Jump to content

I want to create a 1 meter BEC


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 203
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

If you are so knowledgable about BEC why don't you share your science? You think a video from Harvard Institute is sci-fi?

No you are trying to cool down the precession with atom's rotational frequency absorption of electromagnetic radiation, IOW make the atom spin slower. Laser cooling does not cause confinement, bu

Then you should do that.

Posted Images

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

No, just a lack of understanding...

I can't be the first one to figure it out, if Michael Levin has done it it is probably there since the 1970s. Well but I am gonna keep it to myself for my own benefit, so that I hopefully do not come across a no answer @@

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Yet you insist on steering it...

Salamander was not born on that day, that rules out the regeneration capabilities. And I think that was not earth bound, aka, not someone time traveled from the future. The interesting part is it was shut down by lightning though and the weather storm device is clearly not on my side.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not sci-fi  and/or  pop science  and/or  juvenile science . .. . None . . .. It  IS  feasible . .  .. . Problem is that here on this forum , very unfortunately , there are many who are here to spend time just scoffing at AND picking on newcomers like Fredreload . . .. . . I am almost sure that even this plain constructive criticism will receive lots of scoffing and negatives and so on and so forth . . . 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

It is not sci-fi  and/or  pop science  and/or  juvenile science . .. . None . . .. It  IS  feasible . .  .. . Problem is that here on this forum , very unfortunately , there are many who are here to spend time just scoffing at AND picking on newcomers like Fredreload . . .. . . I am almost sure that even this plain constructive criticism will receive lots of scoffing and negatives and so on and so forth . . . 

One of the truly beautiful things about science is we don't have to bother with sentiments like this. It's easy enough to see, after 8 PAGES of "picking on newcomers" (what irony), that the idea as presented is NOT feasible. It's been explained over and over again EXACTLY where fredreload is mistaken. How you could view that as anything but scientific professionalism and rigor baffles me. It's science, not a popularity contest.

Are we supposed to encourage him to pursue a path we know will fail? How cruel of you!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

One of the truly beautiful things about science is we don't have to bother with sentiments like this. It's easy enough to see, after 8 PAGES of "picking on newcomers" (what irony), that the idea as presented is NOT feasible. It's been explained over and over again EXACTLY where fredreload is mistaken. How you could view that as anything but scientific professionalism and rigor baffles me. It's science, not a popularity contest.

Are we supposed to encourage him to pursue a path we know will fail? How cruel of you!

I am a psychologist. my strong surmise is that you are wrong , I'm afraid , , ,  ,, , , ,, 

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

One of the truly beautiful things about science is we don't have to bother with sentiments like this. It's easy enough to see, after 8 PAGES of "picking on newcomers" (what irony), that the idea as presented is NOT feasible. It's been explained over and over again EXACTLY where fredreload is mistaken. How you could view that as anything but scientific professionalism and rigor baffles me. It's science, not a popularity contest.

I am almost sure that even this plain constructive criticism will receive lots of scoffing and negatives and so on and so forth .

I did not say that. You are distorting even a non-partial onlooker , too . .  . 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

there are many who are here to spend time just scoffing at AND picking on newcomers like Fredreload . . .. . . 

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. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, swansont said:

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. 

 

I appreciate your hard work on directing members to the best path of argument all these years with all your posts , Dear Sir . .... . 

 

I am quite unwilling , however , to take my words back....

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

I am a psychologist. my strong surmise is that you are wrong , I'm afraid 

Why surmise? Why not review the 8 pages of evidence? This is a science discussion forum.

 

1 hour ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

I did not say that. You are distorting even a non-partial onlooker , too .

I didn't claim you "said" it, I asked if you meant to encourage fredreload down a path known to be bad. Why else would you be claiming his idea is feasible, and that the members are picking on him? I don't understand your argument with our attempts to falsify an idea, and I'm asking for clarity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Why surmise? Why not review the 8 pages of evidence? This is a science discussion forum.

 

I didn't claim you "said" it, I asked if you meant to encourage fredreload down a path known to be bad. Why else would you be claiming his idea is feasible, and that the members are picking on him? I don't understand your argument with our attempts to falsify an idea, and I'm asking for clarity.

Because teams under me are ACTUALLY doing something NOT identical , but very similar to what he is inclined to achieve . ..  . . . .

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Because teams under me are ACTUALLY doing something NOT identical , but very similar to what he is inclined to achieve . ..  . . . .

!

Moderator Note

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

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, swansont said:
!

Moderator Note

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

 

Dear Moderator ! 

Your sentence is absolutely right. 

 

The reason why I wrote that statement is that "Interlocutors" almost totally disbelieved the feasibility of such a object of speculation. 

