swansont

No, not really. The confining force in a magneto-optic trap comes because photons have momentum. You put lasers along all six directions (+/- for x, y and z) The magnetic field means the light causing confinement is closer to resonance. so you get more light being absorbed that gives a force toward the trap center. The recoil of a visible photon changes the speed of an atom of order 1 cm/sec. MRI uses photons perhaps a million times less energetic.

All vapor BECs are in vacuum; there’s nothing special about that (and one reason why you can’t do this on the cheap). Moving around isn’t why it’s at a uniform temperature. What did I just say about a pop-sci article? The physics is not explained. You can’t extrapolate from the information that’s been filtered through the reporter. They rarely explain if something is generally true or specific to the situation they’re reporting on.

! Moderator Note The sandbox is for things like testing LateX formatting. Not for discussion.

But we do spend money on research. It’s not like cancer research isn’t happening, or auto safety isn’t being improved. And you point out the time factor. Additional money can’t speed up things that need time.

I hope it’s clear that it does emit photons, but it’s not a resonant process Even journal articles don’t aways contain all of the relevant information to do an experiment. Pop-sci articles contain far less, and tend to avoid precise language. You are free to ask questions about such articles. Extrapolation from them is the problem.

Why would people be protesting any of this? I think part of the fear has to do with things we have some control over. And, as Phi noted, immediate vs off in the remote future

Yes, sort of. They’ve done it without a BEC, IIRC. It’s a matter of maintaining the photon’s information. The photon is not confined, as such. It’s absorbed, but a photon with identical properties is later emitted. No energy loss is a required part of doing this. I think scaling it up has insurmountable problems and even it didn’t, a prohibitive cost.

Ask pertinent questions and I will try to answer them I didn’t say sci-fi, I said pop-sci. Pop-sci doesn’t teach science, it teaches about science. Like I said, it’s a veneer, discussing results, in general terms. No nuts-and-bolts science. You get a result (we slowed light down to 10 m/s or whatever) but what about the person-years of work it took to get there? That’s what needs to be discussed, and what you need to know if you wanted to do a similar experiment. You need to know how the experiment works - and what doesn’t work - in order to do that. That kind of knowledge doesn’t lend itself to a post or two. You’re better off reading the journal papers on the topic. And since you likely don’t have a sincere desire to do this (the >$50k price tag being one indication), I don’t see what the motivation would be.

No, this doesn’t settle it. Stop with the videos already. They don’t give the details necessary to discuss this. There is no science here, it’s pop-sci; the veneer of the results without getting into the scientific details, where most of the science is.

And having universal health care means you can get by with a lower wage than someone who doesn’t have it. Because this is largely driven by the federal government, and we have one party dead-set against doing these things. US state and local governments can’t have deficit spending the way the federal government does, so they can’t fund certain initiatives. How do you ensure these jobs are not minimum-wage jobs?

I wasn’t talking about applications, I was talking about scaling up the experiment itself. A regular BEC experiment would cost $50k, minimum. More if you’re not able to build up the lasers and electronics yourself. I would discuss why scaling it up would be problematic, but you haven’t shown you know what’s involved in making a BEC in the first place. It appears you are leaping past all the technical details to discuss the pipe dream of making a 1 meter BEC. The first question to ask is why nobody who knows what they are doing has done this already. The BEC is the medium. It is, under certain conditions, in the right medium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_effect

7 years at $7.25 puts that data at 2016. That was the year California and New York started raising their minimum wages. Both are now at or above $12, along with Connecticut and perhaps other states. Both data sets could be correct.

Yes, that’s what I’m wondering - if you have any idea what’s involved in scaling this up, or the limitations involved.

That’s not what your link says. The number would be under 28 million, based on that information.

Up top, leftmost tab is Browse. Choose “guidelines” and read, along with the links. Many subforums have pinned tweets and links near the top of the page, relevant to that section.

But you admit these are different moments. How is that an illusion?

How do you propose to do this?

! Moderator Note It’s a science forum. I’ve moved it to speculations, since what little science is here is not mainstream

Right; E=mc^2 applies to particles at rest. If you add energy (while remaining at rest) the mass increases.

! Moderator Note Above non-attributed quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis

Mass is already a form of energy

Is that what sexists want to be called these days? How about: people should do jobs they want to do and/or are good at, rather than being limited by societal categories based on biological differences? i.e. no discrimination based on sex/gender. IOW “return to traditional gender roles." isn’t a solution at all, since labor pool dilution isn’t really a thing. limiting people to “traditional gender roles” would open the door to more discrimination, since you wouldn’t have men and women doing equal work, and thus no comparison for equal pay. You could return to the state where employers hide low wages behind the excuse that the job is valued less, not the people. IMO the whole scenario is thinly-veiled misogyny, and the argument should be rejected out of hand, instead of discussing alternatives as if this is a legitimate beef.

! Moderator Note You also need to share the information in the forum so that people don’t need to watch the video

Bring back the saner days of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and Jeff Gillooly/Tonya Harding.

I can’t do anything about how you interpreted what I asked/said, or your choice to assign a hidden meaning to it. You made statements about two different (to my mind) kinds of actions, and then made some summary statements that seemed to apply to both. It seemed like you were equating them, but rather than responding with that assumption, I asked a question, to give you a chance to clarify. The problem with “If you don't like how we interpret what you write, maybe you shouldn't write it that way.” is it requires mind-reading, which is not really a good-faith position.