swansont

No, that’s the radiation transfer. You can’t use your idea here, that’s circular reasoning. You need empirical evidence to support it. What we’re doing is some basic testing of the idea. But that transfer rate drops dramatically once you stop touching the coffee, which is not what would happen with radiation. Not that much difference. The radiation is going up from the surface. As sethoflagos said, that’s convection. The fluid in this case is the air.

Heat, yes. Radiation, no. You don’t burn yourself by being close to the hot coffee. You have to touch it. That’s not consistent with radiation.

Of course there’s another way: the radiation level is much lower than you think it is. You don’t quantify anything, so you’re not comparing the numbers that would show this. The net amount of radiation is actually quite small near room temperature. The heat transfer is via conduction, which is relatively slow, because it depends on the vibration of the atoms.

If it only absorbs a small percentage, the rest must be transmitted. We already know the transmission is quite high, so this radiation is not being absorbed. But we also know the heat in not being transmitted nearly as quickly as this prediction

If your hypothesis is true it must be true for all solids. I only have to find one example where it fails. A material that transmits radiation in the thermal range does so almost instantaneously. (for 2 cm, this was about 0.1 nanoseconds) It must do so regardless of whether the radiation comes from a thermal or non-thermal source, because photons are photons. But you agree that heat is transmitted much more slowly through such materials. I contend that this falsifies your model. Zinc Selenide does not behave the way you predict it should. I await your next tap-dance You don’t quantify things, so you don’t have a model. If you did the math (or comprehend that math I’ve done for you) you would see that your conjecture is not compatible.

That particular glass. The ones I cited transmit out past 10 microns. http://rmico.com/znse-specifications

You should check the rules of the speculations section. The first one is Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.

The bottom line is provide evidence, or a way to test your idea, or the thread will be closed. You are, of course, free to ask questions to improve your understanding of the physics involved.

No. “Belong to the same spectrum” is a pretty meaningless phrase, and it doesn’t say anything about the information a photon carries. If you can’t make predictions, you don’t have a theory. You have a story. A full theoretical framework would havevequations that allowed you to quantify behavior. So you have no evidence and no way of testing your conjecture, which means this falls short of our requirements for the speculations section. That’s what you owe. What you have offered is too hand-wavy, lacking scientific rigor.

No, this is simply not true. The only thing regarding mass and energy carried in the photon is the photon’s own energy. This is independent of the mass of the piece of metal. The photon can have pretty much any energy; you don’t mention the source of the photon, i.e. whether it’s reflected, comes from a transition, or is from thermal emission. But none of those mechanisms is dependent on the mass of the chunk of metal. E=mc^2 would refer to the mass or energy of the metal. This is unrelated to the photons being emitted. I don’t see how the HUP comes into play here; a chunk of metal is a macroscopic object and the uncertainties in position or momentum are wuite small, as is Planck’s constant. Nonsense. You can’t have more mass than energy, since E=mc^2 tells you the minimum energy content you can have. For an object at rest, they are equal. If it has more energy than that, it’s translational kinetic energy, which is not thermal energy. A hot object has more energy than an otherwise identical cool object, but it has more mass, too. Do you have the evidence or test that I asked for?

! Moderator Note ChatGPT is not a credible source. It can’t be used as such.

To be the same in all inertial frames means it’s the same everywhere. Not really a mystery. Right. Nope. Nothing like that is required. And if you are asserting this, you must provide evidence or a way to test the idea. But we already know that inertial frames don’t require a brain, via countless experiments where there was no brain in the inertial frame. Lorenz theory? Do you mean Lorentz? I’m dubious that a photon contains information about mass and energy of anything except itself. Looking at a rock does not tell you its mass. (there’s a movie where Henry “Indiana” Jones Jr. depicts this rather well) Never? Surely photons can penetrate the skull. Ever seen an x-ray of a head? Aside from the incorrectness I’ve pointed out, composite bosons exist. There’s hydrogen in the brain. H-1 is a boson. Which is still pretty meaningless. This sounds like you are saying the brain causes fermions to have half-integral spin. Brains do not predate the existence of bosons and fermions.

