swansont

You can't, by definition, hear ultrasound It was your math that said 10 GHz gives 140 nm resolution in tissue, which means that you do not have 1 nm resolution. This is science, not magic. You can't just conjure up an answer out of thin air. The wavelength you can get depends on the speed of sound in the medium, so any calculation for one medium will not work for another medium in which the speed is different. IOW, THz might work in what the article says is the application, e.g. in silicon or other semiconductors (checking for defects in circuits), while not working in e.g. water or air. You have to show it, i.e. do some science.

It’s not obvious to my why this would be.

What part of the article leads you to this conclusion?

OK, sound waves in a non-lattice structure, if you’re wanting look at DNA. (i.e. how does a 1 nm sound wave propagate, if the atoms are, say, 10 nm apart, and not in a lattice?How does thermal noise impact this propagation?)

I recall a discussion in which it was suggested that nerds/geeks place a high value on information, which is why there is this conflict with people that place a higher value on manners, and the situation where someone being corrected might be considered rude. The nerd accepts and perhaps welcomes the correction, rather than getting upset. This explains the tendency of scientists being nerds.

Then your first question has been answered. nanometer resolution is not achieved with 10 GHz ultrasound. You would need more than 100x higher frequency, and you’d need to establish that it’s possible to have sound waves at that frequency.

Yes. So does Tyson.

! Moderator Note But you named people, which doesn’t seem consistent with ethical standards and medical privacy laws.

! Moderator Note You should link to it, for reference

! Moderator Note Posting to advertise your site is a violation of rule 2.7

If it’s part of the explained universe, then there’s nothing to explain. So what is unexplained, and how does your idea not contradict existing science? What we understand excludes a lot of potential explanations.

Show the math

What are you trying to explain that isn't covered by existing science? You've mentioned mechanical and thermodynamic effects, but both are areas of established physics. Ask the question in a new thread, please.

There are radio stations that broadcast the USNO master clock voice announcer feed when they have certain issues, so people know the station is still broadcasting. Maybe I can slip Girl from Ipanema in there next April 1

You are correct, this is where I got it. “classified” does not mean they know but aren’t telling.

Can you provide a quote? I think you’re reading more into the article than what’s there.

If they can’t identify them, they can’t restrict the possibilities

altaylar2000 has joined the not-chat

altaylar2000 has been suspended for thread hijacking, bad faith arguments and soapboxing. Upon their return they will be in the mod queue

Or possibly this is not the case, if we consider the folly of imposing human morality standards on non-human species. Why?

That’s one alternative, not the alternative.

Why is there only one alternative?

That column did not say that aliens have visited Earth. Among the things it did say was that there literally are objects flying around that no one, including U.S. Navy pilots, can identify, and we have to puzzle out what that means. There are flying objects we can’t identify, and no, they aren’t aliens. That doesn’t seem controversial, or something we should expect will change.

This is a quite unsatisfactory response, in that there is no thing that everyone knows, and the implications of possibly “knowing” things that are not true. Two reasons to support your claims. For what does China pay the United States?

But if you applied actual physics to the problem, you might see the circumstances under which this could and could not happen.