AmalgamatedIllusions

Most experimental research in matter under extreme pressures is concerned with recreating conditions within the interiors of planets and stars (the latter falls under the field of high energy density physics). The temperatures involved therefore tend to be very high. However, there's no inherent conflict between high pressures and low temperatures, it's just that temperature tends to increase when you compress something. Compress an ideal gas, for example, and it will heat up. Let it sit in its compressed state for a while though, and it will cool back down despite remaining under high pressure.

This is true for solids and liquids too (putting any phase transitions aside), though they are much less compressible. The core of the Earth will eventually cool too, though it's currently kept at high temperature by the radioactive decay of heavy elements. Diamond anvil cells, however, can reach pressures exceeding those at the center of the earth in a laboratory setting, and some DACs can even be cooled to cryogenic temperatures. This figure on Wikipedia suggests cryo-DACs can be used to reach pressures up to 350 GPa at cryogenic temperatures. As an example, a quick search turns up a paper (arxiv version) that makes use of a DAC to study media at liquid nitrogen temperatures and pressures up to 10 GPa (~3% the pressure at the center of the Earth). Search around and I'm sure you can find others.

Yes, he's right that bringing the poles of two magnets together puts the system in a state of higher potential energy. And, yes, you could use this as an explanation for "why" the magnets repel by invoking the principle of minimum energy. You can even show that this results in a force, as a gradient in the potential energy is mathematically equivalent to a conservative force. I do think, though, that you can give further justification for the principle of minimum energy than he gives in the video, as it follows from the second law of thermodynamics (see Wikipedia article). Regarding the exchange of virtual photons and using this to explain how the electromagnetic force arises: I would avoid this entirely.

One side nitpick though: I wouldn't say that the energy came from "the chemical bonds in the food [you ate]", but rather the formation of new bonds as you digest the food. Chemical bonds are states of lower potential energy, so breaking them in the sense of separating the constituent atoms requires energy. It's just that different bonds can have even lower potential energy and therefore release energy when they're formed.

N2 is (mostly) inert when it comes to respiration. What your body needs is oxygen and low concentrations of anything that might also be metabolically active. For scuba diving, N2 is used to dilute the oxygen and is used specifically because of how non-reactive it is. At high concentrations though, it can result in nitrogen narcosis - helium is sometimes used as the diluent gas instead to mitigate this.

As far as habitability is concerned, atmospheric nitrogen is essential for life on Earth at least, as it's a major part of the nitrogen cycle (specifically, nitrogen fixation). Without it, we wouldn't have nitrogen-containing organic compounds like amino acids (and, therefore, proteins), at least not nearly in the same quantities that we currently do. This doesn't mean it's essential for life outside earth, but it is for life as we know it, so its presence should increase our credence (if only a little) for whether a given planet is habitable or not. However, when looking for signs of life, it's better to look for atmospheric signatures that are heavily influenced by life, rather than just those that facilitate it. The oxygen in Earth's atmosphere was largely produced by life, and so its presence in the atmospheres of other planets would be a good (though not definitive) indication of habitability.

I'm late to this, but I'd like to bring up something I haven't seen anyone else mention. But first, some more details regarding what has been discussed:

In most situations, it's correct to say that EM waves basically don't interact with one another. You can cross two laser beams, and they'll just continue on their way without caring that the other one was present. A mathematically equivalent scenario is waves on a string: the propagation of a wave isn't affected by the propagation of another, even when they overlap. Another way to put this is that they obey the principle of superposition: the total amplitude at any given point on the string is just the sum of the amplitudes of the individual waves at that point. You may want to argue that the waves do interact because there are interference effects, but interference is exactly what you get when they don't interact, i.e. when the principle of superposition holds.

