swansont

In evolutionary terms, "long-term" is many, many generations. In this insanely hypothetical scenario, you would have to describe what selection criteria are present. The results you list are not credible.

"North" as a direction only has context near the surface of the earth. Someplace where a map of the earth has meaning. magnetism in general works the same way in space as it does on earth. Your magnet will tend to align itself with any external field that is present. In seep space, there probably isn't much of a field. Yes. The atoms would align according to the magnetization you have them. If you magnetized them that implies you used a field noticeably stronger than the earth's to do so.

It's a defined value. According to your take, anything you say about Euclid is just your belief.

The momentum-position version of the HUP tells you that the particle has no definite location.

If it does, it will tend to make red fade to a larger extent than other material. Red dye is red because the dye absorbs light that isn’t red. The question is whether 390 nm (a little over 3 eV) is enough to break the dye’s bonds.

How does this sharp division you propose jibe with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? Things don’t behave the same at the quantum level as they do in the macroscopic world just because you want them to. The discussion suggests we’re ignoring it for now (it would be an irrelevant complication) and in any event, attenuation conserves energy.

As momentum grows, the deBroglie wavelength shrinks. At some point the object is physically larger than its wavelength. The uncertainty in position starts to lose meaning. I wouldn’t put mass on that on the list.

Yes, perhaps. That removes classical examples. But the average position of hydrogen's electron is in the center, and the most probable position is only defined in terms of r, not any of the angles. Nothing is localized any better than that.

The value of the elementary charge is not 1.602176634×10−19 C? (a defined SI unit)

Center of mass or charge doesn't tell you the position. The center of mass and charge of an electron in a hydrogen atom is at the center of the nucleus (neutral charge, so the probability distribution is spherically symmetric). But the odds of you finding the electron there are small. Even for a classical system, or a Bohr orbit (which we know is wrong) where the electron is never in the nucleus, we still have a symmetric system, so the center of mass/charge is the center. It's like saying the earth is inside the sun, because our average position is (roughly) the center of our orbit. It doesn't work.

I am not going to watch a 16 minute video that you claim supports your view. The video may be mistaken, or you may be misunderstanding what they say in their alleged support. Q1. No energy needed. The total energy involved remained constant. While in the material the photon is interacting with the material, and this cannot be ignored in considering conservation of energy. Q2. As others have stated, the photon always travels at c. But time is spent interacting (virtually) with the medium. Q3. Nonsensical question. There is no "halfway out." The border is not well-defined at this scale, and you either have a photon or you don't. It's not a scaled-down version of a submerged beach ball rising out of a pool. Q4. The classical picture is a little different, but the notion of light interacting with the medium and consequently slowing down the speed of propagation still holds. It just does so in with the bulk medium, rather than on an individual particle basis. The wave outside of the medium travels at c, the wave inside at c/n. To add to this: it's because the interaction is with a virtual state of the atom in the medium - the photon can't impart energy or momentum to the atom because there is no state to do so with, so the photon must be re-emitted with the same energy and momentum, with none imparted to the atom.

To the extent that this can be applied rigorously (which is to say: not very much) I disagree. Some facts are just complete, and not everything is relative. Some things are invariant. Which is a fact, and (partly because of the qualitative nature of the statement) is absolutely complete.

The article says nothing about the light coming from it, just that it's not forming new stars. The fine structure constant wouldn't be the culprit — that's for electromagnetic interactions. You'd have to have a nuclear coupling change if that kind of explanation had any merit.

Can mean. As in, one of many possible explanations, and without any kind of justification. I would surmise the argument is that if the fine structure constant changed then electromagnetic interactions would change characteristics or even "turn off" and we'd stop getting the light we're used to seeing. But there would probably be other ramifications and we'd have to investigate further. Mordred has stated that a Hubble bubble would travel at c. It would already be here if we can see this galaxy's weird state.

What are your questions?

Memory isn't a conscious experience? It's an unconscious experience?

Speak for yourself. I can remember things from the past, hence I experience the fourth dimension. Even without observers, systems change over time. The block universe is one view. Not the view.

There are quantum systems behave like that, so we study it. Such as diatomic molecules. The analysis tells us about their energy states, and that informs us on e.g. how photons might interact with them. We study behavior we can measure of a system in a potential well. Position is not an eigenstate. Energy is. (Do you understand what I mean by eigenstate?)

What do you mean by "experience"? I experience the four dimensions. Three of them visually. The fourth, not the same way.

! Moderator Note One thread per topic, please https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/121240-could-non-ionising-radiation-induce-oxidative-stress/

That's perhaps a better description, but when "explosion" is used by folks who have some knowledge in the matter, people say "explosion of space" to differentiate the ideas and rebut the "shrapnel" description, and the notion that some chunks simply "exploded" faster than others. In case anyone's interested, a few examples: https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/the-universe/the-universe/the-big-bang https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/universe-may-be-billion-years-younger-we-thought-scientists-are-ncna1005541 "This is another hard concept for people to get their heads around," University of Chicago cosmologist Wendy Freedman said, adding that the Big Bang didn't go off like a kind of bomb. "The Big Bang is an explosion of space, not into space," she said.

The grenade/shrapnel description is a common mischaracterization, as it shows an explosion in space rather than explosion of space.

It’s small and can safely be ignored on the macroscopic level.

! Moderator Note Proselytizing is against the rules. Take it somewhere else.

Nothing literally oscillates. One is solving the problem at the quantum level, and we use the same terminology as the macroscopic problem.