swansont

No. There's no physics there, just some terminology tossed together, devoid (as far as I can tell) of any real meaning.

And there's a limit to what we can "see" and that may or may not tell us what something "looks like" (which is what the OP asked) e.g. the size of electron from scattering experiments is smaller than (IIRC) 10^-18m. We can't measure a smaller number We can get an image from sonar or radar, but again, the size and shape we reconstruct may not reflect reality. It wouldn't tell us what color the object is (Something that doesn't preferentially absorb a particular wavelength range of photons isn't going to have a color). It doesn't tell us what it looks like, which is a visual limitation. "What does it look like" is a quasi-classical inquiry, and like other aspects of classical physics, it loses meaning at small scales.

Not only are the trio of orbitals symmetric, but you don't have a preferred axis in the absence of some external field. So the orbitals can be oriented in any direction in space. You can't say which p orbital the electron is in, so it's in all of them until you measure. IOW, you don't have an intrinsic electric dipole moment, as I posted earlier. Going back to the OP, these particles don't really "look" like anything since we can't form an image of them. Even the Sr ion doesn't "look" like anything based on the light it's giving off. A neutral Sr atom is a few hundred pm in radius, but the light being emitted is around half a micron. You wouldn't be able to determine the size based on that light. What it "looks" like really only makes sense for objects where diffraction is not important. We can use other particles that can have much shorter wavelengths, e.g. electron microscopes, in order to form an image. We can get other information by reconstructing what happens with e.g. scattering experiments. But because of quantum mechanical effects, everything will have a wave behavior, and the notion of what it "looks" like loses meaning. We talk about how it behaves — how it interacts — and what its properties are. Elementary particles are depicted as balls in diagrams because that's a way to visualize interactions. You could look at Feynman diagrams to see various interactions between particles. But it's like a schematic of a circuit — that's not necessarily what the actual circuit looks like,

In the US, the EPA classified CO2 (back around 2007, confirmed by supreme court ruling) as a pollutant and therefore had the authority to regulate it, but there was pushback. The supreme court ruled in 2014 that the EPA could regulate carbon emissions. But there was never any will to do anything for the environment under the Trump administration. Trump reversed Obama policies on the matter (as he did on so many issues)

I don't see any physics in there. It's word salad.

Relativity is a notion in physics that some variables depend on the frame of reference in which they are measured. Einstein developed the theories of special and general relativity to deal with mechanics and its dependence on reference frames (GR incorporates gravity) As a theory it makes predictions and has been extensively tested, and is supported by these experimental results. It's not an ideology.

The electric dipole moment of a neutral atom in zero field is zero https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.174.125 "The observation of an electric dipole moment (EDM) in an atomic system of well-defined angular momentum would be direct evidence for violations of both parity and time-reversal invariances."

Vacuums do not pull matter. Colloquially put: pumps don't suck. The atmosphere blows.

No, it doesn't. It might reflect more on the business, if the green product is less profitable, and that's why it is not being offered. Again, no evidence presented for your narrative. "lying for the environment" seems to be your description here (so you'd be guilty of the same hyperbole you are decrying), and you have not shown it has crept into research - no links to actual journal articles, as far as I can see. You've shown it has crept into PR, and I'm wondering why anyone is shocked that PR uses hyperbole. It's true in the US, too, as far as my experience goes. There's this myth that "the market will provide" and people that preach market solutions for problems, rather than government solutions. But the pure capitalism that some worship only cares about maximizing profits. I think it's a failure of having large corporations and conglomerates. A small company might see value in an incremental increase in profits from one product, while a large company is less likely to. Also, if you already have a large market share, you might be less inclined to care about consumer loyalty, if there aren't alternatives to your product. Tying in with the topic: Tesla is an example of a company making a (potentially) "green" product, but they had to start up on their own, probably because existing car companies didn't want to cannibalize their own sales. But we see that people will buy such products if offered. Hybrids, too, but they were introduced because the US government forced the issue by raising gas mileage standards, and companies needed some cars with great mileage to bring the average up. And lo and behold, they sell. Demand is there. Tesla had a multi-year waiting list for their cars at the beginning; demand far exceeded supply. Hybrid electric + EV sales keep increasing

Scuffing your feet on the carpet while holding a fluorescent bulb is another way to pass the time leveraging static electricity (My childhood was pre-Star Wars, so we didn't know to pretend it was a light saber)

! Moderator Note How about we return to the topic, and not post otherwise

That’s not how taxes work.

Closing on 1000 posts and 5 years here; that’s hardly a newcomer. And there’s plenty of quality science given in response to dubious claims. The main issue is that the feedback wasn’t incorporated into the discussion.

The question was “Does Energy depend on frames of reference?” not whether it’s conserved within a frame of reference. Yes, total energy depends on the reference frame.

Yes, it’s a highly-held secret. It’s not like they’d tell you in any of the journal articles, or other sources that are easily Googled.</s>

Yes, but unfortunately the people that need to learn them are unwilling or unable to learn them. The denial overlap is extensive.

Really? That’s what you got from this discussion? (You can go back and reread, if you actually want to learn) Yes, multiple times

You don’t get to tell physicists how to do physics. People like to use “accelerate” to mean “speed up” but that’s not what it means in physics. And it doesn’t matter what linguists (or you) decide.

This is a physics discussion. Krauss can use physics terminology, or terminology applied in a physics context, rather than lay usage. Perhaps it’s not needless. Reminiscent of the different definitions of ‘vacuum’

And the evidence for this is? (As usual, you have a narrative that you do not support) Are people being offered alternatives? Are they all refusing them in favor of more damaging alternatives? I don't think they are refusing them - there are people who buy carbon offsets and who opt for green energy when offered a choice. People shop at places that offer fair trade products and ecologically sustainable products, too, so we know this kind of consumer exists, your narrative notwithstanding. A carbon tax can be structured in a number of ways. It could be like income tax, where you have marginal rates and exemptions/deductions. It could be progressive or a flat rate. So your beef is with the label. A retracted paper and lying are not the same thing. I'm not sure what cancer has to do with environmentalism in general or carbon in particular. Again, this is your narrative, and not based on any data or studies you have presented. Again, so what? Do you have a point here, or are you just spouting random statistics and factoids?

Because that seemed a reasonable summary of the post when I split this off.

r=0 is inconsistent with this

Why would you use 780 nm on sodium? BECs require cold, not hot. Klaynos was right. You’ve not learned one damn thing.

At r=0? Has the Heisenberg uncertainty principle been revoked? (i.e. you continue to ignore QM and then for some reason be surprised that classical physics fails at small scales)

One gamma, typically. With a massive particle nearby so that momentum will be conserved. You will never actually get pair production at this energy. It’s the theoretical asymptotic limit (i.e. you know you can’t get PP below that threshold) You only get infinity if you naively apply classical equations, which is one reason we know classical physics fails at small distances.