Stack Exchange
log in

Ghoster

 Discussion on question by Markoul11: …

Imported from a comment discussion on physics.stackexchange.co...
Ghoster
yst 20:08
The Higgs boson is not a prediction of QM. QM works just fine without a Higgs boson. The Standard Model of particle physics is consistent with QM but isn’t the same thing as QM.
Ghoster
yst 20:08
QM is so successful that it has required no revisions in more than a century. No experiment has ever falsified it. It has never been wrong.
Ghoster
yst 20:08
Your opinion is a fringe one and very few physicists would agree. The success of a theory has nothing to do with continuing to make new breakthrough discoveries; it has to do with not being falsified. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works.
Ghoster
yst 20:08
Maybe we need to start over in order to overcome the deadlocks of the current conventional theory? … A different foundations theory is needed. Not on this site. As you well know, only mainstream physics is on-topic here. Quantum mechanics works and the fact that some people find it unintuitive, weird, or difficult to accept is simply irrelevant. My downvote is saying “Please stop posting off-topic questions.”
 

 Discussion between dareen and Ghoster

Imported from a comment discussion on physics.stackexchange.co...
Ghoster
Jul 6 22:26
Bye.
Ghoster
Jul 6 22:26
And the current seems far too high for the wire size.
Ghoster
Jul 6 22:25
Yes, I agree.
Ghoster
Jul 6 22:24
Are we done?
Ghoster
Jul 6 22:23
The current flows through the wire, inside it and along its “length”. The wire itself needs to loop around so that the electrons never come to the end of a wire.
Ghoster
Jul 6 22:23
Yes. For me “loop” always means “closed loop”.
Ghoster
Jul 6 22:23
the current cant move in a straight wire it should be shaped like a loop Yes. I’m not the only one telling you this. Every electrical circuit has one or more loops.
Ghoster
Jul 6 22:23
you were referring to the physical model it self being suspended in air from both ends No I wasn’t. I’m not even sure what this means.
Ghoster
Jul 6 22:23
You’d have to show me an example of such a question.
Ghoster
Jul 6 22:23
The first thing to learn is that current can’t flow in a finite length wire unless it is a some kind of loop. The electrons can’t get to the end of the wire and have nowhere to go.
Ghoster
Jul 6 22:23
What equipment are you using to “observe” micrometer-sized wire segments? What is the purpose of this setup of wires?
Ghoster
Jul 6 22:23
You still haven’t explained why the wires don’t instantly vaporize. I’m very skeptical about the huge current you claim, which is a thousand times more than in the much thicker wires found in a house.
Ghoster
Jul 6 22:23
Current can’t flow in a finite straight wire. That rendering of five red wire segments makes no sense to me.
Ghoster
Jul 6 22:23
Despite the addition of the diagram, I still don’t understand the current flow. Currents flow in loops. Where are they?
Ghoster
Jul 6 22:23
The relevant formula you should be using is the Biot–Savart Law.
Ghoster
Jul 6 22:23
A diagram would be useful. The geometry and the current flow aren’t clear to me.
Ghoster
Jul 6 22:23
it may show what physics i am not accounting for. If you want to tell us what physics you’re accounting for, do that using words and/or math, not code.
Ghoster
Jul 6 22:23
five wires, each 13 micrometers long and 1.5 micrometers in radius, carrying a current of 20 kA each That’s a lot of current in thin wires. Why don’t they melt?
Ghoster
Jul 6 22:23
I may have written incorrect or naive code. We don’t review code on this site.
 

 Discussion on question by Mike Cavedo…

Imported from a comment discussion on physics.stackexchange.co...
Ghoster
Jun 27 13:51
Why do you think a non-spherically-symmetric mass distribution would have a gravitational field with a “center”?
 

 Discussion on question by pie: Are th…

Imported from a comment discussion on physics.stackexchange.co...
Ghoster
Jun 21 14:02
-1 This question is a good example of why list questions are unsuitable.
 

 Discussion on question by Eugene O: W…

Imported from a comment discussion on physics.stackexchange.co...
Ghoster
Jun 7 13:54
I not a scientists … skeptic statements are exactly thing which moves a science forward Skeptical statements by people who aren’t scientists and don’t understand science do not move science forward.
 

 Discussion on question by Eric Baird:…

Imported from a comment discussion on physics.stackexchange.co...
Ghoster
May 27 23:15
it would be foolish not to at least try asking around This is a site for people interested in mainstream physics. A better resource for you is Google or arXiv’s search function.
Ghoster
May 27 23:15
Who is currently working on the problem? Nobody who is getting any attention from the physics community, as far as I am aware.
 

 Discussion on question by user12262: …

Imported from a comment discussion on physics.stackexchange.co...
Ghoster
May 24 10:25
Can you clarify whether you’re trying to understand gravitational time dilation or whether you’re a skeptic?
Ghoster
May 24 10:25
"this experiment at the top of Mt. E." Now you’re just misquoting. They didn’t write that and you know it.
Ghoster
May 24 10:25
Why would anyone bother with Mt. Everest when lower mountains (or a flight of stairs) work just fine? I suspect that you are reading too much into that webpage.
 

 The h Bar

General chat for Physics SE (physics.stackexchange.com). For M...
5
1
Ghoster
May 24 05:37
I think only 2 have answers.
Ghoster
May 24 05:34
Between PSE and MSE there are now 18.
Ghoster
May 24 05:02
I can’t find many online references to “chimeric bundle” except in the context of one individual. Maybe it’s him rather than AI.
Ghoster
May 24 04:53
I don’t have enough math background to follow it, but it doesn’t seem to be slop.
Ghoster
May 24 04:52
If this is AI, it seems to be better than we’ve seen before.
Ghoster
May 24 04:50
Were you suspicious before I mentioned my suspicions here?
Ghoster
May 24 04:42
“Rule violations”
Ghoster
May 24 04:42
FD has been busted on MathOverflow. One year suspension.
Ghoster
May 24 00:38
Thanks. Bye.
Ghoster
May 24 00:37
I’ve flagged one of the questions with my suspicions.
Ghoster
May 24 00:36
Extremely detached
Ghoster
May 24 00:34
Do you think they’re human because the posts make sense or because the posts sound like they were written by a human? They don’t sound human to me.
Ghoster
May 24 00:31
I’m suspicious that an AI company is using SE as a testing ground.
Ghoster
May 24 00:28
Do you detect any human-ish touches n their questions?
Ghoster
May 24 00:27
(Look at Math SE as well.)
Ghoster
May 24 00:26
Their range extends from polyominoes to algebraic geom to string theory.
Ghoster
May 23 23:54
There is a new user named FinalDestination rapidly cranking out questions that I can’t begin to understand. Do they make sense? Are they human-generated?
 

 Discussion on question by Alien from …

Imported from a comment discussion on physics.stackexchange.co...
Ghoster
May 18 16:22
Cosmologists use cosmological time, philosophers don't. This is a physics site, not a philosophy site. What philosophers do or don’t do is not relevant here.
Ghoster
May 18 16:22
At least I now understand that you’re using “real” in the metaphysical sense of “true” and not in the mathematical sense of “real numbers”. What is “current time”? How do you propose to determine whether events “exist”? Why do you seem to think that cosmologists don’t use cosmological time?