Just weird to me because I saw him outside of class on Wednesday and just passed him and said hi and all and then he died that night. Crazy shit yo.
crazy
I'm loathe to even think about one of my professors dying, they're all such lovely people, everyone is at the school
As I was reading up on Anti-Matter, one of the CERN scientists stated that anti-matter wouldn't look any differently from ordinary matter. So if there was a galaxy made entirely of anti-matter we wouldn't be able to distinguish it.
But then I started to wonder, could there be life, or even civilizations completely made out of anti-matter? And we who are made out of matter would be like anti-matter to them.
[QUOTE=booster;32919874]As I was reading up on Anti-Matter, one of the CERN scientists stated that anti-matter wouldn't look any differently from ordinary matter. So if there was a galaxy made entirely of anti-matter we wouldn't be able to distinguish it.
But then I started to wonder, could there be life, or even civilizations completely made out of anti-matter? And we who are made out of matter would be like anti-matter to them.[/QUOTE]
This leads me to a question I asked a while back:
If an antimatter atom emitted EM radiation due to the promotion of a positron to a higher energy level, and a drop back to its ground state, how would that photon compare to a regular photon? Would it be 1/2 wavelength out of phase with a photon emitted from a regular atom? Would it come out identically to a regular atom? Or something else entirely?
[QUOTE=sltungle;32919892]This leads me to a question I asked a while back:
If an antimatter atom emitted EM radiation due to the promotion of a positron to a higher energy level, and a drop back to its ground state, how would that photon compare to a regular photon? Would it be 1/2 wavelength out of phase with a photon emitted from a regular atom? Would it come out identically to a regular atom? Or something else entirely?[/QUOTE]
Well, since you get pairs by smashing two same-nature photons, I guess they both emit the same shit.
Not to mention that if they were different photons, you could probably witness some pretty crazy stuff, like an emitting boy and an emitting anti-body separated by a shinning plane of anti/regular particles perpendicular to the lines connecting the two bodies.
And if they were different, why would they emit two same-nature photons when colliding?
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;32924033]Well, since you get pairs by smashing two same-nature photons, I guess they both emit the same shit.
Not to mention that if they were different photons, you could probably witness some pretty crazy stuff, like an emitting boy and an emitting anti-body separated by a shinning plane of anti/regular particles perpendicular to the lines connecting the two bodies.
And if they were different, why would they emit two same-nature photons when colliding?[/QUOTE]
Well I was thinking if anti-matter and matter go together and 'cancel each other out' (I know there's photons and neutrinos as products), maybe if you separated an atom, and its corresponding anti-atom by a distance of one emission wavelength (for that atom/anti-atom) that perhaps the light emitted would be out of phase by 1/2 wavelength and thus the two photons would 'cancel' out as if nothing was happening.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;32780268]okay
[img]http://i.imgur.com/MhvBt.gif[/img]
is this fake, and if not, how the fuck does it work
to me it looks like that ball should just fly off to the right.
edit : solved, it's Bernoulli's principle staring me in the face, nice one guys[/QUOTE]
Though I understand the principle behind this it struck me as odd just now that this is actually a stable equilibrium.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32949037]Though I understand the principle behind this it struck me as odd just now that this is actually a stable equilibrium.[/QUOTE]
Ditto. It'd be kinda like... if I saw a small ball resting on top of a big ball. I know it's technically possible, but it'd bewilder me to see it because of how unstable it is.
Well I mean, the surprising part to me is not that's it's some improbable unstable equilibrium but that its equilibrium is stable.
Actually I guess it makes sense since the forces are pushing rather than pulling, it's just so unintuitive.
So I'm thinking of dual majoring in physics and chemical engineering or physics and electrical engineering. What do you all think?
I'm currently a junior so its just speculation, really, but I'm pretty sure I want to do something along those lines. Pure science might be more fun, but I don't think the job outlooks would be as good as an engineering major. One of my friend's friends graduated with a degree in quantum chromodynamics, and he isn't making too much headway getting employed compared to some of the other majors. Not to say its a bad degree, its in fact an extremely hard degree, its just the applications aren't as widespread. If he can't get a job he'll just end up being a professor, which isn't bad.
And yes I mention my friends a lot. I have two friends who are chemical engineers and a friend who is a mathematics major, and I talk to them a lot, hence why I reference them a lot when it comes to academics.
p.s.
[img]http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/154145_1768931822590_1218054004_2088190_6845036_n.jpg[/img]
^ physics all day erry day
I got my lab book back from last week's x-ray diffraction experiment. I got an A, but at the end it said something like "needs a conclusion for pass". So... I got an A but I failed? :v:
Thankfully the guy let me do a conclusion and I handed it back in. I thought my error analysis was basically an analysis and conclusion combined, which is why I didn't do a separate conclusion, but apparently not. Oh well :v:
[editline]25th October 2011[/editline]
Don't you just love it when you get a massive surge of productivity? Even if it's just staying a little later to finish uploading and handing in of coursework, it's so satisfying when you have everything done and out of the way.
