Goddard Guryon

Since you’re seeking for answers within physics buzzwords, you’re missing a lot of nuance which is causing you to come up with nonsensical theories. For one, the wavefunction doesn’t exist ‘in’ the particle, it is the particle. A wavefunction collapsing is what causes a particle to show up in a specific location (going by the most prominent interpretation of the wavefunction); as long as the wavefunction is non-zero at more than one location, the particle exists in all those locations.

Equipped with this knowledge, phrases like “a wavefunction collapsing in such a way that it absorbs light” or “change the composition of atoms” make no sense, so I’d suggest you to rethink your assumptions, and, if possible, not look at quantum mechanics as a magic black box that can explain everything a mind can conjure up.

Just to add, some also theorize that new elements may turn out to be stable, sort of the reverse of how f-block elements are a bunch of unstable elements in the middle of more stable [d-block] ones. If that is indeed the case, we may find a lot more candidates to work with in, say, materials science.

It’ll get more complex than that. I’m no expert, but I’m guessing you have to consider the depth of the crust at your location, type of soil and the distance from (and time since) the last closest volcanic eruption, possibly distance from the nearest tectonic boundary, maybe even tidal forces (assuming they have a considerable impact on magma being pushed out, but this may be a bit too far)

Paint it as a chemical reaction in order to understand its equilibrium state. We basically have:

H₂O (gas) ⇌ H₂O (liquid)

By sealing the jar with the water already boiling, we initialize the system to be in a state with equal(ish) amount of both liquid and gas. Then we allow the system to cool down so that the liquid water is no longer boiling. Now the system sits at an equilibrium between liquid and gas states.

Now, when we put ice on top of the jar, the water vapor condenses and gets converted to liquid, pushing the equilibrium to the right. But this decreases the overall pressure in the system since fewer particles now occupy the volume above the liquid’s surface. This is essentially the system trying to pull itself back towards the original equilibrium i.e. towards the left of the equation, which it does by making more water vapor i.e. boiling.

This reaction-like picture helps in visualizing the system better in some cases, so I tried to add it alongside the pressure dynamics scenario. You may be interested in Le Chatelier’s principle if you prefer this.

I’m not sure what exactly you’re looking for as an answer here. I’ll say that instead of looking for alternatives of science itself, we can list through the central tenets of science and then explore perspectives that counter one or more of those tenets. I’m not sure of the generally accepted list of tenets, so I’ll try coming up with what I think those are:

• observation: to understand the world around you, you need to be able to see/hear/feel it. Without this, you’re basically making up whatever you feel like (one could argue that the scientific method begins with a hypothesis followed by observations to test it, but the hypothesis itself has to be based in reality, which again requires prior observation of reality)
• logical reasoning: once you make observations, you try to make sense of them. You do this by applying logic on your observations. Alternative worldviews would say that this logical reasoning has no inherent advantage over, say, not having it, but those worldviews would be useless themselves because a) as far as we can tell, the world does follow logic; “the world around us doesn’t have to make sense, yet it does”, and b) if we were to still accept alternative worldviews that throw away logic, it would get us nowhere. Theories that disregard logic have no consistency and thus no utility whatsoever. You can say this about most (if not all) religions: one of the arguments I’ve heard a lot against atheism is that science is useless because it’s ‘incomplete’, hence God. But that essentially stops science in its tracks: saying we should throw away science and blindly accept any faith solely because science hasn’t solved everything already actively harms science from making progress, and the religions being presented as the alternatives don’t answer the same questions satisfactorily (or consistently) either.
• skepticism: this may partially overlap with the previous one. A huge part of the scientific method is to not blindly accept whatever is presented as model, or even observation, of the world around us. If an observation is objectively good, it should be possible to make basically the same observation by different people. If a model of reality is objectively good, it should match with the reality regardless of who tries to apply it. An alternative of this, like before, would be blind faith and superstition. Things like ‘miracles’ are not scientific because they cannot be (or at least have not been) repeatedly observed under controlled conditions. God as a model of reality is not scientific because it does not have much predictive power (as far as we can tell based on ‘prophecies’).

There may be more ways an alternative theory could try to counter science, but I think these points should give you an idea.

When the water vapor inside the jar comes in thermal contact with the ice outside, it condenses and precipitates. This decreases the vapor pressure inside the jar, which then causes the water to boil.

Boiling is not just a temperature-based phenomenon, it’s also a pressure-based one: a water body maintains an equilibrium between liquid water and water vapor right above its surface. If you remove the water vapor from above the surface, it decreases the vapor pressure and shifts the equilibrium away from the liquid state, which is essentially boiling. Note that this is different from evaporation since the liquid water is not using heat from an external source to vaporize. You can also see this in daily life, for example, in that water boils at a different temperature on mountains due to pressure difference.

…username checks out

Wait, it won’t? You’re telling me all this time we could’ve just cut the power cord to Death Star and the Empire would become powerless?

Return on investment in just 37,561 years, start building today!

For your first point, I’d just like to add that the scientists didn’t give conservative estimates to stay clear of conspiracy theorists, but to stay clear of criticisms of fellow scientists. If there’s insufficient data to back up the claims a researcher makes, you can bet the other researchers will always beat the conspiracy theorists in calling out the bullshit.

I guess that depends on what you were testing. If you were changing your email ID on one of your social media or other accounts, then it may become a bit of an issue, as compared to just sending yourself an email from your gmail account

Apparently there’s a bunch of such channels that have all their content generated by bots: not just the title, but the footages and voiceover as well. They’re all clickbaits with content ranging from simple word salad to blatant misinformation. Kyle Hill made a video about it where he tried to find who was/were behind these channels (spoiler alert: he tried to report the channels to youtube and got his own video striked in return)

There’s also https://www.fedi-search.com (haven’t tried it, but it supports various search engines in the backend)

I can think of a few things to point out here:

• water itself does not conduct electricity, it’s the ions present in an aqeous solution that transfer charges. So humidity itself would be pointless in a case where the water droplets don’t have charged ions present inside them.
• even if the droplets do have charged ions present, those ions would still need a way to transfer charges between those droplets through the air. That is only possible if either the air is too hot (basically plasma) or the charge density in the droplets is too high (essentially lightning, albeit a little different).
• another possibility for something like this to happen would be droplets condensing on exposed circuitry. If there happens to be live wires getting exposed through the walls, under the switches, or in an appliance, any droplets that get condensed at those spots would start conducting electricity (dust often has enough salts to allow such contaminated droplets to conduct electricity, but don’t quote me on that). Do note that the atmosphere in the bathroom would still be safe, it’s only the wet regions of the bathroom, like the floor and walls, that may conduct electricity.