swansont

! Moderator Note You need to post the arguments here, rather than just link to a video.

Likely isn’t the issue. Unlikely things happen all the time. Saying that something couldn’t have happened because it wasn’t likely is an incredibly naïve argument.

N photons? You’re the one saying that there are no particles. How can you invoke Nhf, which admits to the existence of particles? Your proposal is that the EM energy is not quantized, so why can’t the quantized amount be absorbed, leaving the remainder? When you don’t present a consistent argument, it suggests you don’t have an actual model, which is a requirement for discussion in speculations. Not liking things in physics isn’t far from appeal to personal incredulity, which is a fallacy. If you’re not trolling, then stop doing things that look like trolling. The photoelectric effect does not do this, and if you can find an example if a 2 eV photon undergoing compton scattering off of an atom, please present it.

How does research in a lab preclude transmission in nature?

Why don’t atoms absorb part of the energy of an EM wave? e.g. a 2 eV emission hitting an atom that allows a 1 eV excitation.

The presence of the virtual particles inferred by the vacuum energy, but the Casimir force is from the exclusion of some of the vacuum energy states. One need not invoke virtual particle pairs (or their absence) to explain the Casimir force. Although the Casimir effect can be expressed in terms of virtual particles interacting with the objects, it is best described and more easily calculated in terms of the zero-point energy of a quantized field in the intervening space between the objects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

So they can’t be phenomena? And we shouldn’t let go of the idea that they are entities? Can you please give a consistent position?

Particle phenomena? Wave phenomena?

Which are not evidence of particles, so what is your point? Ah, I see we’ve moved the goalposts. You asked about evidence of particles, but now it’s “particles existing between interactions” Evidence of wave behavior is evidence of wave behavior. Evidence of particle behavior is evidence of particle behavior

But can be detected. Quanta that are consistent with observation. Is there any evidence other than all the evidence? How else are you going to detect something other than some interaction?

Those are catalysts for proton fusion, producing helium. Eventually you don’t have enough fuel for continued fusion in this process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle

There are fibers that don’t. polarization entanglement has been demonstrated over 96 km of fiber https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1818752116

I’m not sure why it needs to be so contrived. You can redirect photons with an optical fiber, or mirrors/beamsplitters. Photons can pass through each other quite easily. I don’t see why entanglement would necessarily be affected

One issue with the Coriolis force is that if you are standing up, you have a radial velocity and the coriolis force will push you in a perpendicular direction. But it’s only present if you are moving relative to the station

Does 1 + 1 = 2 require the items being counted to be identical? If I have a nickel and a dime, do I not have 2 coins? Even though they are not identical? And we can call cutting in half being equidivided. Is it really your objection that you can create identical spheres, rather than creating 2 of them?

It says a sphere, though - a mathematical structure - and not a ball, i.e. a physical object. And it specifies a solid “Given any two bounded subsets A and B of a Euclidean space in at least three dimensions, both of which have a nonempty interior…” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach–Tarski_paradox Because you say so? Because it’s inconvenient? I object cut in half to become 2 objects 1 object = 1 object + 1 object 1 = 1 + 1 1 = 2 I agree it’s invalid, but it’s the same argument

That’s the salient point. The theorem only applies to the mathematical construct and does not apply to a physical object. It’s math, but not physics. Which is why it seems paradoxical - it’s contrary to experience and expectations. (Neo can do it in the Matrix, but not in the real world. There is no spoon)

I don’t see where the OP says anything about low-temperature heat engines, and offering an alternative doesn’t really answer the question being asked. And my comment was in terms of the OP’s proposal: if you try and extract the energy you lower the temperature, making the engine less efficient.

And what happens to heat engine efficiency if you lower the temperature of the hot reservoir?

Nothing has been shown to transpire between the particles.

! Moderator Note The goal of the HW help section is to assist you in figuring out an answer, not to do it for you.

No, it does not follow. The paradox does not say 1 ball = 2 balls any more than chopping a ball in half to give you 2 pieces says that 1 = 2.

I missed the “before” The emitted energy is small before the collision. For rotational KE, the mass would be proportional to this, as E/c^2

At 2 GW, it’s a given that one won’t be enough

I wonder, if it’s that diffuse, then how is it better than just putting the solar panels on the ground?