swansont

The professor is confirming the validity of general relativity. Any more is you reading something into it. How do you empirically determine the "best" explanation without invoking philosophy or other assumptions? "True" here means valid. i.e. we have confidence that the theory can be applied and give god answers. But it's still all about behavior and observation, and not about any underlying reality.

String theory has a model, but not much in the way of experimental confirmation thus far. It's physics, but not yet an actual theory in the scientific sense of the word - as beecee noted above, it's more properly termed an hypothesis.. It's a work in progress.

What's your point? I highlighted the information from your link, where they explained how they did the max and min temperature measurements and recordings. None of this, AFAICT, contradicts that. Pasting a couple of links doesn't clarify anything about your claims.

Two things. 1) I'm thinking of the case where, owing to thermal motion, that the electron needs a little more than 1.8 eV to reach the conduction band. 2) how does an electron with no KE contribute to a current? To your point about the electron thermalizing, sure - but this represents another loss mechanism you have to worry about I don't know how you would do that. Electrons dropping to a lower energy is a spontaneous reaction. The only way to prevent it is to somehow make the lower state unavailable

How do you test it? How do determine if that’s the “truth”? All you have are observations. If you don’t have that, all that’s left is philosophy (points at metaphysics)

Alternate viewpoints are fine, in general; there are many instances where you can explain a phenomenon by analyzing the energy, and also by analyzing the momentum.

Your map is only valid in one frame of reference

No, I made no mention of speed. There are relativistic corrections to the energy. Synchrotrons are classical and you can talk about the speed of the electrons. No, but you don’t know the speed. The explanations talking about this are making an invalid connection, using a classical equation/concept where it’s not valid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein–Gordon_equation#Derivation

There are relativistic corrections to the energy, which do not explicitly require having motion. The explanation that it’s relativistic speeds is pop-sci/watered-down. QM uses things like energy and momentum operators, and you solve for energy eigenstates. Which differ when the energy gets to be an appreciable fraction of the rest energy.

! Moderator Note You were the one who brought up functioning brain. Your original claim was “can you act, before you think?” This is moving the goalposts; both use of a fallacy and arguing in bad faith, both of which violate the rules

! Moderator Note Critiques of GR and exploration of an alternative model is OT - split

Science cannot answer this. It’s a metaphysical question. One can’t affirm that GR is reality, only that it models observed behavior very well. In that model, gravity isn’t a force. In the Newtonian model, it is. You’re obviously quoting someone. What is the source of this quote?

“Recorded” is not the same thing as “measured” The image caption on the right says they use a max/min thermometer. It measures the high and low over some time period. It does not mean either one occurred at 9 AM. It means that’s when the numbers were recorded. This implies for a 9 AM recording, the high is for the previous day, just as your link says (Minimum temperature is recorded against the day of observation, and the maximum temperature against the previous day) https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100141761

It’s not infinite, and the application might dictate the desired geometry.

At that energy there would be no KE left over, so the electron isn’t going anywhere, and you might need more to satisfy conservation of momentum (especially a factor for indirect bandgap materials). Some electrons would be dropping back to the ground state. Plus you will have reflection at the surface.

Just pointing out that something does not need to absorb thermal radiation, i.e. heat, in order to heat up. (an issue with our colloquial use of the terminology). A microwave oven would be a common example.

The voltage generated is proportional to the number of turns. Every loop counts toward the area that is experiencing the changing magnetic field. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/farlaw.html The reason for more turns depends on the application. The voltage might be the important factor. You might be using the solenoid to create a magnetic field by supplying it with current, and a longer solenoid has a more uniform field inside of it. You could be current-limited but not voltage-limited, and want a stronger field.

Its temperature can go up, since absorbing non-thermal photons will do work on it. And work can get converted to thermal energy quite easily.

There are some that don't bring anything new to it, which is a big "meh" in my book, but the Dead have a unique sound. Also in the "unique sound" category is Johnny Cash's version of "Heart of Gold"

If you learned something it's not a waste.

Merging photons is possible in some materials but it is an inefficient process, and does not work over the entire wavelength range for a given material. I have repeatedly stated that these are not processes for which thermodynamics is applied, seeing as they are not driven by temperature differences. As such, the thermodynamic limit is not particularly relevant, which is supported by the quantum efficiency being around 34% and the Carnot efficiency being 95%. A solar cell is not a heat engine, the mental gymnastics of a few articles notwithstanding. In general you want to apply the best model to a problem, and thermodynamics is not the best model if it's not a heat engine. At best, you can apply thermo to parts of a problem I never said that the process would be 100% efficient No. Some absorptions would create phonons.

Speaking of great covers of well-known songs, one of the better ones IMO came up on my playlist this morning. The Grateful Dead's version of "Good Lovin'" (made famous by the Rascals)

! Moderator Note A problem here is that you are not defining your terminology, and we run into the fallacy of equivocation. (Yes, you can act before you think. There are reflex actions, which require no thought.)

There is no threshold.

Thermodynamics precludes this possibility. You can't convert heat to work with 100% efficiency. You can't swap out work and heat; they are not identical