Recent content by renormalize

It that's true, isn't discussing the "subjective experience" more akin to debating philosophy or religion instead of science?

Yes, but the left-side of eq.(4.6.2) is strictly classical general relativity. My point is simply that classical GR can be sensibly coupled to matter systems that do exhibit "quantum behaviors" in order to analyze certain situations of interest, e.g., the expected gravitational field external to...

The answer is that you couple gravity to expectation values of the particles and/or fields. See, e.g., https://www.google.com/books/edition/Quantum_Field_Theory_in_Curved_Spacetime/Iud7eyDxT1AC?hl=en&gbpv=0:

How can this statement be true? A hydrogen atom in its ground state is stable against radiative decay precisely because of "quantum effects". Do you deny that the gravitational field outside such an atom in isolation is exactly that arising from the Schwarzschild metric of general relativity?

This experiment simply measures the time-dependence of the phase ##\phi\left(t\right)## of a wave packet free-falling at the Earth's surface; i.e., a packet subject to the Hamiltonian ##H=p^2/2m-mgz\,##, where ##g## is the local acceleration due to Newtonian gravity. No general relativity required.

Sorry, but your two YouTube videos do not constitute "credible technical references". And your first link: is to a popular-science article discussing research by neuroscientist Christof Koch which states: "Koch acknowledges that analytic idealism is not an established scientific theory but a...

A discussion of this topic and some controversy around it was started two days ago in this thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/latest-notable-ai-accomplishments.937195/post-7321990

Can you cite one or more credible technical references that support the notion that consciousness "is made from a fundamental energy present in the Universe, and we act as attractors or harvesters"? Or is this rather a proposition from philosophy and/or religion?

Do you mean 15 instead of 5?

I believe that starfractal refers to Nathan Cohen and his fractal invisibility cloak. For a recent summary see: Scientist-Inventor Denies Reverse Engineering of Invisibility Cloak. (It's possible that starfractal is tooting his own horn in post #3.)

Explain how learning from YouTube videos instead of textbooks assures that you "...don't...learn physics that will be different for 100 years." Please be specific in your answer.

What are the chances that someone who reads Physics Forums can expertly address this question? Why don't you ask the authors of the 12 papers that cited your original reference? They all list their email addresses.

According to Google Scholar, in the last 15 years this article has been cited only twelve times. And of those dozen, seven are self-references by the original authors, meaning their paper has been cited by outside-researchers just five times. It's clear that the cited paper has negligibly...

Please cite a credible technical reference that states this.

Magnetic fields would change polarity because all magnetic fields are generated by electric currents (moving charges). Under matter##\rightarrow##antimatter, the sign of those currents would reverse and thus so would the magnetic fields the currents produce. What you're really asking is: what...