K^2

Non sequitur. There is absolutely no reason why you should observe detector signal from both. And if you actually do the math on particle-detector interaction, it'd be clear why. Speaking of which, I still don't see you deriving anything. I need numbers from you before you can keep claiming to have some advanced knowledge.

First base. You're really stuck on that Earth is Flat side of thinking, aren't you? Is it Ok that I've actually done research in particle physics? And have on occasion read lectures on Quantum Mechanics, including Quantum Field Theory, to graduate students while my adviser was out of town? I'm just trying to figure out why you expect a generic "Physics Professor," to have better grasp of Quantum Mechanics than I do. Now, a full Professor in Theoretical Particle Physics will most certainly have more experience than I do, but we're also talking about the basics, and so they won't tell you anything different. Every particle always travels along every possible path. It's foundation of modern field theory. A particle does travel through both slits in double-slit, which is precisely why you have to sum up trajectories through both slits And you're back to crack-pottery. If you think you have a theory that works better than Standard Model, give me a computation. Of something. Anything. How about mass of pion? Just approximately. Say, to within 10%? It's really easy. Any graduate student can do it using Standard Model. Again, you are back to an idea that there is a precise position for a particle, we just don't know it. That's hidden variable. And it's been thoroughly disproven. Things like Quantum Teleportation wouldn't work if this was the case. And we do have Quantum Teleportation. It's a thing that people have actually been able to carry out. You are really acting no different than Flat-Earthers arguing that Earth isn't round in the age of satellite communication. You just happen to have picked a more obscure field, so there aren't as many people to call you out on it. I happen to have spent many years actually studying Quantum Mechanics, learning from people who do this sort of thing for a living. There isn't a part of it where you aren't wrong. And again, the only way you can prove that you are right is by carrying out a computation. Scientific theory must make quantifiable predictions. Make one. I'm not even asking you to compute something new or unexpected. Just confirm a few well established quantities. I've given you a number of examples. Take your pick.

And that's why we haven't been to the moon since the 70s. It's this precise attitude. "Why should we as tax payers?.." Because if we don't, then all of our achievements, all of our technology, all of our literature, all that is us - means absolutely zilch. We will perish. Of the Seven Billion people living on this planet right now, every single one is going to die and rot on this world. And leave practically nothing of themselves to be remembered. And if we only consider immediate gains, that is all we will ever be, until a giant solar flare, or a stray asteroid, or a global war ends us. Barely a footnote on Planet's history. Not even a dot on Galaxy's. Whoever ends up being the first people to actually land on Mars and try to make it there, we owe them our support. They will surely perish. Just like the first colonies to the New World perished. But how much of an effort they put into staying alive, and how much support we all give them, that will determine when the next group will try and what sort of resources will be invested into it. And we can keep trying until we get it right. Until we have permanent, self-sufficient outposts off-world. And then - then it will all mean something. If a bunch of lunatics take a one-way ride to Mars, we don't owe them the help. We owe it to ourselves. For our future.

Nearest Quantum book off the shelf. Peskin and Schroeder, Introduction to Quantum Field Theory. Chapter 9 - Functional Methods. Page 276. Here is another one. This is from Modern Quantum Mechanics by Sakurai. This is a standard graduate level text. From section 2.5, Propagators and Feynman Path Integrals, p117. Now, Sakurai doesn't talk about double-slit specifically, but he applies the above to Aharonov-Bohm effect, which also relies on particle taking multiple paths at once. Section 2.6, Potentials and Gauge Transformations, p138-139. I could probably go on. But that's just two standard texts I've picked up at random. Particles taking every available path at once, including going through both slits of a double-slit experiment is a scientific fact. It's also common knowledge among anyone who actually studies the field. And it surprises us just as little as roundness of Earth surprises modern people. Ugh, most modern people.

And if Earth was round, water would wash off of it, so clearly, Earth is flat. You are falining to move past the most basic of principles here. Double slit experiment is a classic example specifically because it breaks expectations. But it's not designed to teach you much of anything beyond that. To understand why it works, you need to actually learn Quantum Mechanics. Not just the cool thought experiments and videos on the internet. But the mathematics and physics behind Quantum Mechanics. Once you understand the core Quantum, a touch of Field Theory (at least Classical,) and some basic Quantum Information Theory, I could start explaining why you can only measure the particle passing through one slit.

