Interesting Science Stuff Thread

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Eʟᴇᴍᴇɴᴛ 273]

Let's bring back the joy:

Scientific fact: You cannot kiss your elbow.

Barbarossa

Actually, contrary to popular belief it is actually very possible to kiss your elbow. About less than 5% of the world population can do this due to possible disjointed ligaments.

[emperordaniel 1,281]

Let's bring back the joy:

Scientific fact: You cannot kiss your elbow.

Barbarossa

Actually, contrary to popular belief it is actually very possible to kiss your elbow. About less than 5% of the world population can do this due to possible disjointed ligaments.

Edited Scientific fact: Less than 5% of the world's population can kiss their elbows.

[Cobraroll 138]

So now they've apparently measured a neutrino's speed to be faster than the speed of light...

Game changer or embarrassing miscalculation/inaccurate measurement? What do you think?

Links are sure to be posted by another member. Mine are all in Norwegian.

[emperordaniel 1,281]

Game changer IMO. They've already accelerated photons to go faster then light (ironic isn't it ), so neutrinos could be a next step

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Heard that one on the news. Unverified, and they are asking for other labs to reproduce the experiment. Warp drive anyone?

The question is not was Einstein wrong, but was he only a good approximation like Newton. The rule is "whatever works".

I've never heard of the Law of Relativity, only the Theory of Realativity.

  Edited September 23, 2011 by A Nonny Moose  

[Duke87 1,070]

The old playground legend was that if you kissed your elbow, you'd turn into a girl (which raises the question of what happens if a girl does it, but I was the only one who ever asked that...). So we would dare and double dog dare each other to try it. But no one was ever actually able to do it.

[hym 358]

Heard that one on the news. Unverified, and they are asking for other labs to reproduce the experiment. Warp drive anyone?

The question is not was Einstein wrong, but was he only a good approximation like Newton. The rule is "whatever works".

I've never heard of the Law of Relativity, only the Theory of Realativity.

This is an interesting idea, though if the Z Machine experiments are ever successful, the idea of going faster than the speed of light will seem like child's play. Allegedly, there is an old physics theory that say that anything wrapped in a strong enough magnetic field effectively leaves our reality and pops into a new dimension where the conventional rules of motion don't apply anymore. But that's all assuming the theory actually works, and no one knows if it does.

[Eʟᴇᴍᴇɴᴛ 273]

Yeah, the neutrinos recorded going faster than the speed of light. Yeah we were talking about that in physics and as long as the results haven't been replicated by other labs the claim is unverified.

Anyway, strange because in Einstein's theory of special relativity a particle travelling at the speed of light has an infinite amount of energy. Therefore, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

However, if proven true Einstein's theory of relativity will still remain mostly true because it is based on the fact light travels at a constant speed, which it does.

Anyway, I will remain interested in what the results will indicate. If proven true it will cause an enormous shift in the scientific community. As well, if the results are due to errors then what will we be able to say about the rest of CERN's experiments?

Interesting.

  Edited September 25, 2011 by Eʟᴇᴍᴇɴᴛ  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Anyway, I will remain interested in what the results will indicate. If proven true it will cause an enormous shift in the scientific community. As well, if the results are due to errors then what will we be able to say about the rest of CERN's experiments?

Zilch. Each experiment stands on its own. Errors are as common as funny theories about dark matter and dark flow.

[Duke87 1,070]

in Einstein's theory of special relativity a particle travelling at the speed of light has an infinitesimal amount of energy.

*pokes*

"infinitesimal" is not a fancy way of saying "infinite". In fact, it's an antonym (infintesimal = extremely small). You mean "infinite" here.

Just to throw some math in here... the classic E=mc² formula only describes rest energy (energy equivalent of matter not in motion). When you have movement, you also have kinetic energy. Typically expressed as E_k=½mv², though this only works at ordinary speeds. at speeds near the speed of light, you run into inaccuracies with relativity and up pops the Lorentz factor, so for total energy (kinetic and rest), E=mc²/sqrt(1-v²/c²). Note that if v=c, you're dividing by zero (cue meme). But it can be easily demonstrated that as v approaches c, E approaches infinity.

[Eʟᴇᴍᴇɴᴛ 273]

in Einstein's theory of special relativity a particle travelling at the speed of light has an infinitesimal amount of energy.

*pokes*

"infinitesimal" is not a fancy way of saying "infinite". In fact, it's an antonym (infintesimal = extremely small). You mean "infinite" here.

Just to throw some math in here... the classic E=mc² formula only describes rest energy (energy equivalent of matter not in motion). When you have movement, you also have kinetic energy. Typically expressed as E_k=½mv², though this only works at ordinary speeds. at speeds near the speed of light, you run into inaccuracies with relativity and up pops the Lorentz factor, so for total energy (kinetic and rest), E=mc²/sqrt(1-v²/c²). Note that if v=c, you're dividing by zero (cue meme). But it can be easily demonstrated that as v approaches c, E approaches infinity.

