swansont

Can lead, but not must lead. You can only test a model by doing an experiment, so the limit to deeper understanding is what you can test. Not correct in what way? Do they fail to describe how nature behaves?

Do you understand that “weak interaction” has a specific meaning in physics? AFAIK the axion mass is thought to be small; if it was large we would have detected it already. Did you read the link Strange provided? The axion coupling is related to its mass, so what you say here is inconsistent with the axion model. You seem to be describing a WIMP. Why are you asking me? You were the one inquiring about the subject.

It has murder in its soul. Very dark.

Slicing or hooking a photon or electron is a tad more difficult. (No Magnus effect)

Holding people as the ultimate good sounds like bad philosophy.

I didn't say you did. I said you concluded God because you couldn't figure out an answer, and that's not how this works. You seem to want to know the "nuts and bolts" of why it happens, and science doesn't necessarily tell you that. Science models the behavior of nature. It isn't equipped to go beyond that. But we do have models that work, and one of those is that (basically) everything is a wave, so when you look at the double-slit experiment (and other phenomena) in terms of waves, you can predict what result you will get.

! Moderator Note Speculation sis for non-mainstream science. Unless you can point to a textbook, or mainstream scientific literature, where this is discussed, it is not mainstream science. We require a model, evidence, and/or predictions - i.e. ways to test any conjecture. Do you have any of this?

QCD is a model which would explain how the particles interact. Dark matter is a class of matter that is cold and dark. Some axions could be cold, and thus comprise dark matter. QCD (or some other model) would have to explain why they are dark. But AFAIK, the potential role of the axion as dark matter is because they would have mass.

How do you get the ball to places that are not in the line of sight? (classical systems will not replicate quantum behavior) How do you you test this hypothesis? This is just a version of argument from personal incredulity. "I can't explain it, so it must be God"

There are sci-fi short stories based on this. Niven wrote one called All the Myriad Ways, but I was thinking of another - the synopsis doesn’t jibe with my recollection of the story I was thinking about.

We don’t rapidly lose much gas; what we lose most easily is H2 and He. We don’t have a lot to start with. And colder means less energy, so that reduces the chance of loss. Ideal gas law ignores gravity, so it may be hard to reconcile.

A temperature decrease causing a pressure drop from PV=nRT assumes V and n are constant (or only have small changes) which are probably not good assumptions. If water condenses out, n will drop. The atmosphere does not have a fixed boundary, so V may effectively be lower. You would have to know the size of those effects to draw a conclusion about P What if there is less atmosphere?

You have to ensure the target would respond differently to the different frequencies Yes, as long as the material passes UV

! Moderator Note Making posts to advertise your site or video channel is a violation of the rules. Link removed. Arguments must be made here Also, you need to provide evidence of your conjecture, or some model that can be tested

If they give the same answer, they are equivalent and equally precise. Why does that matter, unless that’s the specific question being asked? Energy conservation means the energy does not change, not that you know where it is located. I can have a rotating object and know the rotational KE without knowing the mass distribution. Because it doesn’t matter, perhaps. There are a number of problems in physics where there are multiple approaches to a solution. You use the one that works.

Can’t do it In hydroelectricity we let the sun do this work, and reap the benefits. But it’s not free energy, in the physics sense of the word.

Potential energy for certain configurations is often referenced to U=0 at infinite separation, but what is important us that you are always calculating the change in PE between two configurations, so any nonzero reference value will cancel. Field energy is irrelevant to the PE; consider the field energy of a capacitor. The energy stored can be different because it depends on area and separation distance while holding V constant, and the PE is qV. That’s the work done, by one field on the charge in question. If, as you say, the change in field energy is the same thing, then why does this matter? It would simply be a second way of doing the calculation.

Magnetic levitation is unlikely, as you need strong fields which drop off rapidly with distance (faster than gravity), so even if you can levitate at small distances, it eventually fails. Negative mass is not a thing.

Sure. I’d like to know what you think field energy is, or why potential energy is mysterious. Work is involved in rotating a magnetic dipole in a magnetic field, and energy is conserved, so personally I don’t see what is being obscured.That depends on the field where the dipole is, not the energy of the field.

Small water cooled + moderated pressurized water reactors act the same way - the water expands when heated, slowing the moderation down. But none of that matters in a loss of coolant casualty. Safety is predicated on keeping the core covered, and in the worst accidents we’ve witnessed, the core did not remain covered.

Thanks for adding some rigor to the discussion

In the US one can be licensed to carry a firearm and there are a number of places that have “open carry” laws, so from a legal standpoint, I don’t think you can say that carrying a weapon can be construed to imply intent to do harm. (not that the police follow this; see e.g. Philando Castile)

! Moderator Note We don’t do that here (rule 2.7) You may summarize the arguments and post them, if you desire feedback

Did you mean algorithms?

I’ve met a number of people who would disagree. g-2 measurements and electric dipole measurements, for instance.