Ayup. And if particle passed through just one of the slits, and we don't know which because we didn't measure it, it's a hidden variable in your model. It's trivial to set up a multi-stage double-slit experiment which is absolutely identical to a two spin Bell inequality. With the same exact outcome. So again, Bell Inequalities actually prove that particle passes through BOTH slits. It's a requirement to get measurements we are getting from a huge number of experiments. Ranging from actual double-slit experiments and its variations, like delayed choice quantum eraser, to more abstract things like quantum computing, quantum encryption, and even quantum teleportation. All of which rely on the same underlying principles. Now, instead of watching some videos, I would suggest you actually open up a textbook. It takes a bit longer, but that's how you actually learn things.

The most plausible situation is that they won't be able to launch anyone in the first place. If they somehow manage, the next most plausible thing is that they'll suffer a fatal accident somewhere between trying to get to Mars, and trying not to get to it in quite such a hurry. Now, if they actually manage to land safely and establish some sort of a colony, which is a huge stretch of imagination right now, then we can start discussing alternatives. And honestly if they actually make it, I think we should all pitch in and keep the supplies going. It'd be a shame to waste such an outcome.

Bell inequalities prove it does not. So give it a rest. Particle always travels through both slits, or QM wouldn't work. And before you say anything, QED predicted anomalous gyromagnetic ratio to 12 decimal places. When you can beat that with any of your crazy nonsense, you can come back and share your knowledge. Until then, you're just another crackpot.

All elementary particles are point particles. Your question is meaningless.

Could you, please, run through derivation of baryonic excitation spectra for some of the lighter baryons? Also, if you could derive decay constants and structure functions for some light mesons using this "subquantic medium" model, that'd be great. What you are grasping onto here is known in the academia as a duality. Examples of notable dualities of Quantum Mechanics include such things as Holographic Interpretation, String Theory, and to a lesser extent, Supersymmetry. These things are regarded as nothing more than mathematical curiosity until they can start making actual predictions. To the date, Standard Model is the only one that makes correct predictions for almost everything. No other duality has been found to work better. Or, indeed, even come close to replicating results of Standard Model. Scientific Theory must make testable predictions, and these predictions must pass the test. Everything else, as the classic noted, is stamp collection.

Pseudo-scientific baloney. Don't try to argue about QM with a physicist until you actually learn some physics.

Woah. Does not follow. At all. All it tells us is that whatever carries that dark energy charge* is spread throughout the universe, rather than being concentrated only at galaxies. This does not imply any new structure to the space-time. Only that there is a (probably) unknown field that interacts with gravirty differently than ordinary matter. Which would follow from the charge. * I keep using the word "charge". I should clarify that I mean a conserved charge of the relevant symmetry. E.g. the charge of the U(1) symmetry is the electrical charge. Since we are talking about Poincare symmetry, the conserved charge is the stress-energy tensor. Specifically, if I recall correctly, dark energy appears as a pressure term. Which isn't exactly the same thing as conventional gas-in-a-container kind of pressure, but there are parallels, hence the name. Time dilation is relative. Relative to Great Attractor, Earth is time-dilated. Relative to us, it's the Great Attractor that's time dilated. If that's confusing, look up Twin Paradox on Wikipedia.

Just the opposite. Particle always travels through both slits, even if you detect it moving through just one of them. Because a particle, any particle, is just an excitation in the field, and Lagrangian on the underlying field will allow propagation along every possible path. What you observe in a measurement is a separate story and has very little to do with how the particle got there. The basics of this are taught in the introductory Quantum Mechanics. The details of how it actually works are, typically, part of a graduate level Quantum Field Theory course.

mpc755 A few of your links were to media covering scientific publications, and mostly, misquoting sources, as popular coverage usually does. The rest is just nonsense from the start. I'm telling you that as someone who actually spent a number of years studying particle physics.

General. Specifically, Poincare Group is the gauge symmetry of the gravitational field. It's the reason we have space-time curvature. I do not forget. It's irrelevant. We don't know what the source of that expansion is, but we can measure acceleration, which means we can estimate the curvature, which means we can derrive the stress-energy tensor that's driving the expansion. Think of it as early electrodynamics. We have not yet discovered an electron, but we can understand electric charge. Knowing which field it is, spcifically, that carries this particular charge is irrelevant. It'd be nice to know, because it might help us expand the standard model. But it doesn't change anything about our understanding of General Relativity and how relative velocity vs relative acceleration work. Because that's down to symmetries. And these are in perfect agreement with accelerated expansion.

