swansont

! Moderator Note (emphasis added) No, that's not what others should do, it's what you need to do. You must do a better job of supporting claims. Otherwise it's soapboxing, which is against the rules.

If it's in the constitution, you should be able to cite article, section and subsection. If it's in federal law, title and section of the US code. So I will ask again: What specific part of the constitution, or federal law, specifies this? Martial law is still law (it's in the name). And it will matter what the constitution says, because there has to be a method for discontinuing martial law. The constitution is ALWAYS in effect. Notice how that says what may be suspended (under very specific circumstances) is the "writ of Habeas Corpus" and not "all of the constitution"

Not all particles are entangled, you can have superposition without entanglement, and not all particles are in a superposition. You haven't made a connection between decoherence and time. Slow down, as in their speed? No that's not true. I can make a proton move faster than an electron. It's not that difficult. You also claimed that more mass means time passes more slowly, and have yet to address how this does not violate the equivalence principle. We have experimental evidence that atoms with different mass experience time the same way. And still, you haven't made a connection between decoherence and time. You've made an assertion. Repeating it doesn't make it true, and isn't a substitute for actual physics. Plus the fact that the double-slit can be done with massive particles, so you can't invoke "zero time" as an explanation. What is the superposition they are in that would lead them to decohere?

Since the induced field depends on the rate of change of the field in the material, that means the retarding force should be proportional to speed. That gives us a behavior like F = kv - mg k is some negatively-valued number (because the retarding force is up and v is down, kv > 0) and it depends on the magnet and the surrounding material and geometry. I assume that will be the same for all magnets (we have a platform with magnets around the rim, tightly fitting inside the tube) Terminal speed means kv = mg, and if my magnet is 0.1 kg (tough to measure, since it would tend to stick to a scale and it's hard to manipulate) and we approximate g as 10 m/s^2, we get mg = 1 N My estimate of the speed was 0.5 m in 3s, so that's 0.167 m/s (assuming it hits terminal speed quickly), and k is then 6 N-s/m And now, adding mass should result in a faster speed, but that should scale linearly, at least over some range of values. So if you increase the mass by 10x (0.9 kg of load per 0.1 kg magnet), you get a speed of 1.67 m/s Jumping from 1m gives a landing speed of 4.4 m/s, so you can tolerate a load of 2.5 kg additional mass per magnet (4.4/0.167 = 2.6 and subtract 0.1 kg for the magnet) If you are jumping into a tube that's 0.4m in radius, the circumference is 2.5 m, and you could fit ~100 magnets around the rim of your disk. Which should support 250 kg of load. More if you use stronger magnets So this back-of-the-envelope model suggests this would work.

It is quantitative. Feynman mentions this - it's having electron spins line up. That's pretty sloppy for someone with a physics background. Forces do not require energy, work does. If there is no motion, or the motion is perpendicular to the force, no work is done. That's physics 101. Someone versed in quantum physics would know about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and the time constraints this places on conservation of energy

The problem, to me, is that you keep saying it's decoherence, and then not explaining what you mean by that. And that seems decoupled from the issue of massless particles not having their own frame of reference.

Apologies to both of you. And molecules physically exist. A wave function is a mathematical description of a phenomenon. Not the phenomenon itself. (An electron has a wave function. The electron is not itself a wave function). You are asking something akin to what medium comprises a probability (which is one aspect of what a wave function describes). It makes no sense to ask the question. Wave functions and fields are related but still distinct concepts.

Water has one of the highest specific heat capacities of any non-gas. Ammonia and Lithium are slightly larger. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_specific_heat_capacities Hydrogen's is very large, but if you go that way you're going to need a bigger boat.

! Moderator Note You have claimed this several times without explanation. It seems you have some alternative take on this, so I have moved it to speculations. Now: either expand on what you mean and answer questions that have been put to you, or this gets locked.

As Strange studiot says, in Hilbert space. It's a mathematical tool, so it seems reasonable that it exists in a mathematical space.

I think there's a chance you could do it. You need strong magnets and thick metal walls. I have a neodymium magnet ( ~2.5 cm on a side) that takes about 3 sec to drop half a meter in a thick-walled aluminum pipe (about 10x longer than in freefall) and it hits terminal speed pretty quickly. It makes for a nice demonstration. You're adding mass to that, which increases the gravitational force and speeds it up. This would increase the resistive force, since B would be changing faster (and makes this a tad more complicated to model) What kind of speed do you consider to be safe? That's got to be known.