And thus, as speed approaches light, energy approaches infinity and therefore we ask the question: How can something travel beyond the speed of light if 'E' is theoretically infinite?

Also thanks for correcting me. I thought "infinite" sounded kid of awkward but I realise now that it is correct.

I edited that and learned something at the same time!

[hummer0328 6]

I've never been one to put much stock in the current standard model. There are way too many holes and assumptions that are made. Today's scientists stand on the shoulders of those who came before them, for the most part, assuming they were right. Every time some gaping hole appears in the standard model, somebody comes up with an even stranger idea to patch it up.

I have very little doubt that the standard model as it is now is incorrect. There are probably pieces that are, in their own ways correct, but the underlining cause is misunderstood. What the world truly needs is an innovative scientist of the likes of Einstein or Heisenberg to make the leap.

My prediction is that it will happen soon. Probably within the next decade. It will turn the standard model upside-down and scientists will have to rethink many of their present assumptions.

I have my sources, reliable sources. These sources have told me that CERN found something significant with the LHC and have been trying to stall for quite a while now. Partly, they have been trying to confirm what they found, (partly by disproving the Higgs Boson), and understand the implications before they come forward with anything.

I think we are generally on the right track, but we're missing something. Something big. Can't wait to find out what that something is.

  Edited September 25, 2011 by hummer0328  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Science, particularly mathematics, have been sliding along on a lot of unproven theories since Newton, Hook, and company (the original Royal Society. Since Einstein's gedanken (thought) experiment, there has been a lot of imagination, and much of it has been found to work in a limited way. Without it, our electronic world would not exist.

However, we have the pure guys who work in Cosmology and particle Physics who keep looking deeper and deeper trying to answer the unanswered parts of the models. From what fragmentary evidence that has leaked out or been published, I think we are close to something that may explain the how of magnetism and perhaps gravity. Even now, people are talking about quantum computers using Qubits instead of binary bits. The one study I've seen that mentioned Qubits implied that these darlings have more than two states. The binary digital computer's days may be numbered and it could turn out that the analogue world is where it is really at. In most disciplines, this is called a snap-back. Sun Yat Sen would be amused. The world of Physics will be set on its other ends (all five or six of them).

[Easy Bakes 253]

Science, particularly mathematics, have been sliding along on a lot of unproven theories since Newton, Hook, and company (the original Royal Society. Since Einstein's gedanken (thought) experiment, there has been a lot of imagination, and much of it has been found to work in a limited way. Without it, our electronic world would not exist.

However, we have the pure guys who work in Cosmology and particle Physics who keep looking deeper and deeper trying to answer the unanswered parts of the models. From what fragmentary evidence that has leaked out or been published, I think we are close to something that may explain the how of magnetism and perhaps gravity. Even now, people are talking about quantum computers using Qubits instead of binary bits. The one study I've seen that mentioned Qubits implied that these darlings have more than two states. The binary digital computer's days may be numbered and it could turn out that the analogue world is where it is really at. In most disciplines, this is called a snap-back. Sun Yat Sen would be amused. The world of Physics will be set on its other ends (all five or six of them).

Anlog just seems to me a better approach to AI then Digital would be.

[hummer0328 6]

Even now, people are talking about quantum computers using Qubits instead of binary bits. The one study I've seen that mentioned Qubits implied that these darlings have more than two states.

From my understanding, a qubit still uses binary. A classical bit must be either a 0 or 1. Qubits do this as well, but can also be both, at the same time. I'm not going to try to go into the details of how logic circuits work in a processor (for those who don't already know), but qubits still use traditional circuits. However, the fact that the qubit can be both a 0 and 1 has some pretty cool consequences for how efficiently those circuits work.

Then there is quantum entanglement, were two different qubits share the same state. It could allow for transfer of bits from one place to another without the bottlenecks of traveling down a traditional bus, or the time it takes to do so.

That's about all I know. Trying to figure out the finer details just gives me a headache.

  Edited September 28, 2011 by hummer0328  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ Ah, teleportation. It seems to work, and qubits are the key. Imagine changing a frame buffer in no-space, no-time. The frame rate could be something else. Quantum entanglement is starting to look like a star trek transporter.

Question, when does a qubit have distance?

Answer, when it is the length of Moses forearm (cubit).

  Edited September 28, 2011 by A Nonny Moose  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well,things proceed apace.

Now if the materials can be made to "bleed" and form scabs under which healing takes place, then the scabs fall off, while the circulation system rebuilds the healing materials from the environment you'll truly have a "living" substance. Further advances in nanites might just do this, and then we wouldn't have to worry tooo much about micro-meteorite punctures in space vehicles.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

My link

Ancient painters and their tools. The paleontology crown considers making paints an advanced civilization topic. I suppose it could be. Now what was painted? Faces? Bodies? Walls? Spears?

