Fuck protons and neutrons, I go electrons erryday~
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;31283127]Jesus fuck, that's amazing. What's that for? Energy engineering?[/QUOTE]
Perhaps later on it can be used for personal research and understanding of fusion, but right now it's just something I'm doing for fun. I have a strong interest in energy (specifically electricity) and so building my own fusion reactor allows me to understand that field even more.
Everything makes more sense when you do it yourself. Lectures are one thing, but the hands-on experience is a whole new world.
So, photoelectric effect, when we transmit energy to an electron, it's possible for it to be released from the atom with 0 kinetic energy, which means it'll stay still in whatever position he was in, but that means the electron has 0 energy, so why can the atom trap it again, instantaneously?
ITT: High-functioning autism
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Trolling" - JohnnyMo1))[/highlight]
So, guys, comic radiation comes from the Big Bang and its awesome temperatures, but how do we still see it? It doesn't ricochet off the universe's "walls", so is it absorbed by matter and re-emitted? Doesn't sound right, or did the universe quicker than the speed of light? Doesn't make sense, since the universe's speed if increasing, not decreasing.
Can monatomic hydrogen actually exist? Everyone in chemistry is like, "rargh rargh rargh not enough valance electrons, it's not happy," but if a hydrogen atom exists in vacuum by itself what happens? I doubt it spontaneously decomposes or anything like that, right?
I feel like I just stumbled into the wrong lecture at school. I'm not smart enough to understand this science talk. :saddowns:
Looking forward to taking Chemistry this semester though. I'LL BE BACK.
Can matter "vanish/disappear"? Or does it always become building blocks for something else?
(black holes exculded)
It can be converted to energy but it is never truly lost. It's not even lost in black holes.
[editline]26th July 2011[/editline]
Well, probably not anyway.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;31350235]It can be converted to energy but it is never truly lost. It's not even lost in black holes.[/QUOTE]
What about when radioactive matter decays?
For example, if you have 10 grams of radium-226 (half life: 1600 years) and let it stay untouched for 1600 years. What does that 5g (that decays) of radium-226 turn into?
[QUOTE=booster;31350352]What about when radioactive matter decays?
For example, if you have 10 grams of radium-226 (half life: 1600 years) and let it stay untouched for 1600 years. What does that 5g (that decays) of radium-226 turn into?[/QUOTE]
[sup]222[/sup]Rn, [sup]226[/sup]Th, [sup]212[/sup]Pb, or [sup]14[/sup]C depending on the decay mode.
As well as the alpha, beta, or whatever particle radiates from the original isotope when it decays. The mass-energy is conserved.
[QUOTE=sltungle;31340717]Can monatomic hydrogen actually exist? Everyone in chemistry is like, "rargh rargh rargh not enough valance electrons, it's not happy," but if a hydrogen atom exists in vacuum by itself what happens? I doubt it spontaneously decomposes or anything like that, right?[/QUOTE]
What? What do you mean?
there are huge interstellar clouds of atomic hydrogen floating about?
As our solar system orbits the centre of the galaxy every 250 million years, wouldn't that mean that the galaxies we see beyond ours, become bigger or smaller, when the Milky way arms rotate.
Like, now we can see the Andromeda galaxy clearly with telescopes, but how much would that view change in the next, lets say 100 million years?
[QUOTE=Contag;31367206]What? What do you mean?
there are huge interstellar clouds of atomic hydrogen floating about?[/QUOTE]
I figured most of that would have clumped together as H2 gas, but now that I think about it it probably wouldn't given that the density of a nebula is probably incredibly low.
[editline]28th July 2011[/editline]
Are analytical solutions to three body problems (or any n-body problem where n is 3 or higher) possible? As in is it physically or mathematically possible to find analytical solutions for any n-body problem, even if we can't currently do it?
I mean the universe does stuff in nature on its first attempt, stuff like planets don't have to sit there for multiple years trying to see how they're going to move, they simply respond to forces and DO move. Proteins don't try folding a billion different ways over 4 years until they're finally happy with one conformation and decide to stick with it, yet it takes us years to figure it out.
Obviously the universe 'just does' this stuff, it doesn't need to calculate it, but... if it CAN be done, and it CAN be done on the first attempt then surely, if the universe follows mathematical rules and abides by physical laws, then there must be analytical solutions to these kinds of problems.
If I stuck my dick in a black hole what would it feel like?
your dick would be torn apart by tidal forces just like the rest of you and you'd deserve it for making such an awful post
Dammit Johnny, you're one of the few people here who really knows about this shit. What do you think about my point on analytical solutions to n-body problems?
I discussed this with my relativity and quantum mechanics lecturer last semester and he said that he thinks it's probably possible, but not something we'll figure out any time soon. He said if I intend to 'solve it' that I should get him to help with it and "when you win the Noble prize for it I get credit for it too".