Seconded. A photon is a quantum of EM radiation. Is that a definition or an explanation? I say it's both. As an explanation it requires you to be familiar with some physics, but by raising the issue you have implied that you have that knowledge.

! Moderator Note If you have supporting arguments, they need to be posted here. Forces do not have radiant states Vectors are irrelevant here, as the electron does not have a defined position Hydrogen has a ground state and excited states; any state above the lowest one may radiate (whether they do is subject to other conservation laws) Nonsensical.

A magnetic field is something you get when transforming an electric field into a moving frame. What we have here is similar to Feynman being asked to explain it to someone who lacked a physics background. He said something like ”I can’t explain it in terms you will understand” IOW there are concepts built on other concepts. In those cases, you need to understand the underlying material first. edit: the whole thing is good IMO (he talks of the difficulty of answering "why" questions and the necessity of having some things be understood) but the part I was referencing starts at 6:00, and he touches upon it multiple times

Another way of stating the first part of MigL’s answer is that error bars are a necessary part of any experimental result.

Asking for evidence of an obscure claim is one thing, but this is not obscure. It ends up being a delaying tactic in such discussions, often deployed in ways inconsistent with good-faith arguments. You don’t show up to a class that has a prerequisite and then interrupt by asking for material you should know. would a reference really matter? You already rejected the 97% statistic (and without much explanation). Why would it work if I reiterated it? I’m participating in the thread. Basic forum rules tell us that commentary suggesting the negative needs to be supported with evidence. There’s also a concept that in the mainstream science sections, that mainstream science is assumed to be true. (If a poster thinks otherwise they should be posting their arguments is speculations) Evidence of consensus is not something that comes up in other discussions, though. Why are you holding AGW to a different standard?

You can't make the comparison because the two measurements are in different frames of reference. Energy being conserved means it stays the same within a frame of reference.

[emphasis added] Minutes, not seconds. At 0.1c, as you show, the time dilation effect is small. So it will take ~80 minutes to make the trip at that speed. You can't really say that the photons experience zero time. There are no equations that we have that work in the photon's frame of reference which would allow you to definitively conclude that. The equations we have work in inertial reference frames.

Decoherence of what? Can we not discuss time using classical physics? You seem to be using decoherence as a magic wand. What is decohering, and how does decoherence manifest itself as time? What is your model of how particles that couple with the Higgs experience time in proportion to how strongly they couple, and thus is depends on mass? Does this mean time passes differently for an electron vs a proton? Or a hydrogen atom vs a cesium atom? That is in direct conflict with the equivalence principle, and has been experimentally excluded at a pretty high level of precision. For reference, I have randomly chosen a paper that shows confirmation of local position invariance https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6145

"Now" is not well defined in physics. We quantify things. We tag them with a value of t. And constructs of he mind have no relevance to the physics discussion. Time can be measured. It's not an illusion.

Where the OP's argument breaks down is that if I have an unchanging system at point A, and at point B I have a clock which is measuring the passage of time, the argument must become that time only exists near point B but not point A. And I would like to hear a defense of that claim. Otherwise, time is passing where the unchanging system is.

My thought is that if the OP placed it in physics, then they get a physics answer. If they want a philosophy answer, they should be the one to post in philosophy. To some extent, yes. It makes the argument about change even worse.

No. There's a trick involved (possibly an inductive source under the table). There is no fire danger if you recreated what's in the video, because no current will be flowing.

How would they lose their energy? They aren't doing work. Absent a change in the laws of physics, no. Forces do not expire. The electrostatic force depends on the charges and the separation distance. The way you change the force is by reconfiguring the charge distribution, and energy will be conserved in doing this.

Everybody makes mistakes. But as a general rule the people that are resident experts and mods are the sort that will acknowledge them when they are pointed out (and there are others, to be sure, who behave this way). So it's not that it's forbidden to disagree — it's not a problem to point out mistakes, if you're sure it's a mistake. I think the "I need time to understand this because it doesn't make sense" is a good response, as would be phrasing an inquiry as a question to get more information. If there was an error, then the poster has a chance to re-assess their earlier response.