swansont

! Moderator Note From rule 2.7 Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. But the reason the thread is closed is the dubious quality of the science under discussion.

! Moderator Note This does not have the detail or rigor required for discussion in speculations

The claim was about a paradox in nature, not in philosophy. So, no actual example, then?

! Moderator Note OK then

What exactly, then, is the paradox? It sounds like you’re describing interference. Can you use actual 21st century physics terminology?

How is that a paradox? You expect a certain behavior based on assumption(s). If the system doesn't behave as expected it's not because theres a paradox, it's because your assumptions about the system behavior are wrong.

Regarding McConnell saying senators are free to vote their conscience in the Impeachment It's quite scary to me that there is an implication that they need his permission to do so. It's also a tacit admission that many might vote because of the implications to their political future, rather than to uphold their oaths of office.

! Moderator Note You’ve been here long enough that you should know it doesn’t work this way. Even it were a five-minute video, rather than 1.5 hours. Make your point in the post, not with a link.

Nothing to forgive. Asking questions is a good thing.

They mean that IR is easy to reflect, not that light reflects it But this process does not involve atoms absorbing heat. Thermodynamically, the laser is doing work. A room temperature item will emit IR out near 10 microns, in a broad continuum. A Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. Which is not what we have in laser slowing.

Light doesn’t reflect light, and for some atoms the transition is in the visible (like the Na you keep bringing up), and this isn’t a thermal effect of the atoms, so heat dissipation isn’t in play. As I said, I’ve used multiple topologies of lasers. But I daresay you haven’t picked up the process.

But not in this case Yes. And when the sun is overhead, it compresses the atmosphere, owing to the radiation pressure. Not sure where this is coming from. 780 nm is not high frequency light. No, it’s not. No Of order 1 mW/cm^2 for Rb This is not a thing, in this process

Scientific terminology is sometimes different from lay usage And? You mentioned gamma radiation, for some reason. What is “it”? This was a comment on gamma radiation?

No mention of “saturated” here. And I was asking if you knew what it meant, not if you could google, and you’ve confirmed that you don’t. Light with a higher frequency has more energy regardless of whether it’s interacting You don’t keep them stationary. You’re trying to slow them down, so they are moving. Vapor is invisible, so how could you tell? Gamma radiation has nothing to do with our discussion, save for your irrelevant tangents.

You have no idea what saturated means in this context, do you? Energy and intensity are not the same thing. Absorbing from multiple directions destroys the cooling effect. You want an atom to absorb a photon that opposes its motion. As I said above, it does matter what direction the light comes from Of course it happens. A free-electron laser emits photons. Of course it does. Failing without learning from your failure is pointless.

What’s the connection to your claim that “The more photons they get, the colder then get.”? Fact of the matter is that when we do the final cooling stage in our fountains, we turn the intensity down to get colder temperatures. “goes into stimulated emission”? Stimulated emission has a velocity? WTH are you talking about?

The attitude from some engineers that they don't need to understand physics has always scared me.

Interesting that they don't seem to break that down by jobs lost vs people voluntarily leaving a job (a second job) because they don't need to work the extra hours. (I recall that was part of some analysis for the ACA, for people who worked solely to have insurance)

I don't know about elsewhere, but COVID vaccines are not approved in the US. They are being used under an emergency use authorization (EUA) The issuance of an EUA is different than an FDA approval (licensure) of a vaccine, in that a vaccine available under an EUA is not approved. In determining whether to issue an EUA for a product, the FDA evaluates the available evidence to determine whether the product may be effective and also assesses any known or potential risks and any known or potential benefits. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-takes-additional-action-fight-against-covid-19-issuing-emergency-use-authorization-second-covid

This is something you could estimate. This does not follow. The photons have to be the right photons (correct frequency, direction, etc.) in order to cool. This would seem to be yet another non-sequitur That's one of many. X-rays tend to be absorbed. Even dealing with UV light is problematic. Magnetic fields do not slow the atoms. And "fastest" is a dubious claim if you can't actually confine them because they aren't cold. I'm not aware you've arrived at a valid conclusion. Despite being told that this will not work. The problem is you never stop to question why things won't work, when you are told your ideas won't work. You just toss out a new idea to get shot down, and ignore the feedback. Have you ever considered learning physics?

That’s exactly the arrangement we used. The larger picture is you need space on your vacuum chamber for windows, and need ports to look in and to get atoms into (and possibly out of) the chamber. More windows means a larger chamber, which might be a luxury (you might have space constraints, and it costs more money)

Yes If you shine light toward a cloud of atoms, and scatter the light with a filter, how does the scattered light get to the atoms? You have a collimated source, aimed at a target. If it scatters, it’s no longer directed at the target. That what lenses are for. You can expand and re-collimate the beam. Or one laser and beamsplitters, or one laser and a bunch of mirrors to redirect and retro-reflect the beam, or three lasers and retro-reflection. I’ve done all of these options. X-rays won’t work. If you understood the atomic physics you’d see this, or be able to ask a pertinent question, rather than just tossing out random ideas and/or repeating the same flawed suggestions. It’s not a matter of them going in the same direction, but good luck with that; x-ray optics are notoriously difficult to work with, and inefficient. Or just use mirrors to expand the beam. That’s not the sticking point here. md65536 was not the one spouting nonsense about spin. You can technically cool the atoms with 4 beams (I’ve done that, too) but it’s not very forgiving, and is “leaky” so you don’t get as many atoms. 6 beams is overconstrained so any small misalignment doesn’t hurt you - it’s fairly robust.

You have no clue what the myriad problem with x-rays are, even though the information has been presented. Some of it is in the blurb you posted about laser cooling. The steps are not optional, and are fairly specific. If you don’t follow the instructions, you don’t get the result.

You want the light going to the atoms in a collimated beam, so what does scattering it in all directions get you?

The fact that you are mentioning anything other than the D2 resonance suggests you don’t understand how it works. Yes. If you have to ask, or think a filter would work, you don’t understand what’s going on.