[Easy Bakes 253]

My link

Ancient painters and their tools. The paleontology crown considers making paints an advanced civilization topic. I suppose it could be. Now what was painted? Faces? Bodies? Walls? Spears?

the makeing of paints/dyes should be considered as a major advanceing point in a civilization.

what ever the paint was for the fact that it was "created" say they had some free time,and were not

24/7 engaged in only staying alive.

I Have not read the article yet so forgive me if i made the same points they did.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Name that telescope!

Here is a chance to rename one of sciences nicest toys. The Very Large Array radio telescope has been refurbished and is now much more powerful. The operators are looking for a new, catchy name. Go ahead. Enter your suggestion.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Name that telescope!

Here is a chance to rename one of sciences nicest toys. The Very Large Array radio telescope has been refurbished and is now much more powerful. The operators are looking for a new, catchy name. Go ahead. Enter your suggestion.

I suggested The Stephen William Hawking Array.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Name that telescope!

Here is a chance to rename one of sciences nicest toys. The Very Large Array radio telescope has been refurbished and is now much more powerful. The operators are looking for a new, catchy name. Go ahead. Enter your suggestion.

I suggested The Stephen William Hawking Array.

I didn't know he had passed away?

[Easy Bakes 253]

Name that telescope!

Here is a chance to rename one of sciences nicest toys. The Very Large Array radio telescope has been refurbished and is now much more powerful. The operators are looking for a new, catchy name. Go ahead. Enter your suggestion.

I suggested The Stephen William Hawking Array.

I didn't know he had passed away?

do you have to be dead for them to name something after you?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Name that telescope!

Here is a chance to rename one of sciences nicest toys. The Very Large Array radio telescope has been refurbished and is now much more powerful. The operators are looking for a new, catchy name. Go ahead. Enter your suggestion.

I suggested The Stephen William Hawking Array.

I didn't know he had passed away?

do you have to be dead for them to name something after you?

Usually.

"The evil that men do lives after them. The good is oft interred with the bones"

William Shakespeare in Julius Caesar (Marc Antony's funeral oration)

  Edited October 15, 2011 by A Nonny Moose  

[Odainsaker 2,134]

As technology progresses, we learn that Fermilab's Tevatron particle accelerator in Illinois was shut down two weeks ago. The famous collider has been made obsolete by the larger and far more powerful Large Hadron Collider near Geneva, and funding for the Fermilab project was evaporating. Some lament that the great era of mega-scaled physics research in the U.S. has ended, as the locus of attention will now turn to the LHC in Europe, to which teams of researchers from the U.S. are now already being shifted.

Hindsight suggests that a potential slow brain drain might have been averted had Texas's under-construction Superconducting Super Collider, designed to be even larger and more powerful than the LHC, not been ignominiously cancelled in 1993. Political controversy focused on the spiraling costs of the south Dallas/Waxahachie project, and neither Gov. Ann Richards nor the Clinton administration were unable to save the popular-but-costly project. The money was then deemed better steered towards the International Space Station, to which the U.S. can today no longer reach on its own and which even faces temporary adandonment. A lost opportunity, as the SSC project could have grossly enriched Texas, both in direct capital investment and in scientific capital, making the state the current-day world center of U.S. advanced particle research. Instead of American scientists now going overseas, European and Chinese scientists would be coming here, and a state with mezmerizing opportunites might not be seeing the grim atmosphere of political retreat from science and higher education that has since been slowly creeping through the Bush and Perry years.

The are currently no long-term plans in the U.S. for a successor to the Tevatron or the LHC (CERN is already planning their own Super Large Hadron Collider for the next coming decade), and the 14-mile built tunnel of the Superconducting Super Collider site remains as a two-billion-dollar abandoned hole in the ground. Gee...it was feared that the LHC would create an exotic black hole that would detroy us all...oh, the irony!

  Edited October 15, 2011 by Odainsaker  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

It seems that U.S. has been blowing all its spare money trying to rescue the unrescuable with its contributions to various fiscal difficulties on the capital front. This has drained any scientific money that may have been available and tossed it all in the fire. The government of the U.S. could give the west coast native peoples a lesson in potlatch (conspicuous waste of wealth). The interesting thing is that even now we can see it was all for nought.

Meanwhile, the ISS languishes without a reliable supply corridor, and research in the U.S. dies of starvation.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Melt Proof Nuke Powerplant

Seems to be a good idea. now can it work on large scale

[Ocram's Razr 963]

I did a report on PBMR in 2008.

[hym 358]

Melt Proof Nuke Powerplant

Seems to be a good idea. now can it work on large scale

I have some questions about this:

• Where are they getting the helium? Helium is in short supply, and as industrial air products go, helium is difficult to make.
  
• What is the cost of the fuel, how stable is the fuel cost, and what is the fuel's contribution to the cost of operation?
  
• What are the overall operational costs? Existing light water reactors are practically cheaper than dirt to run for decades.
  
• Maintenance schedules? How often does it need to be serviced and how long does it take to perform that maintenance?