Recent content by bhobba

The book for that, IMHO (it covers Fourier analysis and distribution theory, which circumvents difficult questions of convergence, plus you know what that damn Dirac delta function is that puzzled even the great von Neumann) is...

For spontaneous emission, the issue is that, according to ordinary QM, the energy levels are stationary and remain the same. The solution is that, due to the electric field of electrons, they are coupled to the Quantum EM field permeating all space. This coupling means they are not stationary...

My goof - wrong paper. Now fixed. The correct paper (by @Demystifier who often posts here) is: http://thphys.irb.hr/wiki/main/images/2/2c/Casimir.pdf Sorry Bill

Many constants in physics are known to exist, but their values must be determined experimentally. The constant c in the Lorentz Transformations is one of them. To see why, you need to study a derivation of the Lorentz transformations from the Principle of Relativity (POR) alone...

In the classical limit, you get Maxwell's equations that imply c is the invariant speed of light. Thanks Bill

The Casimir Effect is related to Van der Waals forces: http://thphys.irb.hr/wiki/main/images/2/2c/Casimir.pdf Thanks Bill

The point was simply that it's not a medium like, say, water is in water waves seen in the everyday world. What is it (advanced undergrad, not HS level): https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3211&context=physics_facpub Thanks Bill

The whole issue of virtual particles and vacuum fluctuations being real is complicated, with many experts (including me, not that I am an expert) thinking they are mathematical fictions: https://arnold-neumaier.at/physfaq/topics/unstable.html I do not understand how those at the HS level can...

There is what is called the quantum EM field that permeates all space. Heuristically (i.e., not true but adds some intuition), a photon is like a disturbance in that field. That disturbance could act like a particle, or spread out, like a wave. There is no wave-particle duality - only...

For what photons are, not the POP scIence version, see the following I frequently post: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3211&context=physics_facpub Its math is at the upper-undergrad level, so it may be a bit advanced. Thanks Bill

It isn't. Its resolution in QM is actually deep. Here is a deeper explanation: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703126 Even that is not the full story, but to go further would be above undergrad IMHO Thanks Bill

Just for context, Malcolm Roberts here in Aus is well known as a bit of a loose cannon. Surprisingly, he actually is a qualified engineer. Another interesting 'character' is Professor of Geology Ian Plimer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer That said, I can assure everyone that climate...

That's an old discussion. Feynman certainly agreed with you. My counterexamples are that mathematical physics is a branch of mathematics, and Witten did get a Fields Medal. Thanks Bill.

I don't know if it's cultural, but here in Australia I know of nobody who complains about paying taxes (we are a very high tax-paying nation). Everyone recognises essential government services need to be paid for. The complaint often heard is, are we spending and raising the money efficiently...

As a famous pop-sci celebrity, he is par for the course. He does raise public awareness about science, which is a plus. This may be because he was once an actual pop star. However, he is not even in the same class as his hero Feynman, who was a master communicator of science. To be fair, few...