swansont

You found one? When will you post it?

Electronic transfer. You don’t even need to be logged in. No, that’s not true. A practice, but not the practice. In this case, the post is vague in terms of what the discussion is supposed to be. Engineering? Physics? There are no details. What is also the preferred practice is to use the report post feature to bring this to the attention of the staff, rather than post to call someone out (which might be considered a violation of rule 2.1) iNow is close; first-time posts in certain areas have decent correlation with spam, though if this were certain, or it was a sockpuppet, they would have been banned. And most spammers are erased without a trace so you would not even see the posts.

If I am not meeting your expectations I guess you should ask for your money back.

Rb-87 has a half life of about 49 billion years. In a 1g sample of Rb that’s of order 1000 decays a second. But that’s not the issue. It’s interactions that give a frequency shift, such as collisions, and having a second isotope around is a source of such interactions. And Rb has two naturally-occurring isotopes.

! Moderator Note The sandbox is for testing (image tags, latex equations). Not for discussion.

ag400002 suspended for repeated hijacking with a pet theory

! Moderator Note This may be a problem. This is a science site, not tinder for people looking for agreement with their pet theories.

Naturally occurring samples will only contain that isotope. If you used rubidium, for example, you have two. And the more desirable one (larger hyperfine splitting) is only about 25% of your sample. Which is a spin flip of the electron. It’s not going anywhere. What is traveling this distance? There are microwaves in a cavity, but they are not traveling meters.

It’s potentially a cleaner measurement. Another isotope being present might introduce mechanisms that would shift the frequency, making the measurement more difficult and/or less precise. Collisions, for one example, can alter the response. You don’t have to do isotope separation to get the better result.

The units of volt are joules/coulomb, so no, that does not work. It’s not. 1 second is a duration. Time, frequency, wavelength and energy are distinct concepts and quantities. Physics shows us that they can be related to each other. Which was a choice. It’s not based on any fundamental behavior of nature. Stable, accessible and also the largest hyperfine splitting of stable alkalis. (accessible includes the fact that there is only one stable isotope)

It’s the frequency of the transition, or the radiation, not the electron. And that’s how atomic time is measured only if you are using a Cs clock.

1 second is the duration of 9192631770 oscillations of the hyperfine transition (or the radiation from it). 1 second is not a frequency.

That would imply that the effect depends on the spatial extent of the beam. In what equation does this prediction appear?

Why?

If it's something that e.g. degrades under UV, then that may be an infrastructure we need to invest in. But we have to get used to viewing this as a total cost of operation, and not the isolated cost of one element. As with the example Phi gave — it may cost more for the biodegradable utensils, but there is cost savings elsewhere in the chain of events, e.g. you don't fill up your landfill as quickly.

One issue is whether it's cost-effective to recycle things that can be reclaimed, and also of political will to do jobs where the burden would be put on taxpayers for recycling done on the scale of a community Some plastics can't be recycled easily, and contamination is a barrier to recycling. if you don't pay to sort the plastics, you end up with a lower-quality plastic, and the number of time you can recycle is limited (you generally have to add some amount of virgin material) The relevant term here is downcycling https://www.oberk.com/packaging-crash-course/downcycling-temp For home industry the problem is worse, because you generally aren't going to have the necessary infrastructure to carry this out.

He's saying what it does not appear to be. He is not telling you what it is. That is a conclusion that you are drawing, and via fallacious logic: appeal to personal incredulity — you can't think of any other options, so it must be aliens. You also appear to be superimposing an expectation of what the person should be saying, and inferring information from the difference between what they said and what you expect to hear. Can you rule out it being some kind of optical phenomenon? Your own conjecture is that it's a bug on the lens (and I recall seeing a video where that was indeed the case; it was obvious when they changed the focus). It could even conceivably be a smaller unmanned object that is a lot closer than expected, so it only seems to be maneuvering in an extreme way. But since there isn't enough evidence to tell, it's unidentified.

Initiation rite? Like sending kids up to the "haunted" house in the neighborhood on a dare (if you grew up in such an environment) Or a scavenger hunt.

For an isotropic point source, yes. But you can have other solutions, depending on your boundary conditions. You can get solutions for a wave in a waveguide, for example.

If c was not invariant, then Maxwell's equations — specifically the wave equation – would only work in the rest frame. And we know that EM radiation still exists when frames are moving with respect to each other.

These statements are in conflict with each other. You need to present evidence. Not "read(ing) between the lines"

This is not a conspiracy discussion board.

She has plans to combat many problems facing people, and that gives (some) people the impression that she is sensitive to their issues. She has also described facing challenges that a lot of women have faced, so half the population potentially sees common ground that the other leading candidates lack.

Fields (such as the electric field you find in EM radiation) are vectors and you add them when two are superimposed. If they have opposite signs, they will cancel (partly or fully, depending on the amplitudes) when added. Intensities (and probabilities) are found by squaring the field. The individual electron or photon is not a tiny ball. Both will have a wave nature, and the wave passes through both slits. The particle can interfere with itself. The interference and diffraction will dictate where the particle can, and can't, be detected. You can't break up the wave function in that way.

Weird, perhaps — as an individual, subjective observation — but also a logical consequence of c being invariant. So in an objective sense, not weird at all, since it's the expected behavior.