swansont

The Casimir effect is well-understood without invoking negative mass. That’s why you need the next step of looking at what kind of experiment or what evidence exists to support the hypothesis. How can this be tested?

There are different elements and isotopes, each with a different electron energy structure, owing to the variation in the charges and charge distributions in the nucleus. The differences in the electrostatic interaction strength have a direct effect on the energy levels. (e.g. two protons have twice the force on an electron as compared to one proton, all else being the same)

philo2001 banned as a sockpuppet of altaylar2000

No, actually. Not in a physics context. There’s a concept in particle physics: that which is not forbidden is mandatory. One frequency is a narrow constraint would require some physical law to be in place, such as conservation laws, and there aren’t any. It would be one thing to see that there were such laws, and one might ask why - and we start down the rabbit hole in the Feynman video joigus posted. Ultimately you hit a wall where you can’t explain why. But contemplating why a physical law doesn’t exist is really a non-starter. You hit that wall immediately. You would need to explain why that law should exist. Basically, science ultimately does not explain why. It explains how nature behaves.

An excellent point. This shown up as Doppler broadening in spectroscopy. You broaden the resonance owing to the motion of e.g. a gas, so even though a particular transition might emit a narrow frequency band, the overall light for the sample covers a larger range, since various atoms have different Doppler shifts.

There's no reason to not have the various wavelengths, i.e. there's no physical law requiring this. Some sources of light are a continuum, like blackbody radiation. If you accelerate a charged particle you get radiation that's related to the acceleration, and a wide range of accelerations are possible. Quantized sources depend on the nature of the bound system's energy levels, and these are all different, with many of these systems technically having an infinite number of transitions available. Even if you started with one wavelength, scattering processes and conservation of energy and momentum would require different wavelengths, as recoil would "steal" some energy from a photon, requiring a different energy after the interaction.

That's a missing piece in many discussions about life in space. What resources are you expending to attain your goal? Here's a paper that concludes that anything bigger than 10 earth masses requires an unreasonably large rocket For a classical Apollo moon mission (45 t), the rocket would need to be considerably larger, ∼ 400,000t. This is of order the mass of the Pyramid of Cheops, and is probably a realistic limit for chemical rockets regarding cost constraints. (this is for Kepler-20b, at 9.7 earth masses) https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.04727.pdf

I don’t think any humans live there, and mining on Jupiter and Saturn for use elsewhere would be moot since you couldn’t get a rocket out of their gravity well with our current technology. Rockets leaving earth are mostly fuel, with a little payload. Bump the escape velocity up a little, and it’s no-go.

No, there are data which point to their existence. Much like there were data that pointed to the existence of the neutrino, before we could actually detect a neutrino. AFAICT the problem here is you are not familiar enough with the reasons scientists think dark matter and dark energy exist. That's probably one reason your common sense says it's nonsense. Another is that some of science is just plain weird and outside of common experience, and therefore not intuitive. Which would make "common sense" moot. You're wielding a NERF sword in this battle

With prisons, but not only prisons. Shouldn't we make an effort to see who can be rehabilitated? Prison, especially when one would be co-mingled with hardened criminals, doesn't seem to be the best environment for that. There are differences between crimes that involve premeditation, ones that aren't, and ones that are accidental (and perhaps other categories) There are also cases where restitution might be sufficient for justice to be served, i.e. there might be no point in throwing someone in prison for a minor offense. Or, as someone mentioned earlier, cases like someone stealing food in order to survive. I think one of the major issues (aside from not everyone being equal before the law) is the quasi-one-size-fits-all approach. As Peterkin has suggested, the current system doesn't work. (and I think the US system is probably worse than the Canadian system. If I'm reading the stats correctly, the US incarcerates people at ~6x the Canadian rate)

One should note that thermal radiation will be a blackbody spectrum (or close to it), so you get the whole thing. You could, in principle, get amplitude modulation by heating and cooling your source. This would be extremely limited in therms of modulation, as it will take time to cool the source down. You could so some sort of frequency modulation, but then the blackbody radiation would tend to mask it as it would appear as noise. Neither approach has any real utility as far as I can see.

The criminal justice system as implemented in the US is quite racist in its implementation, so that's not really justice. People should be treated equally under the law.

