swansont

Try it in your country, and have someone report back.

How can a single entity be in equilibrium? That's like asking "what's the difference between a duck?"

We know one thing that will happen: more people will get sick, and some fraction of them will die. How do we know this? Because we can observe areas that didn't lock down in a timely fashion. The virus spreads when given an opportunity to do so. This isn't a hard problem. Thank you for making the case for social safety nets. Does the financially stable person have the authority to order the poor person into harm's way, when they are not willing to go there themselves?

You're cherry-picking the data. You can't check the premise that "all horses are white" by only showing pictures of white horses.

! Moderator Note Stop it with discussion about vacuum decay and/or the universe ending. No more.

! Moderator Note This does not rise to the level of rigor we require. Please review the speculations guidelines

Sounded familiar

The mass isn't the problem. The problem is 1) getting them together (i.e. electrostatic repulsion) and 2) a viable reaction for fusion. What reactions are you proposing?

No, I'm suggesting that the device is dangerous to use, and more so without training and safety equipment. Do you have, for example, UV-safe goggles (or better yet, a face shield)? Do you know to wear skin covering when using the lamp, if it is exposed? Nothing about that phrase suggests it's anything but a source of 260nm-280 nm light. What that phrase suggests to me is that you need other equipment to use it safely, and that's their way of passing liability on to you should you be injured. If you aren't trained, and/or don't get the safety equipment you need, it's your fault, not theirs. They warned you! A lot of things are available on the internet that are dangerous to use for the untrained. They, too, probably have a safety disclaimer on the package or device. But that doesn't stop people from being stupid.

note: I have added to my post I don't know what you mean by "false" and you have given no examples of the devices you are referring to, so one cannot evaluate their claims. They are probably UVC lights if they say they are, but they also may emit over a large wavelength range, and would therefore be dangerous

"specialist equipment" suggests the answer is "no" The article I linked to mentions "filtered excimer lamp" This article https://www.laserfocusworld.com/lasers-sources/article/16571809/lowdoserate-excimer-lamps-in-hospitals-schools-and-airports-could-safely-curtail-spread-of-flu-watch-video gives details: 207 nm light is emitted by a krypton-bromine (Kr-Br) excimer lamp, while 222 nm is emitted by a krypton-chlorine (Kr-Cl) excimer lamp (and goes on to discuss the study)

There's a Nature article that claims that far UVC isn't an issue for mammalian skin https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21058-w its [UVC] widespread use in public settings is limited because conventional UVC light sources are both carcinogenic and cataractogenic. By contrast, we have previously shown* that far-UVC light (207–222 nm) efficiently inactivates bacteria without harm to exposed mammalian skin. This is because, due to its strong absorbance in biological materials, far-UVC light cannot penetrate even the outer (non living) layers of human skin or eye; however, because bacteria and viruses are of micrometer or smaller dimensions, far-UVC can penetrate and inactivate them. We show for the first time that far-UVC efficiently inactivates airborne aerosolized viruses, with a very low dose of 2 mJ/cm2of 222-nm light inactivating >95% of aerosolized H1N1 influenza virus. Continuous very low dose-rate far-UVC light in indoor public locations is a promising, safe and inexpensive tool to reduce the spread of airborne-mediated microbial diseases. This suggests that the longer-wavelength end of the UVC spectrum (and possibly even longer wavelengths from commercial sources, that bleed into the other parts of the spectrum) are the danger. *"we have previously shown" has citations to go along with it, in the body of the article. References 13, 14 and 15. So for a source that's 260-280 nm: no don't use it if it exposes you. It's dangerous. But it probably kills the virus, if exposed for long enough.

From 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" Videos can be included if there is enough text so that discussion can proceed without watching, and that seems to have been fulfilled.

"The same direction" means relative to the quantization axis, e.g. a magnetic field you have in place. Not a difficult situation to engineer to a decent level of precision. In a similar fashion, "at the same time" can be done to a reasonable experimental precision, which is where the "10,000c" number Strange mentioned comes from. It's a matter of synchronizing clocks that are physically separated but in the same reference frame.

For a simple two-level system it is exponential. As studiot has stated, for many-state systems there are extra factors to consider In addition, you can "reset the clock" by interrogating the atom and confirming it hasn't decayed, keeping it in the excited state for much longer (the quantum Zeno effect). You can also inhibit or enhance the decay by putting the atom in a cavity that changes the density of states into which the emitted photon would couple. If there are no photon modes supported, the atom doesn't decay at all.

There’s a six-hour gap between your post and my response

“Speculation” is not a scientific field of study. What you mean us that it’s a WAG. You’re guessing, based on nothing but wishful thinking. So your “speculation” is that two different phenomena should behave the same. No, that’s not how it works. It’s not how the speculations forum works, either. It contains energy (energy being a property), but magnetic fields do no work (physics work). IOW, energy is not extracted from the field. You might know this if you had studied introductory physics Not a law, but the known ways of making a photon are Atomic state (i.e. electron) transition Nuclear state transition Acceleration of a charged particle Particle/antiparticle annihilation

I suggest that if you don’t understand such basic physics, then understanding more advanced topics is not possible.

They aren’t the same people (hint: authors are listed) This is not people changing their minds. And not within days. The paper was submitted last summer. ”Received: 29 August 2019 Accepted: 17 February 2020”

Do you understand the difference between energy and power that Strange has highlighted?

Why? Is that based on any physics?

Posting irrelevancies like this is not a way forward.

Magnetic fields are not made of photons. Your statement is wrong. Hence the “no”

Sorry, I mucked that up that (not sure what I was thinking) Pressure isn’t constant going through a nozzle (and V is proportional to T for the case I gave) As the gas moves, the pressure tends to drop (Bernoulli’s equation).

Tow possibilities I can think of: either they are hollow tubes and you did sighting down the tube to the calibration target (therefore no wind to cause distortion), or that structure was a framework that allowed one to hang a wind-block material to do the job that the trees did at USNO.