Recent content by weirdoguy

Yes, and for me this: proves what I wrote. I know that it could have been some other value for different bar. The issue is not selecting different bar, but why with this particular bar we get the number that we get and not some other. Why c is not 20m/s, with 1m being the 1m we all agree on...

Yes, and people are asking why it has 3 and not other number.

It is, but the point is it has 3 in front of it, and people are asking why not 2, or 47. To have 2, you would have to change the rod to some other rod with different length.

Over the years here I've seen tons of threads about that, and I think no one ever grasped what people are actually asking about. Eventually all OPs are gaslight into oblivion, and stop asking. So the question is: if we stick to the definition of meter from years ago, as a length of a particular...

There is no time dilation and twin paradox when using Galilean transformation.

Sigh... Why on earth, after so many posts about what energy is, you decide to write this nonsense? Why did you ignore everything we said about that? Can you find any textbook that says what you said? Why not? Then what can I blame? You won't findy what you wrote in any textbook on the subject...

Again, energy is one of many of particles properties! As others have said, it does not work the way you think, but even if it did, those operators would "pump" also other quantities besides energy. I really don't like how pop-sci sources elevate energy to some superior quantity. The "holy...

They can in principle, but they were not in any experiment done to date. And we see no reason for them to be broken. What's your point? Because I don't get it. Yes, and? Again, what is the point of bringing that up? The mistake was a loose cable. It's a technical mistake, not that the...

No! Energy is not a thing, it's a property of things! And there are other properties, like momentum. Why don't anyone says "everything is made of momentum"? Particles have momentum. They have spin. They have quantum numbers of different kind. It's like saying "bananas are made of yellow". It's...

For massless fields with spin 1 or more, we can't construct position operator, so one can't think about photons traveling along any path between source and screen.

It has been discarded from modern quantum physics a long time ago (even though pop-science still talks about it). It has been discussed here on PF multiple times, you can search for threads about that. EDIT. Sorry, I see that someone has already said that to you :wink: And that means you...

If there exists some deeper common framework one can ask the same question: what is it that allows this deeper common framework to exist and work the way it works? When this pyramid of "ever deeper common frameworks" will end?

Well, I read one book on history of QM (Duncan, part 1) and I don't know how non physicist could understand any of it.

Unfortunately, I'm not talking about uncertainty principle besides this sentence: I gave explicitly the definition of what I (and most textbooks) call uncertainty, and to use it in experimental context (as OP wants) one calculates the variance of a large number of measurements of single...

Yes, it means average of measurement data. And for only one measurement, this average is the measured value. Hence uncertainty is zero.