There don't at all need to be analytic solutions to all physical problems but in the case of the three-body problem I don't see why there wouldn't be. I haven't read too deeply into it but I think it's probably possible.
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but to know the position of a body, you need to know the resulting force, to which I guess you need the position of the other bodies.
Shit.
How do we do it for 2-body problems?
One thing that always bugs me in science is units that, while I can see the derivation for them and how they can be equated to other units, don't really seem to make any sense on their own.
Like I've never heard someone explain what a newton metre or a joule second actually is.
I mean a newton per square metre I can fathom. A joule per second makes perfect sense. But a joule multiplied by a second... I can't even begin to wrap my head around exactly what that'd mean or correspond to in reality.
Q = c m DeltaT
If we say that Delta T = Tf (making initial temperature 0, it means that Q is the energy that is required for the substance to get heated to Tf, which means it's the thermal energy it has.
Temperature is a measurement for the kinetic energy of the average particle, right?
So c.m.T = m/M x Avogadro's number ( to get to the number of particles) x mp x vp^2 . 1/2
So, if we solve this for mp x vp^2 we get that
Average mass of particle x average speed of particle ^2 = 2 . temperature of substance. Molar Mass . specfific heat capacity/ Avogadro's number
So, does this hold any ground? Because if it does, it means it's impossible for the average speed of a particle in a substance to be 0, which doesn't really seem that understandable. The formula for Kinetic energy works with vectors or scalars?
Also, stungle, how about the alternative Hertz? 1/s. Now, that's ridiculous. The unit for periods should be seconds/cycle, which makes a lot more sense and fits in with everything. Frequency is cycles per second, not 1/s.
No, Hz is 1/s not cycles per second.
Oh wait I see what you mean
but no
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;31507514]Q = c m DeltaT
If we say that Delta T = Tf (making initial temperature 0, it means that Q is the energy that is required for the substance to get heated to Tf, which means it's the thermal energy it has.
Temperature is a measurement for the kinetic energy of the average particle, right?
So c.m.T = m/M x Avogadro's number ( to get to the number of particles) x mp x vp^2 . 1/2
So, if we solve this for mp x vp^2 we get that
Average mass of particle x average speed of particle ^2 = temperature of substance. Molar Mass . specfific heat capacity/ 2. Avogadro's number
So, does this hold any ground? Because if it does, it means it's impossible for the average speed of a particle in a substance to be 0, which doesn't really seem that understandable. The formula for Kinetic energy works with vectors or scalars?
Also, stungle, how about the alternative Hertz? 1/s. Now, that's ridiculous. The unit for periods should be seconds/cycle, which makes a lot more sense and fits in with everything. Frequency is cycles per second, not 1/s.[/QUOTE]
Hertz makes perfect sense. You can multiply 1/s by things like energy to get power, or length to get speed, and all of those units have real, sensible meanings and value. 50 watts is just 50 joules per second. It's the same as 50 J.Hz. It makes perfect sense; for every second that passes there's 50 joules of energy emitted/absorbed/used/whatever.
A 'cycle' isn't a proper physical unit when you think about it so sticking it into equations would make things confusing.
There are all sort of equations concerning quantum mechanics that involve turning frequencies into times and the like. Wouldn't make any sense if you had cycles to work with as well.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;31507686]No, Hz is 1/s not cycles per second.
Oh wait I see what you mean
but no[/QUOTE]
I know Hz is 1/s, I'm saying it shouldn't be. Frequency is cycles per second. 2 rotations per second, 1 oscillations per second.
And it only makes mathematical sense, tell me how to interpret 1 per second in a physical sense withotu using cycles per second.
And cycles ARE a proper physical unit, just adjust it to whatever phenomenon you're studying.
Johnny, can you give me an example? Also, about that equation I did up there for particle mass and particle velocity, is it correct?
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;31507908]There are all sort of equations concerning quantum mechanics that involve turning frequencies into times and the like. Wouldn't make any sense if you had cycles to work with as well.[/QUOTE]
[editline]3rd August 2011[/editline]
I can't give a specific example because I don't have my modern physics text with me, it's back at school. And I'm not sure about the temperature one.
I made a mistake there, by the way, 2 multiplies by C.t. M not avogadro's number
This is more of a request than a question.
Does anyone know of the documentary of ways the world could end, where one of the "disasters" was the earth's rotation suddenly stopping, thus creating the most insane disaster I've ever seen. Like winds so strong it would level sky scrapers, every volcano on earth erupting and ofcourse a volcanic winter on top of all that
I couldn't find it on youtube nor google
Why in the world would the Earth's rotation suddenly stop do you know how much torque that would require
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;31568438]Why in the world would the Earth's rotation suddenly stop do you know how much torque that would require[/QUOTE]
That's kinda why I'm looking for the video.
I mean there must be some sort of "way" it can stop, otherwise they wouldn't have chosen that theory to use in the documentary. Unless their just full of shit and just makes stuff up.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
