Recent content by Collin237

This is in reference to the following essay: https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/20/11/877 He's talking about laboratory techniques, which I don't know about. But it sounds like he's saying that the Bell violation comes from the necessity to select the most likely pairing of the two detection...

But if the gas is behaving non-classically, how can there be only one formula? If all the atoms are identical, isn't the behavior described by one of two entirely different sets of forumlas depending on whether the atomic spin is an integer?

But wouldn't that be a collapse, i.e., an interpretational issue? Which, as I've seen oft repeated here, doesn't change the basic math? I'm still waiting for someone else to corroborate.

What? The theory is non-extensible? Can someone corroborate this?

There are collision processes happening everywhere all the time. The vast majority of them occur without anyone situating or calculating them.

So? External lines become internal if the diagram is extended to show more interactions "surrounding" the scattering, but internal lines don't become external unless the diagram is changed by breaking a line. That's just basic topology. What does it have to do with "existence" vs "myth" or anything?

Lots of things can be avoided. I've read that the Beatles didn't use sheet music drafts to develop their songs. But having found a way to get by without a formal technique doesn't justify calling it misconception that others who do use it are being sloppy about!

Why do you have what you call a "Thermodynamic Interpretation"? If there's no ambiguity, why don't you have a textbook like the one vanhees71 wrote, and gave me in a pdf just for the asking?

I was shocked when I first noticed the Likes on this forum (I don't recall the circumstance). But I realized that Like here means something different -- and IMHO much more useful -- than anywhere else.

The problem isn't what the policy is, but that some people can avoid paying what the policy says they should.

I didn't post any personal theory. You did. You theorized about what I was going to type next. I reported you, and the report was rejected.

Ah, now we're finally getting somewhere! Would you be willing to write a series of Insights about these expressions?

So are books that resolve the ambiguities. But those books are not meta-studies of textbook usage; they are the textbooks themselves. The higher standard is commitment to honestly understanding the theory as established by experimental verification. The textbooks don't define the standard. They...

Glad to see he deleted that part about time not existing. :smile:

So on the one hand you claim that the theory doesn't work unless you define virtual particles this way. But on the other hand you claim that most of the community that studies the theory and performs the experiments that confirm it has been led astray from this definition. You can't have it both...