Strange

How do you know this is happening? How are you observing it?

I would “save as” PDF and upload that. Or, better still, post the information on the forum directly.

! Moderator Note As always, I will warn people to be very careful about downloading Microsoft Word documents from an unknown source. (I certainly wouldn't do it.)

No. Or, at least, only in general terms. Body shape is at least as much defined by environment as by genetics. The wiring of the brain even more so. Plasticity starts as soon as the brain starts to develop. The mechanism for memory is; the contents of memory aren't.

"There are no particles, there are only fields" https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4616 "Fields and Their Particles" https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/fields-and-their-particles-with-math/

Related to that, I did used to work with someone who insisted that you couldn't really define numbers because if you take "1 pebble" as an example, there is no clear boundary to what is pebble and what isn't. There will be a layer of dirt and moisture on the outside and if you wipe that off, you will also remove part of the pebble itself. (Perhaps not surprisingly, he was an engineer!) Now while I agree that it can be hard (if you get really picky) to draw the line between physical objects, the [modern] idea of numbers is not based counting pebbles. Instead, the symbol "1" is used to define an abstract concept which can be defined in terms of axioms and rules. Mathematics is just a set of rules for manipulating symbols that we give particular meanings to. So the number 1 doesn't relate to pebbles or electrons. It just has to behave in particular ways.

So I offered you a source who did exactly that. Context is everything. I was responding to michel123456 who seemed to think the statement "math is not constrained by physical laws" was implausible. I agree. But I would like to hear michel123456's views on this. Maybe it should be split off to a separate thread.

That appears (from the introduction) to say that mathematics exists independently of physics, although you can use physical/mechanical techniques to tackle some mathematical problems. This is entirely consistent with what I was saying. Unless one were to argue that the only valid mathematics is that which can be tackled by mechanical means. It is about electrons, not the abstract concept of the number 1. Eise (and swansont) has said anything else I might want to say about (far better than I could!)

I don't understand how physical laws could be relevant to mathematics. And I can't see what sort of scientific arguments could be made either way. There are various philosophical arguments that can be made about mathematics (is it discovered or invented, for example) but the idea that it is somehow dependent on physical laws is a new one to me. Do you have any examples of how it might be?

Nothing is ever proved. But the fact that photons are the force carriers for the electromagnetic field is confirmed everyday. So I don’t know what you are looking for. Yep. Your eyes do it all the time. Not really.

That is a bit like saying that the magnetic field isn't what's responsible for magnetism. It doesn't have to be proved(*); it is part of the definition of the photon. But, of course, the model (quantum electrodynamics) has been extensively tested and shown to be correct. (*) Nothing is ever proved in science.

Well, there are obviously other worlds/planets in space, because we can see them. "Planets in other dimensions" doesn't;t really mean anything. What does this have to do with beliefs? What does "automatically exist" mean? The other planets exist for the same reason the ones in our solar system do. Physics. Why? That makes as much sense as saying: If you believe in garden gnomes then you must question the colour of custard.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations

I think (some of) the various quantum gravity theories might do (things like loop quantum gravity, causal dynamical triangulation, etc.) where space-time emerges from a lower level description, and hence its relationship with mass-energy is explained by that theory. (That is a bit off the top of my head since it is several years since I read much about the subject). That is one way of thinking about mass; it is (roughly) analogous to charge. Why does charge create the electric field that causes a force of attraction? Because that is what "charge" means. Why does mass create the curvature in the space-time field that causes a force of attraction? Because that is what "mass" means.

I suppose so. But I have seen one person (much more familiar with GR than me) reply to that with "that is what mass is". Which you might think is a bit of a tautology (like "time is what clocks measure") but things either have to be defined in terms of something else or, ultimately, defined as just being what they are.

I don't think that is true. The explanation comes down to the geometry of space-time. As an analogy, imagine two people walking forwards, side by side, on a flat plane. Their paths will remain parallel over time. We can consider the direction they are walking as the "time" dimension (they are moving steadily into the future) and the distance between them as one of the space dimensions. On the the flat plane, the distance between them doesn't change over time. Now put them on the surface of a sphere (e.g the Earth, so they are walking along lines of longitude towards the North Pole). As they move forwards (in time) they get closer together. No force is acting on them, it is just a consequence of the curved geometry they are travelling in. You can consider them falling towards one another because of the "gravity" of the curved space-time they are in. Another observer might consider there is a force acting on them.

I probably shouldn't have said "obvious" (I have tried to avoid that ever since reading The Zen of Mortorcycle Maintenance about 35 years ago!) I thought about this a bit more. Nearly all of the mass of the atom is in the nucleus (and nearly all of that mass is due to the binding energy of the quarks). So it is mainly the nucleus that is attracted by gravity. But the atom is so tightly bound that the whole thing behaves as a single thing under the (relatively weak) force of gravity.

There are a set of equations that model gravity by analogy to Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetism (called, not surprisingly, gravitoelectromagnetism). I think the speed of propagation would come out of these. They are more complex than Newton’s law (but simpler than GR)

Pretty much, yes. It is energy that is the cause of gravity, mass is just one form of that. I would say that atoms are matter (and have mass). Below the atomic scale, it is less clear. The word “matter” is not really well defined at that point. I would say no, because the field is outside the wire so it does not increase the effective mass of the wire. (Although any heating of the wire, for example, would increase its mass - by a minute amount) If there is extra energy in the wire associated with that current (which there may be - have never thought about this before) then yes.

You would need to provide some evidence for your opinion, rather than aggressively asserting it as fact.

Undissolved KOH, I assume Or coffee

Oh. I read the comment as big corporations supporting the Republican Party, not education

No it doesn’t. It just means you can relate mass and energy in that way. All of the atom, obviously. Not sure what/why you are asking this... Maybe worth noting that mass does not appear in the equations of GR, only energy (and a few other things like momentum, pressure, etc)

An expensive education doesn’t necessarily equate to a good education.

I thought that was pretty much the definition of “free press”. That is two different things. No doubt government programs are government funded. But not all university research is. You think the government controls private companies research? What country is that true in? Your intelligence is not being questioned. But your bizarre “facts” are. Hmmm. Maybe the lack of evidence just shows how powerful the conspiracy is