97,849 reputation
7128265
bio website motls.blogspot.com
location Czech Republic
age 40
visits member for 3 years, 6 months
seen 21 mins ago

Hi, I am a string theorist and a publicist.


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
Jul
18
answered If batteries are a source of energy, would not lower-valued resistors cause a violation of the conservation of energy?
Jul
18
awarded  Enlightened
Jul
18
answered What determines whether a pool ball will bouce backwards after colliding with another pool ball?
Jul
18
comment If there were fundamental forces weaker than gravity, would we know about it?
I like Slovakia! And the idea that Czechia is on par with a "superior landscape" inside a swampland is surely a bit exaggerated. Yes, I think it's a test but there are subtleties that prevented us from formulating and/or proving a truly general version of the inequality, so there may still be loopholes. But I think that it's important to look at both types of evidence in science - not only that "something is possible and goes" but also on general enough principles that resemble "no-go theorems". It's really the latter principles, "something isn't possible", that mostly underlie modern physics.
Jul
18
revised Basis in quantum mechanics
added 628 characters in body
Jul
18
answered Basis in quantum mechanics
Jul
18
answered If there were fundamental forces weaker than gravity, would we know about it?
Jul
18
answered Attractive higgs force and inflation
Jul
17
awarded  Nice Answer