swansont

One of the things that sickens me about politics is that a large part of it, it seems, is based on deception and fear mongering, whether it is overt or a sin of omission. The way to get elected (or garner support for a cause) is to identify a problem and make people afraid of it — if you want change, make them afraid of the status quo, and if you want the status quo, make them afraid of change. Trump up the issue and lie about it, if that's what is necessary. It's especially effective, because we humans are bad at assessing risk, especially for unusual events, so we will overreact to things that make us afraid. That's just incompetence, if a politician dismisses an issue or proposes a solution, without understanding the problem.

"The proportionality constant, 2G /c^2, is approximately 1.48×10-27 m/kg, or 2.95 km/solar mass" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius 2 is an exact number. c is a defined constant G is known to 4 digits after the decimal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant Using the above SI value, there is no wiggle room — any discrepancy has to be in he truncated digits. Using the solar mass approximation, it will depend on how well the solar mass is known. I suspect that's known to better than the 3% discrepancy between the two values. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_mass Yes, it is. No wiggle room here.

You've described half of laser cooling emitting photons definitely changes the velocity of the emitting molecule. The emitted photon need not be in the IR, though, and you can't talk about the temperature of an individual atom or molecule.

Catch-22.

That's the quantum explanation; the absorptions are into virtual states, and to conserve energy and momentum the photon is emitted in the same direction. If there was a resonance, and a photon were to be absorbed by a real state, the emitted photon could go in another direction, or the system could absorb the photon and relax in another way (e.g. creating phonons)

The GR correction is about 45 microseconds a day, which is a 13.5 km error. i.e. about half a km every hour in your positioning. Put another way, a nanosecond for every two seconds elapsed, so the error grows at half a foot per second. Current error is about 30 feet — you double this in just one minute. (the kinematic correction is about 7 microseconds with the opposite sign) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orbit_times.png

The problem with a moderation queue is the burden it places on the moderators, and the problem of the bias of the moderators making the decision. We have a hard enough time with incivility in discussing politics. Religion is more problematic.

Entanglement is broken when you have an interaction/measurement that forces the entangled attribute into an eigenstate. e.g. if the spin is entangled, then an interaction that would reveal the spin orientation will end the entanglement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freezing-point_depression http://chemistry.about.com/cs/howthingswork/a/aa120703a.htm This is a colligative property, which means it depends on how many particles you have put into solution. The constant for water is 1.86 K/mole, but you cannot answer the question because you have not specified what salt is being used. A mole of NaCl gives 2 moles of solute, but for CaCl2 or MgCl2, you get 3. There are also a lot of variables to consider for how long it will take to freeze.

In the (b) case you have a standing wave, but you still have compression and rarefaction — the air is not in it's "calm" state within the system; it's only at the output, where the interference is happening. You are not getting any energy out so you cannot be coupling any energy in.

The no-cloning theorem refers to an arbitrary, unknown state. This does not qualify. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem The amplification could, for example, work for either polarization of a chosen basis, so that when an entangled photon entered the amplifier there was gain for either orientation. But the photon must have one of those two orientations — it's not in an arbitrary state (input is at 0 or 90, and so is the output; the amplification does not collapse the wave function). An arbitrary polarization would collapse into one of those two states, which means you haven't cloned the arbitrary state (i.e. the polarization of the emitted photon is at 0 or 90, but the input is at an arbitrary angle) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I'm not sure where you're getting this. The factor of 100,000c was from trying to measure the two states far apart at about the same time, so that if they were signaling each other, it had to happen at L/t = vary fast speed. But no information transfer actually took place — the comparison of the data was still limited to c, so there is no possibility of superluminal communication.

The second article confirms that you can amplify an entangled photon in such a way that it remains in the entangled state (clone it), and this remains true even if the amplified signal has subsequent losses. Certainly interesting, because it raises the question of why the losses don't destroy the entanglement — they are interactions, but not necessarily ones that reveal the entangled state. (But what if they were?) How do you think this will change the world of communication?

dr.syntax has been banned for incessant rudeness, despite repeated opportunities to improve the civility of his exchanges, reintroduction of closed threads, and being a fountain of misinformation on a number of topics.

Change it in what way? My thought: the first article is horrible, and falls prey to the bugaboo of science journalism reporting on entanglement phenomena. In short, they are wrong in what they are saying. I haven't read the second. two subatomic particles can communicate nearly instantaneously merely attempting to observe a particle will alter its properties are both wrong. Basically the experiment tried to demonstrate that there isn't communication between the particles, because they confirmed if there was it would have to occur instantaneously (they put a bound on it of 10,000c). They tried to help falsify the first statement that I have highlighted above. The second statement shows that they don't understand the QM model — the states don't change, they are not determined until the measurement occurs.

I think it's entanglement, as J.C.MacSwell has suggested, but awkwardly phrased. If two particles are entangled, and you measure the state of one, you know the state of the other immediately, even if it is far away (outside of the light cone). The mistake is treating them as separate particles — they are a system. If I flip a coin and it comes up tails, I instantly know the other side is heads, even if the coin is huge (e.g. measured in light-days). But since the sides of the coin have a pre-existing relationship, there really isn't any problem — all of the information about the system is contained in observing the tail or the head. It's possible this is an attempt to legitimize some idea by invoking quantum mechanics. It's happened before, and it will happen again.

Given motion between two arbitrary points, does the energy transferred depend on the path traveled?

Right. The earth's orientation with respect to the "fixed" stars does not change over the course of the year.

It's one photon at a time, not one photon and the experiment is done. You make it so that the intensity is very small, and there is only one photon in the apparatus at a time. e.g. if the apparatus is a third of a meter long, it take a nanosecond for the photons to travel through it. You make sure the intensity is well below a billion photons/second, as well as making sure they photons are not sent in bunches.

If you fired the bullet at a large enough speed it would orbit. The problem assumes you can treat the region as being flat.

Are we talking about the classical vacuum here?

20x more damaging than gammas and betas, twice as damaging as neutrons.

And that's physics in a nutshell. Energy is a useful quantity to help describe how systems behave. What it is is not something that physics tries to answer.

infinitesolid2 has been banned for recurrent trolling, including repeatedly reintroducing the topic of a thread after it had been locked.

Your work is copyrighted as soon as it is put down in "fixed form;" in this case, writing and/or drawing. You can register the copyright, which allows some additional legal options, e.g. suing for statutory damages. The copyright only protects the specific thing you have created, not the idea underlying it.

The loudspeaker