If that’s your take, you misunderstand relativity. The first postulate of relativity is that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames, which is why you can’t tell if you are stationary or moving, and why there is no preferred frame if reference. A consequence of that, and the invariant speed of light, is that various quantities, like length and time, are relative rather than being absolute. And this has nothing to do with brains. Muon decay rates vary depending on whether they are moving or in the lab. They don’t have brains. What does this bolded part even mean?

Compensation from working for someone else isn’t the scenario under discussion. My grad school time was subsidized by some government grants, but those were via the school, and in any event that afforded me the opportunity to get a good job and I’ve more than repaid that subsidy with the taxes I’ve paid over the years. A lot of government support (welfare programs, for example) is like that, but the give-and-take isn’t even when you get to the stratosphere of wealth. Musk’s companies got $4.9 billion in government subsidy as of 2015, so the number is surely bigger now. And that’s corporate; it doesn’t count the personal tax breaks that only the wealthy can get, and the tax cuts they’ve gotten https://www.taxnotes.com/featured-analysis/many-loves-elon-musk-and-incentives-won-them/2023/03/16/7g77f# The notion that poor people as a group are lazy is one of those zombie tropes that keep getting repeated even though it’s untrue.

Some more info “All billionaires under 30 have inherited their wealth, research finds” https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/apr/03/all-billionaires-under-30-have-inherited-their-wealth-research-finds?CMP=share_btn_url

One of the basic tenets of physics is that it’s the same everywhere - it’s independent of anyone’s brain. Physics works where no brains exist, and where no observers exist. The value of and invariant nature of the speed of light is important in many processes and interactions that take place completely independent of brains.

! Moderator Note Advertising a youtube channel is expressly forbidden by our rules

It depends on the specifics. Exactly as they behave when relativity in incorporated in QM, which it has been. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_quantum_mechanics

You seem to be projecting your ideas onto others. The propositions about the brain are yours. I haven’t seen anyone else make these conjectures.

What does “extremely non-deterministic” mean? While outcomes in QM rely on probabilities, wave functions evolve deterministically, and there is still cause-and-effect. The things in relativity that are deterministic aren’t in conflict with the non-deterministic aspects of QM.

Evidence or a way to test the idea are required. The brain has no impact on the fact that neutrinos basically (i.e. to first order) don’t interact with matter. It’s not a matter of processing the data - there’s no data to process if there’s no interaction.

But the converse is not true. The photodetector is not a brain, and yet it's an observer. A brain is not required. Evidence? All you've done is make an assertion. The brain has nothing to do with why we can't perceive neutrinos Absolutely not. ChatGPT is not a science resource. It's souped up predictive text.

A photodetector lacks a brain but can be an observer. A brain can do calculations. The issue is whether it’s doing calculations in all of these circumstances where the claim is made. Iterative feedback works, too. And while you can model such things with math, it doesn’t mean you are doing calculations. You throw a rock and it falls short of the target. The next time you throw it harder, and so on, until you hit it. There’s no quantification going on, it’s just iteration.

But Earth’s Hedean era lasted ~500 million years, so if that’s similar for other planets you don’t have habitable planets for O and B type stars. Other habitability issues arise as well - for hotter stars, the “Goldilocks” zone is farther away, but the far planets in the solar system are gas giants, not rocky ones like the inner planets. If that’s true elsewhere, it makes A type stars an iffy proposition.

I think you’ll find a few threads on our site that discuss this very topic. One common response is that an observer need not be a conscious being. There’s no connection to the brain. I’m leery of claims like this - that the brain is doing calculations. I’ve never seen good evidence for it. The arguments either lack rigor or the definition of calculation is diluted past the point of being meaningless.