swansont

That article is from 2014. I'm a STEM professional and I'm a geek. The label has lost some (most) of its negative connotation. The article is directed at women, though, and I'm a guy and only speak for myself. I did notice this: That's...not how math works. 20% of engineering students are women, not 20% of women become engineering students. The "other 80%" are male engineering students.

But the piston is pretty much free to move, so this is less like a bomb and more like a slow expansion as the water freezes. (It could become a tiny bit more like a bomb if the ice itself was strong and you still had liquid in the center of the systems) But as has already been pointed out, you're expending a whole lot of energy for <10% expansion. OTOH, a phase change, or chemical reaction that converts a solid or liquid to a gas, gets you ~22.4 L per mole of gas (assuming an ideal gas) at STP.

To expand on this, as it were, the scenario depends on the vessel being weak enough to rupture. If that's not the case, you just have cold water at high pressure.

No, that's not reasonable. It's exceedingly unlikely we will find new physics in the range of sizes and energies we can currently investigate, and this problem lies squarely in that realm.

And you credulously passed it along instead of doing a quick physics analysis. The flux of cosmic rays at 1 GeV is ~10^4 per m^2 per second, so for a ship with an area of 100 m^2 you're at 10^15 eV/s, or ~100 microwatts from these cosmic rays. (The peak is at around 0.3 GeV) We need to account for all energies, though so we can look at the energy density of ~1 eV/cm^3 and assume everything moves near c, which gives us 3 x 10^10 eV/cm^2s or 3 x 10^14 eV/m^2s, so the ship gets 3 x 10^16 eV/s That's two whole milliwatts of power Somehow I think you aren't going gallivanting around the cosmos on a power budget of less than a Watt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray

For someone who posts as prolifically as you do about QM, to plead ignorance of QM is quite something.

This is the tail wagging the dog. The dictionary does not define physics.

That’s Zeno’s paradox. Archimedes principle is about a solid displacing fluid, and feeling a buoyant force equal to the weight of the displaced fluid. edit: xpost with iNow

You misunderstand. I was explaining why this is a waste of effort. I wasn’t offering to waste more of my time. You should be able to evaluate some basic QM experiments.

Different experiments give different results, owing to wave-particle duality

You can win the lottery, too. But that's not the typical result Presenting the edge cases as typical is not a fair argument. You can have a thousand destitute people plus these three who will be, on average, multi-millionaires.

How is insisting that it's really classical underneath not exactly the same thing?

The same way normal stars form. The interactions are the same. Those are excellent questions. How, indeed?

! Moderator Note Links deleted in violation of rule 2.7 (We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it.)

Yes, it does. If you treat the mass as one system and the chassis as another, they must each have equal and opposite momentum at all times. ! Moderator Note The larger issue here is you can’t ask the question and then give the answer; that’s a violation of our good faith rule (advancing an ideology or agenda at the expense of the science being discussed). Your question has been answered, and we’re not going to entertain yet another discussion involving your fanciful notions of Newton’s laws.

No. That’s not what anybody has said, and Newton’s laws say the chassis must move If the internal mass moves, the rest of the system has to move as well, according to Newton’s 3rd law.

It will vibrate along both axes. A conceptual simplification would be to assume everything is massless except this one mass. The chassis moves in a circle around the stationary mass.

The CoM doesn’t move if it starts at rest and there are no external forces.

Not the way it works. Hypotheses are not assumed to be true, and falsifiability is a requirement. You use the best model available. IOW, you use the wave model to explain wave behavior. There is no inconsistency since the models explain different things.

The phrasing of the abstract is that these sources can’t be ruled out, which is quite different from claiming positive evidence that they are anti-stars

How would you test this?

Ah, of course. (I took that as square mile, not mile squared. Stupid brain)

No, there’s no reason to think this is possible with known physics.

Can you show a calculation showing how much energy would be a available?

! Moderator Note Split; please don’t hijack discussions to bring up your own theory