However, this is only true for so-called linear systems. I won't go delve too deep into the math of what this means, but I think looking at the wave on a string example can give you some intuition. The behavior of waves on a string can be explained mathematically by treating the string as a large number of tiny points connected by springs. If the force on a given point by a neighboring spring is directly proportional (i.e. linear) to the spring displacement (Hooke's law), then you find that the entire system obeys the wave equation, which is a linear equation. This is the idealized model of a string, and the principle of superposition holds for it perfectly. If, however, the forces acting on points within the string have a non-linear dependence on displacement, then the equation describing the overall motion of the string will be non-linear and the principle of superposition will no longer hold perfectly. In such a case, two propagating waves could interact with one another as the properties of the wave medium (the "stretchiness" of the string) would be influenced by the presence of a wave. In other words, the stretchiness of the string would change depending on how much it's stretched (e.g. if a wave is propagating on it), and the stretchiness influences the propagation of waves.

Something analogous can happen with EM waves, and has been mentioned by others. In so-called non-linear media, the electromagnetic wave equation becomes non-linear and two beams of light (propagating EM waves) can influence one another through the medium. This makes sense when you consider that the optical properties of a material can be changed, even just temporarily*, when enough light is passed through it (for example, by influencing the state of the electrons in the material). It makes sense then that this modification to the optical properties of the material would influence the propagation of other waves through it. In the string example, this is analogous to the string itself being modified by the presence of a wave (even just temporarily) and thereby influencing the propagation of other waves. Such effects require sufficiently large wave amplitudes to be noticeable, i.e. the intensity of the light needs to be high enough to appreciably modify the medium.

What about the case of light propagating in a vacuum? If the vacuum itself is the medium, surely it can't be altered and no non-linear effects could arise, right? In classical electromagnetism (Maxwell's equations), this is true. But within quantum electrodynamics (QED), it is possible for the vacuum itself to become non-linear when the strength of the electromagnetic field is great enough. This is known as the Schwinger limit, and reaching it requires extremely high field strengths, orders of magnitude higher than what we can currently achieve with any laser.

*I want to emphasize that we're not necessarily talking about permanent changes to the medium. In the case of waves on a string for example, the string doesn't need to be stretched to the point of permanent deformation; non-permanent changes to its stretchiness are sufficient.

They do lol

A Dyson swarm is basically just a huge number solar collectors orbiting the sun. Humanity could put some individual collectors in space if we wanted to, but we don't have anywhere near enough resources to make a full swarm.

Near-relativistic spacecraft are conceivably possible and are not too far beyond what's possible with current technology (though would still require significant advancements). The catch is that they would be very tiny and we would have to send a stream of them to their destination.

Retinal projectors are currently under development, and advanced ones could in principle be higher quality than current VR headsets while having a very small form-factor. Optical metamaterials such as metalenses would be very useful for this, particularly if they could be designed to work at all three RGB wavelengths simultaneously (not easy).

Putting aside the issue that it requires a negative energy density, there's still the issue that it will necessarily violate causality, which is the reason FTL travel is considered problematic in the first place. Maybe it's ultimately okay, but it may also mean that warp drives are fundamentally impossible.

Depends on what you consider reasonable. If you're a researcher, Thorlabs has a couple for <$30k. You could also build your own, but you probably wouldn't be asking if you had the experience necessary to do this.

If you're a hobbyist, building your own would be an impressive project that would teach you a lot (look up spontaneous parametric down-conversion, a common way to create entangled pairs). It would also be pricey, as you would need an appropriate laser source (probably a nanosecond pulsed laser), a non-linear crystal like BBO, and a lot of miscellaneous optical components, etc. You can get this stuff second hand online for a lot cheaper than new, but it would still cost a lot for an individual. You would also need to characterize your output to ensure you're actually getting correlated pairs, which is outside of my expertise.

Can't explore the scales of the Universe quite as easily with letter paper!

It's the same, the difference is the starting "0" size. For the A-series, the area is 1 m^2. For the B-series, the shorter side length is 1 m. The C-series is the geometric mean of the areas of the A- and B-series.

Tomoe river in my bullet journal, which I got from a pen show.

Another notebook I use is an Apica, and it's probably my favorite paper. It won't show off shimmer and sheen like tomoe river, but it's very smooth and has a fast dry time. For a lot of my inks, I find the long dry time of tomoe river to be inconvenient at times.

[email protected] or [email protected]?

I never posted my pens on r/fountainpens before, but I maybe I should here.