exchemist

Yeah but my understanding is absorption is merely the limiting case of refractive index, not a totally separate phenomenon. That's why the refractive index goes up as you approach the absorption line. We may not actually be disagreeing, in that your new externally induced potential can lead to a new ground state that is the equivalent of a mixture of the ground and excited states in the undistorted (spherical potential) case.

It's years since I studied this, but my recollection is that the distortion (polarisation) of the electron distribution mixes in some proportion of a higher energy state. Recall that there is a "transition dipole moment" involved in the absorption process that occurs when the frequency is exactly right, involving both states, that is made possible by the perturbation due to the electric vector of the radiation.

The question in the post to which you were responding, of course. This was (just to remind you): "What about the picture that show the experiment at a later state? " The diagrams and stuff you posted instead of answering it were irrelevant, because they were trying (as usual) to change the subject, instead of answering the question that had been asked. Every time we get close to evidence that does not fit your preconceptions, you duck the issue and hastily veer off, with a smokescreen of more fiddly details of your experimental setup. I do not believe you are responding in good faith.

Ah thanks, now I understand. I was not familiar with the abbreviations.

The electrons of the material can oscillate at certain resonant frequencies that cause them to move between different energy states. This is how absorption and emission of light take place. If the frequency of the radiation is close to one of these frequencies but does not match, it can only cause the electrons to move temporarily to the higher state and then return. (If the frequency matches exactly, the electron can absorb a photon and move permanently to the higher energy state.) N.B. The light is not absorbed and re-emitted, as it is something said to be in bad explanations. It is just that the electron "borrows" energy from the wave it and gives it back. The effect is a bit like if you try to run on a trampoline: it absorbs and then releases energy from the wave. This slows down the phase velocity of the light. The closer to the absorption frequency the light is, the more it gets slowed down. In the limiting case, when the frequency matches exactly, it is absorbed, i.e. it is stopped! This is why glass is a dispersive medium, i.e. the refractive index depends on the frequency. The absorption frequency is in the UV, so as light frequency goes from red to blue, it is getting closer to the absorption frequency and thus the refractive index for blue light is greater than for red light. But refractive index is quite a complex phenomenon and really needs QM to explain it properly. It is related to polarisability - the ease with which a material can be polarised by an electric field. P.S. I actually watched most of your linked YouTube video, something I rarely do. I thought his explanation was good, avoiding the usual pitfalls of non-mathematical analogies.

Sorry, I'm still not with this. Who is "he"?

Again, not answering the question but instead introducing another irrelevant distraction. -1.

What cartel is that?

Common sense is a useless guide, in the world of subatomic entities.

Your videos are a waste of time. This has been explained to you before.

Not so far as I am aware. And, from the sound of things, I don't think they would have been very inspiring boobs if they had been.

This is a muddle. Stating what a physical law says is - obviously - not a piece of "enquiry". It's a statement of the conclusions of enquiries. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a conclusion put forward as a result of scientific enquiry. As previously stated, it has been found, in the course of some 150 years of science and engineering, to be something that is always obeyed, and there has been a very detailed statistical model of how it arises for over a century. You claim to have studied it for years, yet it is plain you do not even understand the relevant concepts, such as entropy, still less its origin in the statistical behaviour of molecules. You seem to think you can override a century and half of experience and theory by futzing around with toy machines and doing your experiments sufficiently badly as to obscure what is happening. That is tilting at windmills.

I said: "And yes, an engine rejecting less waste heat than the prediction of the Carnot efficiency limit would violate a physical "law" of the universe." To which you responded: "Where is your experimental proof of this? That is a stupid response. The Second Law of thermodynamics is - so far as we can tell - a physical law of the universe and the Carnot limit results directly from it. Ergo an engine rejecting less heat that the Carnot limit would violate a law of the universe. It's not a matter of experiment. It's a matter of definition. Trouble is, you are not engaged in "scientific enquiry". If only you were. You have an idée fixe, which you have had for a decade now. You spend your time doing pisspot "experiments" in your garage in a hopelessly unscientific way, while determinedly refusing to learn basic science and instead scrabbling around for bizarre and inconsistent justifications for your refusal to accept the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You are tilting at windmills.

In space, no one can hear you talk ballocks.

Ah, but the trouble is that, in your mounting hysteria, you are not reading what I posted. All I said was that if an engine were, somehow, to achieve a greater efficiency than the limit predicted by the Carnot formula, then it would break one of the laws of thermodynamics. That is a true statement that requires no testing, as it is just a matter of applying the 2nd law of thermodynamics to Carnot's cycle, i.e. simply an exercise in theory.

How about Prime Minister Liz Truss? 😄

No that is not all you said. You also spoke some gibberish about -10 being equal to +5 and started blithering about bricks and Hawaii. None of which has anything to do with the subject under discussion.

Do try to get a grip of your mind. You don't need to actually run a red traffic light to tell whether doing so would break the law. All you need do is read the law.

It would help if you would stop talking in riddles.

I think I'll hang a picture there..........FfzzzzBANG......

Obtaining elements from compounds, for example by reduction of their oxides, is chemistry. So you can make hydrogen by electrolysing water. Protium is a term for one isotope of hydrogen, the predominant one. The term is only used in contexts in which it is important to distinguish it from deuterium and tritium. In almost al chemistry this is not necessary, so we just call it hydrogen.

It was only fairly recently that I finally got clear the distinction between statistical thermodynamics, which I studied at university, and statistical mechanics. The two terms often seem to be used interchangeably. However, my understanding is the former is concerned with equilibrium processes, i.e. those in which one has an ensemble with a Boltzmann distribution among the available energy levels. Statistical mechanics is broader, embracing both equilibrium thermodynamics and non-equilibrium situations. When one is dealing with individual atoms, or things such as population inversions, it obviously makes little sense to apply concepts designed to describe equilibrium ensembles. (This is what we have in these regular, breathless pop-sci articles blithering on about "negative temperature", for example. Unless you have a Boltzmann distribution, you can't speak sensibly about temperature at all. )

Yes, the opening paragraph makes clear they only claim to beat the Carnot limit in a small number of non-equilibrium cases. The Carnot cycle, like just about all of classical physics and chemistry, is concerned with equilibrium thermodynamics, i.e. regimes in which concepts such as temperature have a meaning.

The pictures indicate this balloon has solar panels. So I'm not sure the plutonium story stacks up - unless for some reason it is the practice to provide both, which would seem to be a big weight penalty. But it makes sense to bring it down in shallow water for recovery and analysis of the bits, rather than have it smashed to smithereens after hitting the ground. No doubt the analysis will get used for political purposes, to put pressure on the Chinese.

Ah yes, the interociter! This Island Earth: the man on the screen (Exeter) with the "Tefal head", as one of my brothers described him, when we watched it in our teens.