swansont

Right (cubic meter, though). If it's 10 particles, that's an average. Statistically you will have volumes where there are no particles in it (or you make your volume small enough so that this is the case)

Compare and contrast that with Size of nothing is zero, therefore it takes zero amount of space. An infinite amount of nothings still take up no space. Therefore there is an infinite amount of empty space.

Why does gravity determine the size of the particle? So, not a point particle?

"Published on the internet" is basically unpublished, and not bothering to provide a citation? In any event, it does not actually address the question. Are you contending that an equation not including G is not Lorentz covariant? Electrodynamics, for instance? If it's not required, then the question still stands. You already said this. If that was sufficient, I would not have posed my question: What's the answer for the size of an electron?

Did you derive this somehow, or just make it up? Why would it depend on G? What's the answer for the size of an electron?

Even if there were something to this pulsed current system, you have to realize that EM signals travel at c. if the wires are 30 cm apart, any field change will take 1 ns to get from one wire to the next. So how do you turn the current on and off that quickly? The propagation of current in the wires can't exceed c, and will be somewhat slower than that. You have to follow all of the laws of physics.

I'm not convinced a maser is less bulky than a simple RF or microwave transmitter at the same power.

Not interchangeable. Magnetic fields can’t be focused in that way.

They? is it possible that “they” are talking about the force on the pink segment and a force on the blue segment? Because talking about the force from N and S makes no sense. There is just the field, and you can’t have just one pole.

In the US there are power limits on RF/microwave transmissions unless you have permission. Why bother with the added complexity of a maser?

! Moderator Note Please provide references for your claims here

Why? If the walls are mirrored, sure, but then you won’t see any spots. If you see spots or otherwise detect the photon, it won’t also hit another wall. It’s gone after that.

No, it’s not. It’s about finding out how nature behaves, from a combination of observing, making models and testing them.

! Moderator Note Posting to advertise a site is against our rules. Feel free to post the list here.

! Moderator Note Please don’t hijack threads to post, especially if you’re going to post like this. We prefer links to be to credible sources that have something to do with what is being claimed in the thread

! Moderator Note That was not the topic of the OP

You want a chemistry textbook

Yes. The same physics you are investigating might make the detection you want impossible.

Have you considered that the premise that the Bible is true is the culprit?

Do these exist? In the real world, that is. ( both the nanoscopic mirrors and the sensors)

So if the surface roughness of the slit material exceeds half a wavelength, there would be no interference? Since the impact would not always be at a peak? These are generally not polished materials. They will not be that smooth.

I don’t see how that could work, and it’s not clear it’s the same photon.

How would one do this?

When you ask a metaphysical question, you are going to be discussing philosophy.

Citation needed