swansont

This is something you could estimate. This does not follow. The photons have to be the right photons (correct frequency, direction, etc.) in order to cool. This would seem to be yet another non-sequitur That's one of many. X-rays tend to be absorbed. Even dealing with UV light is problematic. Magnetic fields do not slow the atoms. And "fastest" is a dubious claim if you can't actually confine them because they aren't cold. I'm not aware you've arrived at a valid conclusion. Despite being told that this will not work. The problem is you never stop to question why things won't work, when you are told your ideas won't work. You just toss out a new idea to get shot down, and ignore the feedback. Have you ever considered learning physics?

That’s exactly the arrangement we used. The larger picture is you need space on your vacuum chamber for windows, and need ports to look in and to get atoms into (and possibly out of) the chamber. More windows means a larger chamber, which might be a luxury (you might have space constraints, and it costs more money)

Yes If you shine light toward a cloud of atoms, and scatter the light with a filter, how does the scattered light get to the atoms? You have a collimated source, aimed at a target. If it scatters, it’s no longer directed at the target. That what lenses are for. You can expand and re-collimate the beam. Or one laser and beamsplitters, or one laser and a bunch of mirrors to redirect and retro-reflect the beam, or three lasers and retro-reflection. I’ve done all of these options. X-rays won’t work. If you understood the atomic physics you’d see this, or be able to ask a pertinent question, rather than just tossing out random ideas and/or repeating the same flawed suggestions. It’s not a matter of them going in the same direction, but good luck with that; x-ray optics are notoriously difficult to work with, and inefficient. Or just use mirrors to expand the beam. That’s not the sticking point here. md65536 was not the one spouting nonsense about spin. You can technically cool the atoms with 4 beams (I’ve done that, too) but it’s not very forgiving, and is “leaky” so you don’t get as many atoms. 6 beams is overconstrained so any small misalignment doesn’t hurt you - it’s fairly robust.

You have no clue what the myriad problem with x-rays are, even though the information has been presented. Some of it is in the blurb you posted about laser cooling. The steps are not optional, and are fairly specific. If you don’t follow the instructions, you don’t get the result.

You want the light going to the atoms in a collimated beam, so what does scattering it in all directions get you?

The fact that you are mentioning anything other than the D2 resonance suggests you don’t understand how it works. Yes. If you have to ask, or think a filter would work, you don’t understand what’s going on.

http://www.worldstartech.com/what-determines-the-lifetime-of-a-laser-module/ Laser distributor disagrees Manufacturers, too, that I’ve talked to in DARPA program reviews. They were working toward 100k hour lifetimes

Then you need to come up with the math to quantify this, and a model for why behavior depends on it

780 is in the infrared, and flashlights are not single-frequency Specific frequencies over a wide range. The absorption spectrum is discrete. A couple of wavelengths in the visible, at best. The ionization energy of Rb is a little over 4 eV. x-rays would remove an electron. What rotation? Yes, and nothing you’ve presented thus far addresses this. As I said, I’ve been doing this for a while, so I hope you didn’t post this to educate me. Now, the big question: did you understand any of this, and can you apply it? Can you see how it doesn’t mention rotation? Can you see how the slowing takes a half a meter, so a lower scatter rate or momentum of the photon by more than a factor of 2 means you can’t do this in a 1 meter system? (so a momentum a factor of tens of thousands smaller means this is impossible for RF) It does not matter. The atoms are not rotating. I would say they have spin, but it’s quantized, and not physical spin. It’s not something that is being reduced, so fredreload bringing it up repeatedly is based on misconceptions

The ones I use last 1-2 years, typically, and the failure is that it mode-hops, which is likely because if degradation of the AR coating. If you aren’t worried about the exact frequency of the light, the diode itself would last much longer. Well, no. It won’t lase below threshold, but there’s no reason to assume you’d normally operate it there. If threshold is e.g. 25 mA and you normally operate it at 100 mA, there is plenty of room to lower the current.

My objection is not based on my having questions about the inverse square law. No need to explain it to me. You could have just said you were calculating the surface area of a sphere at the distance of the earth. But when you just throw numbers up, without an equation or units or explanation, the method is not always clear.

Yes, we both posted information attempting to show this But (150 x 10^9 km)^2 isn’t an area with any physical meaning, so it makes no physical sense to multiply it by the power per unit area It does make sense ( sort of) to calculate the power per unit area using the 1/r^2 nature of the radiation, but if that’s what you did you’ve skipped some steps

I don’t understand your calculation. 150 million km is the distance to the sun, not the size of the earth. Why are you multiplying by the square of this, to get an energy from an energy per unit area? You should multiply by the projection of the area of the earth facing the sun, which would be pi* r^2, where r is the radius of the earth. And that’s the energy hitting the earth, while to OP talks of the energy emitted by the sun

Does this involve a property that be quantified and measured?

Stellar aberration’s basic explanation was known since ~1725, which precludes us being at rest with respect to the aether. We had to be moving, but the M-M experiment showed that to be wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy)

Profitability wasn’t the point under discussion, nor was powering Europe, or job creation.

Because electricity is famous for being used at the location where it’s generated?

The best science we have tells us the conditions under which massive objects might move faster than c, and we have no evidence that anything fits these conditions.

Why do you think it would? But we were talking about a vapor of alkali atoms. Spinning and translating are not the same thing. They are orthogonal degrees of freedom. That’s a matter of how often you interact, not the frequency of the light. Absorbing a photon is a single event. Pushed in the opposite direction of the laser? That would violate conservation of momentum. No. Alignment and coherence are very different things.

3.846×10^26 W https://phys.org/news/2015-12-sun-energy.html

No.

Why would you? Do you have any physics reason for this? No, not so much.

! Moderator Note Posting a video by itself, with no discussion, violates rule 2.7 “...members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone.” Try again

This is pretty much all wrong An atom doesn’t have to be locked in position - you’re trying to slow it down! It’s moving! The resonance frequency is not 500 MHz, as I have stated multiple times MRI and trapping are very different, yet you continue to represent them as almost interchangeable A laser is not “there as a doppler shift” - that makes no sense. Neither does “other side of the laser, leaving 500MHz acting as its resonance frequency” You aren’t going to piece this together without understanding the fundamentals on which it’s based, and it’s pretty obvious you don’t.

A number of sites have made a similar point about the relatively small area needed for this https://www.businessinsider.com/map-shows-solar-panels-to-power-the-earth-2015-9 There are, of course, other problems one would have to solve (e.g. getting the energy to its destination, storage, etc.)