swansont

Note that he's not quoting Wheeler, just a calculation Wheeler did. If you solve the "particle-in-a-box" for the Universe, you get an infinite number of EM radiation modes, each frequency w with an energy of (n+ 1/2)hbar*w, where n is the occupation number. Since there are an infinite number of modes, even if n is zero, the equation show infinite energy. But that just an artifact of the model - that energy isn't available to us.

I wasn't asking you defend it, I was asking for a direct link to results of a test I had described, without having to wade through the marketing and publicity garbage. Methinks you doth protest too much. Quantum snake oil will do whatever you want it to. Tropical flavors? Not a problem.

It's called anomolous dispersion. It's not precluded by relativity. In essence you are just reshaping the pulse in a novel way. The idea that "nothing can exceed the speed of light" is a watered-down version of a concept of SR, diluted to the point that it's wrong.

Antimatter

Yes. Photons of sufficient energy make particle/antiparticle pairs. electron/positron pairs take minimum 1.02 MeV (the rest mass energy), and the process can be seen in bubble chambers and similar detectors.

"hydrogen-like" implies it has a single electron and you could use the generic form of the Bohr model energy equation to calculate the energy of the electron states.

No, photons are created and annihilated, they aren't "stored" in other particles. And since they possess energy whatever emitted them will see a mass change. Also you can create mass from the photons under the appropriate conditions.

"simple QM" is an oxymoron

c=h=1 for a lot of folks I know...

This is just based on what I remember from the group up the hall from me in school, but in superconductors, the magnetic field lines are trapped by the material (flux pinning sites). Above a certain current density (critical current), the flux lines start moving and exert forces on the electrons that destroy the superconductivity. The value depends on the superconductor. More on the critical current more stuff The cartoon I drew using the jargon I learned from that group.

Photons have momentum of p=E/c. Whan an atom absorbs a photon, it gets a momentum "kick." When it releases a photon, there is another "kick." But the directions don't have to coincide, so there can be a force on the atom. Even though E/c is small, atoms aren't very massive and an atom can absorb and emit millions of times a second. The 1997 Nobel prize in Physics was awarded for laser cooling, which uses the radiation pressure concept. (Chu, Phillips and Cohen-Tannoudji)

There is a point where superconductors fail, as well. You cannot put an unlimited current through them.

here:

Wouldn't the "ridiculously" cancel out, then? c2 is almost 1 GeV, and electron transitions are of order 1 eV, so the mass change is (very) roughly a part in 109

(volume turned down by me) Gammas are photons from nuclear interactions. They are waves if you look at wave properties, they are particles if you look at particle properties. Gammas can create electron-positron pairs if of sufficient energy; they can cause the photoelectric effect and undergo Compton scattering. Since we were talking about a quantum of energy produced in an interaction, there is really nothing terribly wrong with saying "gamma particle," quasi-redundant though that might be. Certainly nothing so egregious as to elicit your response.

Generally speaking, the only people selling science on the web are the crackpots. It's quantum snake oil.

The Schwarzschild radius for a black hole of mass M is given by rs=2GM/c2, where G is Newton's gravitation constant.

The point between the earth and the moon where the force is zero is a point of unstable equilibrium. Sooner or later an object there will be perturbed, and start feeling a force. It is one of the five Lagrange points, called L1. There are three points along that line, and all are unstable. But there are two more that are stable - check the link for more details, and Google on 'Lagrange points' edit to add: Note that there are Lagrange points for both the earth-moon and earth-sun systems. The original question was about the earth-moon system; this link is to an explanation that shows the earth-sun points. But the concept is the same.

The meter was originally defined in terms of the distance from the equator to the north pole, being 10,000km. From that they defined the standard meter in terms of an iridium-platinum bar. The number was a little off because they had not accounted for the oblateness of the earth, so the actual measured distance is not quite 10,000 km. I've never read where c enters into this, or if without this discrepancy c would be a round 3e8. Today, of course, c is defined and the meter is a certain number of wavelengths of light from a specified atomic transition. But that's not where it originated, AFAIK. No, objects with zero rest mass travel at c. Travelling at other speeds means there is a mass term - if v>c then this term is imaginary. The superluminal experiment to which I think you are referring was a case of anomalous dispersion and did not in any way constitute a case of a photon being accelerated to move faster than c. It was basically reshaping a pulse of light (many photons) so that the peak was further ahead afterwards than in the original pulse.

On the high end you are limited by how much energy is available to you, and the size of your sample. At the low end, it's zero, as the Adm stated. people have come close - below a nanoKelvin - but the limit is unattainable.

Technically, no. Gammas come from nuclear interactions. Betas being slowed down will emit Bremsstrahlung X-rays. Doesn't need to be wax - just about anything will do. Slamming energetic electrons into metal is a standard way to make X-rays.

Am-241 is an alpha source. Betas generally won't kick neutrons out of a nucleus edit:fix quote tag

It wouldn't. I imagine the concept of requiring infinite energy to travel at c for massive objects, and only massless objects - which have purely kinetic energy - travelling at c, can somehow be tortured and mangled into that statement. But it's not something I would care to watch.