It's hard to give a solid estimate, because there are a lot of factors. But it's easy to put an upper limit on it. Soda bottle is pressurized to about 2 bar, or 200kPa. If we assume that CO2 is released at sufficient rate to maintain that pressure, the total energy liberated in 1.5L would be about 300J. For 1.5kg of propellant, we get 10m/s exhaust velocity. That's ISP of 1.02s. Realistically, you'll probably get close to that early on, but it will quickly drop to a much lower value. So average ISP is likely to be lower. It might also be more useful to consider total impulse in this case. Again, considering an upper limit, the total impulse works out to 10m/s * 1.5kg = 15Ns. If we consider a typical astronaut in a space suit, which is about 130kg, we get delta-V 15Ns / 130kg = 0.12m/s. Which really isn't much to begin with, and will likely be even less in practice. You could use rocket formula here, but since initial and final masses are almost identical, you should get the same result.

No, that is completely wrong. We don't know what all the fields are, but we do know the local symmetries they must obey. Poincare symmetry group is one of them. That's all the information we need to say that it's impossible to measure velocity relative to a ground state of any of these fields. Now, if you have excitation in these fields, and these excitations are massive (either due to mass of the fields, or due to self-interaction), then you can measure velocity relative to them. But since these excitations are otherwise known as matter, that shouldn't be a surprise. If there exists a field that does not satisfy that particular local symmetry, then conservation laws are wrong. See discussion in EMDrive thread on just how improbable that is. The only reason I don't use the word "impossible," is on technicalities. But for all practical purposes, it is.

All theoretical predictions that say vacuum has mass have an error of approximately 100 orders of magnitude. It is known as the biggest failure of modern theoretical physics. So you can stop right here. We have absolutely no idea what's going on with dark matter or dark energy at this point.

Yeah, that article is just a mess of nonsense.

So if my country has nukes, there will not be a war on my country's soil? I'm sorry, but you're making a very s***y argument for getting rid of the nukes. They were gullible enough to believe that US and UK would uphold the spirit of the disarmament agreement, rather than twist the words of the document to weasel out of it. By the way, it was a huge mistake for US. Ukraine wasn't the only nation with similarly worded agreement with US, and other nations are watching. Take a look at how Chinese policy in South China Sea has changed in 2014. Nukes are a good deterrent against direct attacks, but they certainly do not replace an effective foreign policy and good military force to back it up.

Gravity is a massless field. A graviton/gravity wave drive would have the same efficiency as a photon drive. 300MW/N. We are seeing efficiency at least an order of magnitude higher. So we can safely exclude any masless fields. And for massive fields, orientation matters.

Eh, no. Your best case is that VPs themselves are massless. In which case, that interaction follows an inverse square law. So the range would be comparable to the same electromagnetic interaction. If you go with massive VPs, then the law becomes exponential decay, and you range drops to atomic scales. No long-range interactions possible here. Try again. It's something that proponents of aether theory of light came up with following Michelson-Morley experiment. They needed a way to explain that speed of light is the same in all directions. So they decided that aether must be viscous, and it "sticks" to Earth, so it's static with respect to Earth regardless of place on Earth, time of day, or time of year. But they had no problems with aether interacting with matter. They were dealing with something that interacts with matter rather strongly, electromagnetism. We are looking for something that cannot interact with matter strongly and does have mass. Therefore, Earth has to be moving through it as it revolves around the Sun. Which means that we have relative velocity with respect to it, at least some of the time. And that means that we ought to be able to measure differences in thrust of EMDrive based on orientation of the drive. Simply because it's easier to push from medium moving with you than one that's moving against you.

It's called dark matter to distinguish it from luminous matter. Id est, stars. Technically, planets and asteroids contribute to dark matter fraction of the universe. The problem is that there aren't nearly enough of these to add up. So usually, when people talk about dark matter, they just talk about the missing fraction, which happens to be most of it. Whether or not it interacts with other stuff is still debated. Weakly interacting dark matter is one of the hypotheses. Another is that dark mater is very compact. Tiny black holes all over cosmos, or some such.