swansont

! Moderator Note Please stop doing this. One might as well be asking the proverbial “man on the street” It doesn’t belong in these discussions

I second the “bollocks” diagnosis. There’s no science in the article back up these claims That, in particular, is crap. As for the notion that observing an entangled vs unentangled photon, the article doesn’t say why this matters. The human eye only weakly detects light polarization*, and one can’t tell if the photon was entangled simply by detecting it. *see Haidinger’s brush https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haidinger's_brush

You don’t need video to present the evidence that’s needed. You can just write down numbers. You can upload schematics if necessary. This has been pointed out to you several times over the rears You appear to be claiming that thermodynamics is flawed in various ways. You can present results of experiments and it will take a lot less time to read than the 24 minutes of the video in your OP. (and not everyone can watch videos) You should run an experiment showing how fast the cold reservoir heats up (it should start out colder than ambient; perhaps 0 degrees C, but with no ice) Do that with the engine running and without; the latter will give a baseline for losses to the surroundings) That will show heat flow into the cold reservoir. Reservoir volume should be known and the same in both trials. You should understand why this is a requirement. Refrain from posting videos: yes. Take notes like any reasonable student or scientist would do, and report the results. You were admonished after continuing to do it after being told not to. These are based on observations of what you’ve posted. They indicate you don’t understand the theory you’re critiquing. You’re focused on efficiency and seemingly befuddled by heat, are fixated on the caloric model (which was abandoned long ago) and don’t seem to get what an analogy is. Not much of this has changed over the years.

Did you know that you can add vector components to get a resultant? That this wll be at some slanted angle with respect to the axes? Apparently not. The ball can have a higher speed owing to having a vertical velocity and a horizontal one, but light can’t. Light’s speed is fixed, so its behavior will be somewhat different.

A single quantum object can have its spin aligned without radiation because it was in a superposition. What you’re doing us collapsing the wave function. The macroscopic object is not a quantum particle if its magnetic moment is not due to its intrinsic angular momentum.

! Moderator Note We’re a discussion site, not your blog. Was there something you wish to discuss?

! Moderator Note Yes. If you keep insisting a claim is correct without evidence or considering the mainstream physics that’s offered up in rebuttal, we eventually get tired of it. There’s no point in discussion if all that happens is we go over the same ground. Claims contrary to accepted physics must be supported by evidence. Repeating a claim is not evidence. Misunderstanding physics is not evidence of the physics being wrong, either

The graph you posted only goes out to 3 microns, so no, it didn’t show the peak at 15 microns (or the ones near 10 microns) When you said “As you can see at normal temperatures nearly all the absorbable IR energy is of way too long a wavelength.” it’s because you weren’t showing the right ones. But there isn’t much light there. There’s a lot more light emitted from the earth out at 10-15 microns. The absorption peaks there aren’t quite as tall (but not 2-3 orders of magnitude), but they are a lot wider. Were you looking at the ~1.5 micron features? Your statements make a lot more sense for that, but that’s not the absorption that’s important.

You haven’t clearly confirmed that you agree that they travel a longer distance. It’s a photon. It doesn’t have to be from a laser. But yes, I believe a laser will do this, because the lasers I had in my lab stayed aligned despite the rotation of the earth. If you observed the light path from the appropriate vantage point, it would be “slanted” (the target moves, and the laser still hits the target) The direction you observe depends on your frame of reference. The light hits the mirror, so how can the light not be going along the slanted path, when observed from the lab frame? Just like the ball in the moving cart - it can’t drop back into the cart unless it’s traveling along a parabolic path. We know the impulse it gets is straight up.

There’s a wide absorption peak out near 15 microns. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Carbon-Dioxide-CO2-absorption-coefficient_fig1_339314455 Blackbody at 293 K peaks at ~ 10 microns https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Normalised-black-body-spectral-emissive-power-at-room-temperature-293-K-used-in-the_fig2_334140221

! Moderator Note Further, you posted something similar before and the thread was closed. You don't get to dump it on us again

Light definitely has a velocity (we can measure the propagation time over some distance) and can impart an impulse since it has momentum. So saying no force is involved is incorrect.

There are a number of videos that show if you toss a ball vertically on a moving platform, it comes back down to the point of origin on the cart. such as So insisting that the ball would come straight down when the cart is moving is a non-starter; we can see that the ball doesn’t do this. The ball travels a greater distance in the lab frame than in the cart’s frame. The wrinkle for the light clock is the restriction that the speed of light is the same in both frames. d = ct. Since d is greater and c is the same, t must be greater

There’s an experiment that’s detected the radiation you propose?

I’m not agreeing. Are you agreeing that the path lengths are different?

So…not femtoseconds.

The speed along the vertical axis is the same in both frames. The analogy is meant to show the difference in path that you are denying.

Another method us to use light (from a flash lamp or LEDs) to excite atoms from the ground state (0) to some state (3), which then decays to another state (2), which then has a population inversion with respect to a lower state (1) E3>E2>E1>E0 incoming light has energy E3-E0, laser transition has energy E2-E1 The transition from 3 to 2 can be non-radiative The transition from 1 to 0 (or some other intermediate state) is usually strong, so the in little population in 1, allowing N2>N1, which is what an inversion is (N is the population of the state)

The engine’s energy source is the hot reservoir. How you get it to be hot is not included in the analysis. The hot reservoir heats up the gas. That’s the QH. The gas heats up the cold reservoir. Qc

No. We can all agree on the speed. Your error was in the duration A better analogy would be tossing/dropping a ball while on a train. To someone on the train it goes straight down. To someone on the ground, it does not.

It’s an energy analysis, not a force analysis. You can do this in mechanics, too. You use the tools that get you to the answer. An object falls; you can say it’s because of a force, but also say it’s because things go to their lowest potential energy. Heat is the flow of energy. No, it doesn’t. QH is not equal to Qc Nobody is claiming it’s an outside force. The gas at the end is colder than the gas before the piston moves. The cold reservoir heats up. If you disagree, then where does the energy come from that appears as mechanical work? All of it has been removed? The gas is at absolute zero?

The neutrons would have to be from fission, which isn’t happening very often, and there isn’t much heavy water.

I’m not sure how tritium would be formed from fuel rods in a cooling pool. I think the concern would be damage to the control rods and contamination by fission products.

Why is this the expected amount? Citation? Looks to me like it’s just over 100 ppm https://www.co2levels.org Citation? My understanding is that it’s a logarithmic dependence, and you get a certain increase for each doubling of concentration. Can you explain why you think this is a valid test?

No, they aren’t. They tend to be in the ground state. And you can’t use photons of the laser’s wavelength to get the excess atoms in the excited state (the population inversion), because of the stimulated emission. So you have to use some other method. In a HeNe laser, an electric discharge excites the He, and collisions with Ne causes Ne excitations. You have more atoms in an excited state than a lower state, so stimulated emission can give you amplification. In diode lasers, there is an electronic excitation of the electrons to a higher band.