But it can produce it; that's how an incandescent light bulb works. The AC current heats the tungsten filament. The (50 Hz or 60 Hz) frequency is much too high for there to be a modulation of the thermal output. If you modulate a current you will emit EM radiation at the modulation frequency - up to a point. Eventually you can't get the electrons in your antenna to respond, and also have difficulty in generating a signal to drive them at the frequency. (These may be related phenomena) The generation and modulation of electromagnetic waves in this [Terahertz] frequency range ceases to be possible by the conventional electronic devices used to generate radio waves and microwaves, requiring the development of new devices and techniques. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terahertz_radiation So you aren't going to generate light signals from an antenna with a THz input signal, and this is several orders of magnitude below optical frequencies. And you aren't going to modulate a signal at those frequencies, either. What you can do is modulate a light source like an LED or laser, at much lower frequencies. (I've sent sound signals across the room this way - modulate a laser with the headphone jack output, capture the light on a photodiode, remove the DC component, and send the signal into an amplifier and speaker)

! Moderator Note Pure conjecture like does not meet our requirements for rigor. Do you have a model? Can you make testable predictions? Do you have evidence to support this?

! Moderator Note This trolling is below our standards

Modulation on a wire would be radio, if the signal is RF. It would not produce visible light. These are not the same thing. That’s not modulating signal on a tungsten wire, it’s modulating an LED. Are you interested in learning the science, or are we chasing another fiction?

Only if they come from a thermal source. The microwaves in an oven of that type do not emit thermal radiation (heat), they do thermodynamic work. (this is an area where the terminology is often used in a rather sloppy fashion. Also a shortcoming of thermodynamics, where you have heat and work as your two options. I don’t think non-thermal radiation sources existed when thermodynamics was being developed)

I see only punishment listed. No hint that anything else is being considered.

Infrared and radio are different parts of the spectrum, so it would not be a radio, as such. However, you can modulate and detect IR and send a signal. Often along a fiber optic, with a laser (which is not a thermal source, so it’s not heat). Thermal radiation would just be noise, and any modulation of it would have a very limited bandwidth, depending on how fast you could heat or cool the source.

Makes no sense based on your experience and intuition*, which is not the same as that of many scientists, especially one familiar with the problem. *this is one reason why we urge people in speculations to become familiar with the science surrounding the problem they are trying to solve It's hard to see it. Maybe we've missed a similar amount of stuff in the ocean, because it doesn't reside near the surface. There was a time, not so long ago, we didn't notice protons and neutrons and electrons. Had no clue they were there — too small to see — until we built the tools to detect them. We've only known about the different atoms for a relatively short time. How come people in 1700 had no clue about Tellurium? Or most of the elements, for that matter? (Only a dozen or so were known at that time) How did we miss all that? There was a time when people had no clue about other continents in the world. They had to explore to ind new places. But being unaware doesn't men these other places didn't exist.

I'm sorry, is this relevant to my point? Did you, or did you not, make a 1:1 correlation between justice and punishment? Whether or not we have substituted punishment for revenge, there are justice systems that rehabilitate and serve to separate people who are a danger to society. We aren't talking about war, you already postulated that sociopaths are fundamentally good.

You seem to be talking about the legal system, and have assumed that the sole function of it is to punish people. Which is incorrect. While not universally embraced, it also serves to separate people who are a danger to society, and also to rehabilitate people, and possibly other functions. So I submit that the premise that justice is solely associated with punishment is flawed. If someone has transgressed the rules of society and can show they did not act of their own volition (owing to their life experience), the system should still separate them if they pose a danger to others, and rehabilitate them if possible.

I searched for the manual, but since you didn't give the model number (again) I haven't found this particular device, but there is an indoor and outdoor temperature and humidity, and mention of an outdoor sensor and what happens of it can't get a signal from that sensor. Does that apply to your device? In your picture the top row has an icon that suggests a radio connection of some sort, and the second row says "in", suggesting that is the indoor display. Both rows have battery displays, so removing and installing the batteries might reset the device.

! Moderator Note Too much hand-waving, not enough actual science.

It’s sealed pretty well. Why would the pressure be below atmosphere? If there’s already some air in there, it would start at atmosphere. And cold. Also, if the water is going below the ice, the ice will float on the water. Hot water can make the pipe expand, leaving a gap for the water.