97,319 reputation
7128265
bio website motls.blogspot.com
location Czech Republic
age 40
visits member for 3 years, 6 months
seen 3 hours ago

Hi, I am a string theorist and a publicist.


Jul
19
answered What exactly is a gauge anomaly?
Jul
19
revised Why are most accurate reflective surfaces not white?
added 20 characters in body
Jul
19
awarded  Nice Answer
Jul
19
answered Can light be trapped theoretically?
Jul
19
answered Eigenvalues of the Lagrangian?
Jul
19
answered Why are most accurate reflective surfaces not white?
Jul
19
comment Do the laws of physics that apply to all observers also apply to a non-observer?
It's not like saying that, but even in your triplet of statements, there would still be no contradiction. Whether sugar "contains" sugar is debatable :-) but otherwise your statements are still true.
Jul
19
comment What is the complete quantum description of a free electron
Dear Wildcat, no, $m_e$ and $q_e$ are universal constants - also and especially in quantum field theory - so they are $c$-numbers, not $q$-numbers. They are not observables. Well, the total energy/mass $E=mc^2$ and the total charge of a physical system obviously is an operator, it can have different eigenvalues. But these things evaluated at a single electron are just constants, $c$-numbers.
Jul
19
comment Do the laws of physics that apply to all observers also apply to a non-observer?
Please learn basics of logic before returning to this server. There is no contradiction. It is just like saying "All fruits contain sugar", "butter is not a fruit", "butter contains no sugar". No contradiction.
Jul
19
comment Do the laws of physics that apply to all observers also apply to a non-observer?
Dear Derek, the laws of physics have the same form for all observers - in all inertial systems. Light isn't an observer - it doesn't have any inertial system associated with it. There is no contradiction whatever in between the two sentences, is there? Light obeys the laws of physics we know but we don't formulate these laws from the light's inertial system because the latter doesn't exist. I have already answered this question of yours, now it's time for you to stop writing confused comments and read the answer.
Jul
19
answered Can life exist in intergalactic space?
Jul
19
comment What is the complete quantum description of a free electron
Why did you include $m,q$ to the "information"? These are not dynamical variables. They are constants of Nature. One may enumerate many other such constants, like the electron's magnetic moment. But none of them changes with time. I suppose that if your classical starting point is bizarre and unexplained in this way, any "analogous" thing in the quantum theory will have to be similarly bizarre, right? The dynamical information about the electron is only carried by 3 components of the momentum (or similar 3 variables) and 1 quantum bit about the polarization of the spin, that's it.
Jul
19
answered Could anti matter collisions be or make dark matter?
Jul
19
answered Does Mohs scale of mineral hardness always hold?
Jul
19
comment Do the laws of physics that apply to all observers also apply to a non-observer?
Dear Derek, I don't sufficiently understand what it means to "reinforce" your question. Instead, I tried to answer your question. Light doesn't have its own inertial system because it can't be at rest. It always moves at the speed $c$ relatively to any inertial system. This is not a contradiction with special relativity. Instead, it is one of the two fundamental postulates of special relativity, the constancy-of-speed-of-light postulate! As I have already told you, your (non-existent) "light's inertial system" isn't needed for anything in science. Light is understood without it.
Jul
19
answered Two related questions about double-slit experiments moving at a relativistic speed
Jul
19
answered Is Red-Shift experiment correct?
Jul
19
answered Lagrangian description of Brownian motion?
Jul
19
answered Do the laws of physics that apply to all observers also apply to a non-observer?
Jul
18
revised If batteries are a source of energy, would not lower-valued resistors cause a violation of the conservation of energy?
added 840 characters in body