swansont

How have we detected atomic and molecular signals from a fully ionized medium? "THE first clear positive evidence for the existence of inter-galactic atomic neutral hydrogen was advanced in 1966 by Koehler and Robinson" https://www.nature.com/articles/220147a0

Off-topic for this discussion, but you haven't identified a problem with physics, and it's not QM. Again, off-topic. Math is math. GR is not a quantum theory.

Have you learned anything about gas laws? (Boyle, Charles, Avogadro? The ideal gas law?)

I agree with that last bit. But I would say that that everything is moving in spacetime. The faster you move is space, the slower you move in time (from an external observer's standpoint), such that the 4-velocity remains constant. You don't seem to be arguing that in the rest of your presentation. Everyone has their own time, and everyone else has a time that is in the past, by L/c. In physics, the utility of time is that we can make measurements, and those measurements may be for events not co-located, so it's important that we agree on what time it is, and recognize that we will not agree when there is relative motion (or certain position differences in the presence of gravity). We have a clock synchronization protocol to facilitate this. If you don't follow this protocol, I think you need a new one in order to make sense of any conversations.

But they could be, using your protocol, if they were 68 (or 69) light-days apart.

To use myself as an example - yes I could probably make more money in the private sector, even in my field. I know people who have worked in the private sector who have then gone on to work for the government for less money. There are lots of other motivations, including the challenge of the job, the people you work with, physical location of the job, how you are treated at work, (and for where I work) a desire to serve your country and also the pride of being part a world-leading organization. Some people will do work they don't particularly like because they get paid a crap-ton of money, but it would be a mistake to think that everyone would.

Whose argument is this? In relativity, your 4-velocity is c.

Photons traveling in a straight line from a rotating source is not any sort of conundrum. Even in Newtonian physics, this is the case. General relativity ≠ Quantum Mechanics GR is a classical theory.

“At the same time” loses meaning. In your scenario, clocks are not synchronized. Everyone has their own time. Unlike Einstein clock synchronization used in relativity.

For clocks, yes. For the best ones, no. Thanks for emphasizing my point. Capitalism won’t work where there’s no hope of profit. The government does research, or hires/funds people to do it (or advance it). A lot of e.g. pharmaceutical research would never happen without the basic research having been done on the government dime. It happens quite a bit. In other cases, they subsidize it.

Counterpoint: The best atomic clocks are made by government people. Not the private sector.

Which one is the example of socialism?

As opposed to what other systems?

We physicists do tend to want experimental evidence as confirmation, and "commonsense reasoning" doesn't qualify. Have investigations into quantum foundations resulted in any new physics?

! Moderator Note That's a false dichotomy. In any event, having the discussion here, as you have framed it, is not consistent with our rules. You've made no effort to try and comply, and have made it clear you think you can't.

If you can't answer the question, just say so. An abstract that has no numbers isn't really helpful, and your second link doesn't seem to be relevant. A dielectric feels a force pulling it in to a capacitor. you have to do work to remove it.

! Moderator Note You are free to go and have this conversation somewhere that doesn't care about scientific rigor and, while there, pretend it has some validity.

! Moderator Note No, it doesn't. As others have said, it's cherry-picking to make a blooper reel. Anecdotes. It is not a systematic sampling. There is no analysis. This is the kind of garbage that we are trying to avoid when we adopted our new rule. This isn't an argument made in good faith. Do better.

Using sine waves to form other waves is part of Fourier analysis.

To see if it's an efficient storage method.

How much energy will removing the plates take?

Peter Dow has been suspended for soapboxing (basically treating the site as if it were his blog) and ignoring rule 2.7 — posting to advertise personal sites

! Moderator Note Peter, You have been warned before about following rule 2.7 - that making posts where you link to your own sites is against the rules, and yet you persist in doing so. We do not exist to advertise your personal sites, nor are we here for you to soapbox. Discussing specific aspects of this problem is fine, but using this site like it's your blog is not.

I agree with this. A lot of how we present QM and its weirdness is because we use classical behavior as a bridge (e.g. Bohr atom, tunneling, wave-particle duality), which I think ends up being confusing, since some people try to continue imposing classical behavior on quantum systems.

The article I linked to disagrees, as well as the sources cited within. Plug-in means you can plug it in.