the team injected magnetic iron oxide particles just 22 nanometers in diameter into the brain [...] viral gene delivery to induce the sensitivity to heat in selected neurons in the brain.
]]>Oh look, it's Roger Shawyer's Emdrive.
It does not appear to be actually "reactionless" & it does not violate conservation laws.
Actually it is, and it does:
Microwaves are squirted into a specially-shaped closed container and bounce around inside it. So it emits neither mass nor radiation but supposedly produces net thrust. That's "reactionless" in a nutshell. And any drive that's reactionless violates conservation of momentum, by definition.
Shawyer's theory claims no novel physics, but relies on standard electromagnetism and special relativity to "prove" there's a net force. But conservation of momentum is implicit in the standard theory, so you don't even have to look at the details of the "proof" to know that there must be an error somewhere in all the bafflegab about group velocity and frames of reference.
I'll go with Newton, Maxwell, Einstein and Noether on this one.
A weed like me can lift a 2-tonne Land-Rover with a hydraulic jack, because, although the pressure inside the jack is equal at all points, the total load on a small area is much smaller than the load on a large area.
Maybe, though your analogy is dubious since Shawyer seems to think the pressure isn't homogeneous. But can you still do it if you and the jack are entirely inside the Land-Rover? That (by analogy) is what's being claimed here.
]]>Oh, that's easy. Take a couple of scientific terms you don't understand - one of them a <whoosh> joke referring to an earlier instance of this exact same process - type them into Google, and go with the first hit. Moreover, it's recursive, all the way from solar laser to quantum dot.
]]>No, I don't believe you did.
Now, using that knowledge, what was happening?
A hypothesis was confirmed.
]]>We have found highly anisotropic optical emission from individual indium phosphide quantum dots on a glass substrate.
First Google result for "quantum dot anisotropy". Unfortunately:
(a) not much InP in stellar cores. (b) "anisotropy" has more than one meaning in physics. You've picked the wrong one.
You do realize that I'm not making fun out of the actual real people making all these amazing discoveries, right?
Neither am I.
]]>A lay person's explanation of how quantum dots arise in a stellar core would be even more to the point. Something to do with anisotropy, perhaps?
]]>That's not how gravity works.
(Headdesk.)
Heavy boots?
]]>