swansont

That’s what a wave function is.

I recognize the individual words but this makes no sense. A quantum oscillator is one example of a quantum system described by the Schrödinger equation, but not everything described by it is an oscillator. Huh?

No. The Schrödinger equation for a particle in a box, for example, gives you energy eigenstates. They don’t vary in time, which is why they are called stationary. The particle has no defined motion, and it’s possible to find the particle outside of a well of finite depth. The solution gives probability of where you might find the particle.

This level of ignorance suggests that you aren’t to be taken seriously, and just have an agenda. Argument from personal incredulity is a logical fallacy This belies your assertion that it’s just correlation. That may be what you are doing, but not science. Assertion. No supporting evidence. We’re talking about a global effect; desert vs rainforest is local. What is the average humidity in the world? How much can it grow, using factors of 2 as a measure? Compare to CO2. Bonus question: Why are factors of 2 the appropriate measure (as opposed to simple concentration values) when discussing warming? There is visible light. How much energy does this represent? A calculation. Some scientific analysis, rather than hand-waving. You brought up error bars as a suggestion that a graph not be trusted, so you must gave seen them. Don’t move the goalposts. You haven’t linked to this graph, and I’m not going to just take your word for it. And no, a standard deviation is not 1/4 Politics, not science, and until you substantiate this I will assume you just made this up.

! Moderator Note This has been split into a mainstream physics discussion. No speculation allowed.

! Moderator Note Discussion on mechanics split. Stick to the topic here, please https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/121227-basic-mechanics-split-from-poles-of-an-electromagnet-question/

A reasonable person would understand that H2O can’t vary all that much, which is why its impact is not as important, and also that the impact of CO2 has been studied, so one can refer to science rather than hand-waving. Science, please, not awkward anecdotes that don’t actually demonstrate what you claim. Error bars tell you exactly how much to trust the results. And again: science, please.

I don’t know what this means.

Quantum particles exhibit wave behavior An individual conjecture, untested and not mainstream science. Speculation. Also not to be used as a basis for further speculation. IOW, if you have an idea based on some conjecture, you can’t build a greater conjecture on it. One per thread, and limited to discussion here in speculations. Your original discussion was based in classical physics. What’s the point of moving into QM?

No. A particle in a potential well does not have a trajectory. Maybe stay away from QM if you haven’t learned about it (for real, not pop-sci summaries) single particles through a double-slit will interfere, so no. also no. Principle of reiteration? Does this principle exist outside of your own pet theory?

Applies to any quantum particle in a bound state. You know, an oscillator.

What does that have to do with a quantum oscillator? What does seeing a photon have to do with quantum decoherence?

No, they have a wave nature. Electrons in an atom don’t have trajectories

And those elements could not form until the universe cooled sufficiently. About 3 minutes to form nuclei. But elements did not form (electrons combining with nuclei; I think the date is specific to hydrogen) until about 380,000 years after the BB.

If you want to (potentially) show thrust you have to account for all the forces, and by focusing on the Laplace force you aren't doing that.

Physical motion (i.e. a defined trajectory), for one.

There are a few senators whose craven behavior has been on display for years. However, I think that the bulk of the GOP contingent, and most of the ones (re-) elected before 2018, still get benefit of the doubt for the character on display for voters making their decision. It's only after Trump was elected that they went all-in on putting party above country, and shredded any pretense that they are supporting and defending the Constitution. Anyone who voted for McConnell (and a few others) knew what they were getting. But the rest can still be plausibly shocked and disappointed and be absolved of this if they vote to remove their senator.

Iowa sends 56 delegates out of 4366. A little over 1% The demographics change markedly after NH. I would guess the only real impact here is fundraising

It's the coulomb force. F = kq1q2/r^2

It's not clear to me how a superposition of quark states would affect the electron, and what the superposition of quark states actually is. To use MigL's example: what changes for the potential well created by the quarks? What quark states are in superposition? If quarks are in an excited state it's not a proton anymore "the first excited state of the proton, usually referred to as the Delta-1232 (where 1232 MeV/c2 is the mass of the particle)" https://www2.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/02/5.html IOW, you've added nearly 300 MeV to the system. Would you even have a hydrogen atom anymore? So maybe you've got a superposition of spin states. How does the electron probe that superposition?

If an electron leaves the wire there is a +1e charge in the wire. You have a great many electrons leaving the wire — a current I, flowing at some speed over some distance. They flow to the other side because of the potential difference. There will be an electrostatic attraction between the charges and the wire. This is (supposed to be) physics. You have to justify that this will be the case. There is nothing on your page about the forces the electrons exert on the wires. There's a qE term in your other forces, but there is no analysis of the arc. You can't just ignore it. To do so leaves you with the silly conclusion that there is a net force that would allow propulsion, in violation of the laws of motion.

"Being measured" is a very vague way of describing this issue. Wave function collapse implies there is a superposition of states. What superposition would be present, that is removed by quark interactions?

Charge is conserved. If electrons leave the wire, the wire must be positively charged. Even if there's a battery in there, the excess charge will not magically be constrained to the battery. I made no assumptions about that. I am asking you for your analysis of this, as part of your conjecture. I am pointing out that this analysis is missing. You own the burden of proof here.

So this is the drawing to analyze - no changing it. There are electrons in an arc - meaning they have left the wire, and the wire is positively charged. The electrons will feel an electrostatic attraction to the wire, and the wire therefore feels an force toward the electrons. Where have you accounted for that force?

Computer security.