be EMR - in the same article.

Interesting; Planck' s law depends on the frequency of the EM radiation, so something has to be different if the particles are not photons, but you still have a temperature for thermal particles. You could, for example consider a "perfect absorber" of atoms and subject it to an ideal gas at some temperature — it absorbs all the energy of the atoms, and you could model a perfect emitter as well (you have trouble with not having fundamental bosons as the particles, since there are conservation laws to worry about, but Hawking radiation avoids this)

I was thinking more of the pulsar aspects of a rotating neutron star. EM, but not thermal.

But if they are non-photons, they are not electromagnetic. And there are descriptions that say Hawking radiation is electromagnetic. That's why I am suspecting that the EM signature is that of a blackbody, but the original radiation is not necessarily EM.

But that's not a type of radiation. As I said, it describes the spectrum, and indicates its origin is thermal. The distinction between blackbody and electromagnetic is, AFAIK, not correct. Blackbody radiation from the sun, for example, is EM radiation.

Hard to say from the abstract. Can you cite a paper that isn't paywalled? It's possible there's no hard-core QM here. Other things I've read talk about parity + time symmetry, and that's not strictly a QM concept.

In another thread I saw a comment about Hawking radiation, which I found confusing, and it's repeated in other online sources: that Hawking radiation is electromagnetic. I'm not a cosmologist, so I'm missing something here. The common explanation for Hawking radiation (e.g. https://www.universetoday.com/40856/hawking-radiation/) is "this process is also called black hole evaporation. In brief, this theoretical process works like this: particle-antiparticle pairs are constantly being produced and rapidly disappear (through annihilation); these pairs are virtual pairs, and their existence (if something virtual can be said to exist!) is a certain consequence of the Uncertainty Principle. Normally, we don’t ever see either the particle or antiparticle of these pairs, and only know of their existence through effects like the Casimir effect. However, if one such virtual pair pops into existence near the event horizon of a black hole, one may cross it while the other escapes; and the black hole thus loses mass. A long way away from the event horizon, this looks just like black body radiation." So the process creates particles, but the radiation is deemed electromagnetic. That does not jibe. What is being glossed over here, in the transition from particles, to electromagnetic radiation? Is it as simple as the particles interacting and creating EM radiation, and that radiation has a blackbody spectrum? (not unlike the CMBR having a blackbody spectrum)? And that this is just a terminology shortcut, when really it's the signature being electromagnetic, even though the radiation itself is comprised of massive particles?