swansont

The details of an interference pattern gives you the wavelength. e.g. the separation of the fringes. We use the same/similar method with light. Bollocks. The final screen shows the position of the particles. The interference happened at the slits. There’s no conflict.

The no-cloning theorem shows that you can't make an identical copy of a quantum system in an unknown state. You can transfer the information under the right conditions, but that destroys the state of the original. The very act of measurement can change the state of the system.

Since ~11% of the K-40 decays gives off 1.46 MeV gammas (from electron capture; the positron branch is very small), which means it easily escapes the banana or potato (or other food it's in), I'd avoid the produce section of the grocery store if one thinks this exposure is a problem.

UltraPolymath has been banned as a sockpuppet of PervPhysProf. Additionally, an unused sock account, SupraPolymath, has been banned.

"Time cannot have a duration of more than zero seconds. Time having a duration of more than zero seconds means that when time is one second, an amount of time that is the duration of that time passes and time is still one second, which is impossible. " makes zero sense to me. Of course time can have a duration longer than zero. Your explanation is gibberish. Also, whether or not an object must exist for some finite amount of time doesn't seem to me to be a general case, but rather a specific case, i.e. a subset, of phenomena to which one might apply the concept of time. As such, it can't be used to draw a general conclusion. Nope. That's not the only context for the discussion. Toss a ball upward (under vacuum, if need be). It will go up, stop, and then come back down, with the entire process taking a time T. When it stops, it will have v = 0. What is the duration of that state of having v = 0?

! Moderator Note "Tangential to the point" sums up several posts, and many have been split off to the trash. The subject of this thread is Pascal's wager and atheism. Subjects outside of that are off-topic.

! Moderator Note This was split to the trash because it's OT from the thread it was in, and spiraled badly. Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that negative aspects of religion exist can't be taken at face value, and instead needs substantiation, is an argument one can make in good faith. But that's just me.

(Unfortunately, crackpots never get past step 1...)

No, you have to transmit the information, so it's limited to being no faster than c.

That bit from SJSU is by an emeritus economics professor (who has never taught a physics class, thank goodness, and I'm not sure how he got a physics degree), and is based on a classical physics analysis of the Bohr model, which we know to be wrong. The conclusions drawn from it are not physically meaningful.

There has been discussion of doing this at the exhaust of devices that use fossil fuels, where the concentration is much higher than the ambient atmospheric value. Such as https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/presspacs/2012/acs-presspac-january-4-2012/new-materials-remove-co2-from-smokestacks-tailpipes-and-even-the-air.html Still can potentially be energy intensive, if you are stripping the Carbon from th Oxygen, but you aren't having to move huge volumes of air about.

Perhaps you missed the "testable" part. The rest of this reads as word salad.

What testable predictions does your conjecture make? How can it be confirmed?

If it’s sci-fi you can’t conclude that. I could decree that time travel requires 88 mph

Right. I was assuming it was static, but giving the areas suggests that flow might be involved.

If by “high energy mode” you mean creating other massive particles, it’s dictated by the mass of the particles you create.

The experiment you describe would be a bad example, since it has symmetry. You might expect identical behavior even if the first postulate did not hold in general

The diagram does not say the pressure above the fluid is at atmosphere. It says it’s P0 One can conclude that it’s at a lower pressure above the fluid.

If that were the case, you would not get other results from e- e+ collisions in colliders. But we do. During.

Well, no, I doubt that. A 32” waist is pretty skinny, and that’s about 80 cm. You can calculate the speed a classical particle would have from the KE. But this is QM. We don’t have classical trajectories

scifimath suspended for hijacking/spamming: repeatedly bringing up his pet theory in multiple threads

! Moderator Note The staff doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the details of what is posted, as long as one follows scientific protocol and the rules of the site. You are doing neither.

Posted by whom?

There is no spin 2/3, which would be part of your lack of full understanding. There are integral spins and half-integral spins. They behave differently, stemming from what would happen if you swapped two identical particles. Quantum spin isn’t physical, so it’s good that you haven’t heard of them physically spinning. But they have intrinsic angular momentum, so they behave as if they were spinning. If you have a nonzero velocity, you have kinetic energy.

You affect interference if you can determine “which path” information. The final screen doesn’t do that. ! Moderator Note You were told not to bring up your pet theory in other threads. You get one thread, in speculations, for non-mainstream discussions.