swansont

Searching for topological dark matter with atomic clocks https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys3137 Axions https://inspirehep.net/literature/1736720

But you are always close in your model. If you weren’t there would be no field. No field, no photon. Can’t have it both ways.

The thing is, some of these models are being eliminated or constrained by experiment. I recall seeing axion and dark matter talks at conferences, where atomic clocks played a role in the experiments. This is kinda the norm. There were e.g. a bunch of models of the atom back in the day, but we don’t learn about them because they lost out once there was enough data to test them. There are competing hypotheses everywhere that get forgotten because they ended up being wrong. ArXiv just makes it easier to notice the current ones.

The field from the charges do cancel in atoms; they are neutral. You have to get close to them to see effects of a charge distribution. In the nucleus there is no cancellation, since there are only the positively-charged protons. Why haven’t we detected these particles? How would that affect photon propagation? It should be harder to “twist” This is one of many issues where having math is important.

! Moderator Note I think posting to advertise your site is against the rules, so I think I will delete the link. Content for discussion is to be posted here.

That could be from SCOTUS destroying rights and the do-nothing Republican house. The only poll that matters today is in the voting booth

And yet it’s YOUR THREAD, so whose fault it that? So all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others?

So someone who lives in a sparsely populated state should have their vote count more than someone in a populous state? Is that consistent with “everyone gets a vote”?

I won’t say who I voted for, but I did not select any nazis. There was more than 1 on the ballot.

Gravitational waves were part of GR, though. Confirming a prediction. But as more data comes in, it might reveal a lot. Neutrino mass, OTOH, is not part of the SM AFAIK. So theory lags there.

I voted last week. Women in line outnumbered men at least 3:1

It’s not clear to me that GR was a response specifically to observed anomalies - not in the same manner as e.g. proposing an undiscovered planet (Vulcan) was - rather than there being the issue of not knowing how gravity worked and knowing there must be something beyond Newton. Others worked the problem, too. Einstein happened to be right. The other efforts were abandoned. But we’re in the same boat now, since we know there must be physics beyond the standard model. We have to figure out dark matter and dark energy.

You also need the experimental tools to test ideas. At what scale does the next fundamental layer live? It took decades to scale up particle colliders to confirm the standard model. We know there’s physics beyond that, but if you don’t want the math to lead the way (though I disagree with Markus that this isn’t how it should work) you need to scale up the capability to probe higher energies. Similarly for length and time scales. If the new physics doesn’t manifest at the scale we can probe, we’re out of luck hoping for experiments to lead the way. (and atomic clocks have gained several orders of magnitude in precision the last ~30 years, so my colleagues and I in that community have done our part) So it may be like going to the north pole and complaining that you can’t see any penguins. They don’t live where you’re looking.

There has also been a lot of disparaging remarks about Harris sleeping her way to the top. I’m not aware of similar smears aimed at any GOP women by anyone in the democratic hierarchy.

What supergeneral are you talking about? AFAIK there are no six-star generals. The CO of the Nellis Air Force Warfare Center is a two-star https://www.nellis.af.mil/About/Biographies/Display/Article/3863108/christopher-j-niemi/ Yes, there would be someone at the pentagon he reports to.

Yeah, I missed that, so probably yes. They say that Trump’s lead with 65+ diminished (plans on cutting social security and medicare might have something to do with it) and that abortion rights became more prominent. And with their bias uncorrected.

Why not? Any actual analysis to provide? I mean, it wasn’t me saying this, it was the pollster, who knows the model and the data. You’re claiming they are wrong based on…vibes? Tarot cards? Tea leaves?

! Moderator Note You already have a thread on this. One per topic, please.

You missed the point. It’s not the result, as such, it’s the admission that the model has not been updated i.e. the bit I quoted, and that there’s a rather large shift when it’s corrected.

From a Michigan pollsterThat now has Harris leading https://mirs-uploads.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/5931-MI STATEWIDE MITCHELL POLL -FIELD COPY - EXEC SUMMARY - CROSSTABS OF MI 106PM 11-3-24.pdf “Before polling began, we looked at what we thought would be the likely turnout in 2024. Every poll we conducted --- including this one --- was weighted exactly the same. We weighted party affiliation, gender, age, race, area, and education. It seems clear now that we are under sampling women, African Americans, and the City of Detroit based on absentee ballot returns and early voting.”

“not anybody else's business” doesn’t mean that some won’t try and poke their nose into it, but where people have agency to decide, they tend to keep those intruders out.

All clocks have errors. Mechanical clocks aren’t that great. You might think not gaining or losing a second per day is good, but that’s a fractional frequency stability of about 10^-5. A decent quartz watch is slightly better. If you temperature-stabilize it you’ll do better. Atomic clocks range from around 10^-11 to 10^-16. Cutting-edge frequency standards these days are around 10^-18 Gravitational time dilation near the earth is about 10^-16 per meter of height change. You need atomic clocks to notice.

Meaningless numbers without citing an actual error margin for the polls, and how this aggregate was determined, since polls vary in quality. A final margin of 3.4 when the prediction is e.g. 3 +/- 1 is utterly unsurprising

It’s your thread, so how about you provide the definition for discussion. Even if it’s copying the one provided in the other thread, since one might reasonably assume Night FM was using it?

Plutonium is chemically nasty, like most heavy metals. So ingestion would poison you, in addition to nuclear effects. Pu-239 decays by alpha emission, and alphas aren’t a problem externally - they would be stopped by the dead layer of skin. If inhaled or ingested, though, that would be bad. So don’t eat it, and a bare chunk might have some dust you could inhale. Alpha decays usually don’t have an associated gamma. But further down the decay chain you might have some beta decays, which do. Encasing it will attenuate them somewhat. The dose rate will depend on the number and half-life; Pu-239 has a ~24k year half life, and the daughter, U-235, is over 700 million years, so there wouldn’t be many isotopes from further down the decay chain. Pu-244 has an 80 million year half-life. It alpha decays and occasionally spontaneously fissions, where you would get gammas and products that beta decay. Not sure if the 244 on that one cube indicates the isotope or the average atomic weight. Probably the latter Bigger chunk has more surface area, so more of a problem. Alphas would not tend to make it out of the interior