I need that today, I have a ton of physics work to do, but I should probably focus on my film studies paper first
[QUOTE=Turnips5;32959640]^ physics all day erry day
I got my lab book back from last week's x-ray diffraction experiment. I got an A, but at the end it said something like "needs a conclusion for pass". So... I got an A but I failed? :v:
Thankfully the guy let me do a conclusion and I handed it back in. I thought my error analysis was basically an analysis and conclusion combined, which is why I didn't do a separate conclusion, but apparently not. Oh well :v:
[editline]25th October 2011[/editline]
Don't you just love it when you get a massive surge of productivity? Even if it's just staying a little later to finish uploading and handing in of coursework, it's so satisfying when you have everything done and out of the way.[/QUOTE]
on my last lab report i totally ignored errors despite needing to do them - just really couldn't be bothered to do error propagation - still got a 2:1 :smug:
that's inorganic chemistry for you, for physchem i had to do a silly lengthy error propagation for each result through excel. pretty lucky i didn't have to do it for inorg, i had literally thousands of data points.
Am I the only one who finds the notion of a 100-some page non-organic chemistry [i]nomenclature[/i]textbook comprised entirely of words utterly absurd?
Writing my conclusion for my lab report, I wanted to put something like this
"A different data point was recorded 3 times for the amplitude at 23.7 Hz - this is marked as an anomaly on the graph. This could have been avoided by waiting for long enough for the cantilever to "settle down" - however, my bastard of a lab partner wouldn't stop fiddling with the settings on the frequency generator as he was convinced it "could be fixed" in this way. This could be improved in the future by not having an impatient lab partner."
[editline]26th October 2011[/editline]
I'm just kidding, he's a good lab partner and a good guy
One thing I've never understood:
Why the fuck are conduction and convection treated as separate physical processes? I mean, they're basically the same thing, just in convection a liquid/gas carries the thermal energy away somewhere else (but the process by which the liquid/gas gains that thermal energy is itself conduction...).
[QUOTE=sltungle;33018203]One thing I've never understood:
Why the fuck are conduction and convection treated as separate physical processes? I mean, they're basically the same thing, just in convection a liquid/gas carries the thermal energy away somewhere else (but the process by which the liquid/gas gains that thermal energy is itself conduction...).[/QUOTE]
I think that's just the thing, convection results in some kind of collective movement of particles while conduction does not. Convection relies on conduction as you said, but in the end it does something different.
The same reason buoyancy is treated differently from weight.
In my Swedish class we we're ordered to have a debate about wether to no use Nuclear energy in Finland.
I was on the pro-nuclear side with 2 others.
I was the only one on my side that talked. And the only info about nuclear energy is through my geology classes and personal interest, so keeping a good argument was hard.
If only JohnnyMo was with me :(
JohnnyMo1 will always be with you in spirit, child.
The science will be with you
Always
Interesting .gif #2
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Kall0.gif[/img]
what's the DEAL
what's providing the centripetal force for that... thing?
I think it's because of the differences in pressure.
Is it really that simple? Does the object simply get pushed on harder by the water molecules than the particles in the air bubble, producing a net force on the object?
It almost looks like it's speeding up as well, but that could just be me judging it wrong
What is the formula writing style of you like? People tell me I write really neat, but is it really that much different from other people? I know my X's are pretty bad, but we never use the multiplication sign (×).
[t]http://puu.sh/8hbw[/t]
The reason I'm asking is because I want to play around with recognition of handwritten mathematical expressions and wonder what other people's handwriting is like.
Did you just write random formulas or am I completely retarded?
Anyways, it looks nice. I write most of the maths I do on my computer, so my hand writing is awful.
[editline]7th November 2011[/editline]
Did you just write random formulas or am I completely retarded?
Anyways, it looks nice. I write most of the maths I do on my computer, so my hand writing is awful.
[QUOTE=Overv;33168244]What is the formula writing style of you like? People tell me I write really neat, but is it really that much different from other people? I know my X's are pretty bad, but we never use the multiplication sign (×).
[t]http://puu.sh/8hbw[/t]
The reason I'm asking is because I want to play around with recognition of handwritten mathematical expressions and wonder what other people's handwriting is like.[/QUOTE]
that is pretty much the only fault, not writing x mathematically.
[QUOTE=Overv;33168244]What is the formula writing style of you like? People tell me I write really neat, but is it really that much different from other people? I know my X's are pretty bad, but we never use the multiplication sign (×).
[t]http://puu.sh/8hbw[/t]
The reason I'm asking is because I want to play around with recognition of handwritten mathematical expressions and wonder what other people's handwriting is like.[/QUOTE]
I have the neatest mathematical handwriting ever
Haha just kidding it's horrendous
[t]http://i42.tinypic.com/35dceoz.jpg[/t]
I think I was a bit tired.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/CDruQ.jpg[/IMG]
sigh
you know you're in for some shit when the guide for the experiment you're doing opens with "Bad luck: this is one of the most fiddly experiments in the first year lab. Make sure you bring your reading
glasses and headache tablets."
[url]http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~ppzphy11/firstyear/modules/experimental/Experiments/13LaserDiffraction.pdf[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