 

Now , to return back to the topic itself , I am to make mention of the fact that any conglomeration of matter , especially in the condensed format , AND : under next-to-zero-Kelvin conditions , possesses the capacity to slow down photons that are moving in its own manifold. Outside of  the said manifold , light has the velocity with which to stunt contravariant tangent fields ( of tensors).And , as a result , to keep original velocity. . . . .  . .

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Dear Moderator ! 

Your sentence is absolutely right. 

 

The reason why I wrote that statement is that "Interlocutors" almost totally disbelieved the feasibility of such a object of speculation. 

 

Now , to return back to the topic itself , I am to make mention of the fact that any conglomeration of matter , especially in the condensed format , AND : under next-to-zero-Kelvin conditions , possesses the capacity to slow down photons that are moving in its own manifold. Outside of  the said manifold , light has the velocity with which to stunt contravariant tangent fields ( of tensors).And , as a result , to keep original velocity. . . . .  . .

Wow. That's quite a bunch of physical concepts completely wrongly understood. Let's leave aside the fact that "contravariant tangent fields" doesn't mean anything. Photons are never "slowed down", and light doesn't need any specific action on it in order to keep its original velocity. Light moves at fixed, universal speed \( 2.998\times10^{-8}\textrm{m}\textrm{s}^{-1} \), not as a consequence of being "stunt", but of space-time symmetries.

Just now, joigus said:

Wow. That's quite a bunch of physical concepts completely wrongly understood. Let's leave aside the fact that "contravariant tangent fields" doesn't mean anything. Photons are never "slowed down", and light doesn't need any specific action on it in order to keep its original velocity. Light moves at fixed, universal speed 2.998×108ms1 , not as a consequence of being "stunt", but of space-time symmetries.

I meant \( 2.998\times10^{8}\textrm{m}\textrm{s}^{-1} \). For some reason I can no longer edit, after the sofware update.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

contravariant tangent fields does mean something , Sir . . .   

Light speed is not constant , either .  . ..  . 

Perhaps you mean this ?

Quote

Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covariant_transformation

Contravariant transformation

The components of a (tangent) vector transform in a different way, called contravariant transformation. Consider a tangent vector v and call its components v i {\displaystyle v^{i}} v^{i} on a basis e i {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} _{i}} \mathbf {e} _{i}. On another basis e i ′ {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} '_{i}} {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} '_{i}} we call the components v ′ i {\displaystyle {v'}^{i}} {v'}^{i}, so

v = v i e i = v ′ i e i ′ {\displaystyle \mathbf {v} =v^{i}\mathbf {e} _{i}={v'}^{i}\mathbf {e} '_{i}} {\displaystyle \mathbf {v} =v^{i}\mathbf {e} _{i}={v'}^{i}\mathbf {e} '_{i}}

in which

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

contravariant tangent fields does mean something , Sir . . . 

Fields are neither covariant, nor contravariant. Covariant or contravariant character apply only to coordinates. The need for that distinction comes from having two bases, mutually dual \( \left(\boldsymbol{e}^{i},\boldsymbol{e}_{j}\right)=\delta^i_{j} \), whenever that distinction has to be made. Certainly not here.

17 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Light speed is not constant , either .  . ..  . 

I didn't say light speed is constant. I said photons don't slow down. It's different.

51 minutes ago, studiot said:

There is a well respected science fiction story about this by Bob Shaw, based on writings of Thomas Moore.

I need a slow glass, lately. :rolleyes:

Edited by joigus
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, joigus said:

Fields are neither covariant, nor contravariant. Covariant or contravariant character apply only to coordinates. The need for that distinction comes from having two bases, mutually dual (ei,ej)=δij , whenever that distinction has to be made. Certainly not here.

I didn't say light speed is constant. I said photons don't slow down. It's different.

I need a slow glass, lately. :rolleyes:

Covariant or contravariant character apply only to coordinates , to vectors , to tensors , , ,, , ,

36 minutes ago, studiot said:

Perhaps you mean this ?

 

Thank you , Dear Studiot . .. .   

 

U  are getting closer to what I mean about that . .. .

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Covariant or contravariant character apply only to coordinates , to vectors , to tensors , , ,, , ,

Fields (vector fields, tensor fields...) are neither covariant, nor contravariant. Covariant or contravariant character apply only to coordinates. The need for that distinction comes from having two bases, mutually dual \( \left(\boldsymbol{e}^{i},\boldsymbol{e}_{j}\right)=\delta^i_{j} \), whenever that distinction has to be made. Certainly not here.

Edited by joigus
minor addition
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, joigus said:

Fields (vector fields, tensor fields...) are neither covariant, nor contravariant. Covariant or contravariant character apply only to coordinates. The need for that distinction comes from having two bases, mutually dual (ei,ej)=δij , whenever that distinction has to be made. Certainly not here.

Ah !  I see you are closer to catching  the idea , Sir . . . . . .

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.