Strange

If it did that, then the particle would have disappeared. The fact that the particle is represented by a standing wave that doesn't disperse is what makes it a particle. I don't really know what that means in this context.

What is the "point source"?

Because the wave packet doesn't spread, nothing is required to conserve energy. Free electrons don't evaporate, do they.

It would be massively more expensive to try and construct a single parabolic mirror, if it were even possible. Using multiple mirrors also makes it easy to track the position of the sun to maximise output.

Which is why you cannot use light as a frame of reference: it is undefined. Sigh. Nonsense. Yes. Boring.

The fact that the wave function is not localised is what allows for effects like tunnelling, where the particle doesn't move through a barrier (it just "appears" on the other side). But when a particle moves from a source to a detector, that is represented by the (peak of the) wave packet moving from one location to the other.

Someone defined a freethinker as someone who is wrong but still able to be smug about it. And you are not a philosopher; that requires critical thinking and the ability to learn. But feel free to try using the speed of light as a reference frame. How are you going to handle the division by zero? Does "freethinking" get you around that little problem?

So you don't know what the word "significant" means. Thanks for confirming that. No one is making absolute statements. (Apart from you, with your absolute nonsense.)

You are still thinking of it as a classical wave that travels away from the source. That is not a good analogy.

I said nothing about inverse square. As far as I know that is totally irrelevant.

Calculating the wave function (and its evolution) is how the result of the experiment was calculated. Changing the slits will change the wave function because it changes the boundary conditions. Doing something (anything) that determines which slit the wave function goes through also changes the wave function, which is why the interference pattern disappears in that context.

And research on ESP has been gong on so long that if there were flaws in early research, they would have been revealed by later research. And basically, that is what has happened: early, poor-quality studies have been repeated more carefully and any effects thought to be present have disappeared.

But he is a philosopher. He must be because he told us so.

But we know about those because the scientific method works and reveals them.

Well done. Nope. You cannot use light as a reference frame. Stop repeating this stupid argument. It is obviously wrong. I can only assume you don't know what "significant" means. Why doesn't that surprise me? Let's take a really extreme difference where another observer would say that the age of universe is 1 million years less than we measure. Is this significant? Of course not, because the error in the measurement is about 6 million yers and so the difference is less than the error bounds. Therefore there is no difference. That is how science works.

That is not what "faith" means. You might be looking for the word "trust". But the whole purpose of the scientific method is to try and ensure we don't have to rely on the impartiality or perspective of individuals. And it seems to work pretty well in the long run.

There is no evidence it started.

Good. We are agreed then. There is no scientific evidence for ESP.

No it isn't. As you would know if you weren't so stubbornly immune to learning anything about relativity. They are relative to a frame of reference. "Observers" have nothing to do with it. The universe was expanding for 14 billion years before we started observing it. Please quantify this. Please use the mathematics of GR to quantify how large the difference needs to be before it becomes significant. Oh, that's right. You can't. So please stop posting baseless assertions. This is a science forum.

It depends on the mass of the black hole and how far they are from it. But they will still see evidence for the expansion of space. (I will let you work out what the difference would be, seeing as claim you are not ignorant of the details of GR.) Nonsense. As you will know from being such a great expert on relativity, nearly all observers do not exist near black holes and so the difference they observe is going to be so small it makes no difference. But even if we say there is someone near a black hole making measurements, we know exactly how to convert between their measurements and ours and so we can all agree on the rate of expansion of space (in the units and frame of reference we each choose to use). I'm sorry, but your denials of the expansion of space are contradicted by evidence.

How abut concluding there is nothing because all scientific tests show there is nothing.

Because we know what other observers will see. (And we also know that it will be pretty much exactly the same as what we see.) We know this because we have a theory that tells us what they will see. This theory is very well tested. I'm afraid that a well-tested scientific theory trumps ignorant assertions. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

Not necessarily. You haven't said what their relative velocity is. (You do know the difference between speed and velocity, don't you?) As the expansion of space is not the same as relative speed or gravitational time dilation, your argument is irrelevant. We can measure the expansion of space throughout the observable universe so there is no doubt that space is expanding. You can keep denying it but the evidence is against you.

Well, if you had a rational argument ...

What is wrong with you? "Expansion of space" is a metaphor. "Expansion of the universe" is a metaphor. They are both metaphors for exactly the same thing. You cannot say that one exists but the other one didn't. The fact it is relativistic doesn't mean it isn't happening. Hey, guess what: THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME THING. As you are incapable of understanding this simple fact or are just trolling, I am going to suggest that the mods close this thread.