01-14-2014 02:17 PM
#301
| |
| |
01-14-2014 02:29 PM
#302
| |
| |
01-14-2014 02:58 PM
#303
| |
01-14-2014 03:09 PM
#304
| |
I was posting that link in response to this: | |
| |
01-14-2014 03:30 PM
#305
| |
Yes, it doesn't take much. | |
01-14-2014 04:04 PM
#306
| |
| |
01-15-2014 10:55 PM
#307
| |
An upmarket igloo or perhaps an eskimo's holiday resort. | |
01-15-2014 11:18 PM
#308
| |
| |
01-16-2014 12:01 AM
#309
| |
It's a good pic, but really grainy. I can't tell if the shape(s) on the right are separate "iglooyas" or the tunnel entrance I'm not seeing. I'm specifically fixated on the tunnel entrance to an ice shelter... I'm willing to accept snow for ice. The reason is that, I think, whenever I say the word "igloo" to a random person, they imagine that tunnel entrance... not a snow/ice wigwam. | |
01-17-2014 02:16 PM
#310
| |
Preface: | |
01-17-2014 06:59 PM
#311
| |
|
Cool thread. |
01-17-2014 08:14 PM
#312
| |
Keep that in mind as I'm about to pick on your choice of words. (Note that I'm not picking on you, just the sentences.) | |
01-18-2014 12:16 AM
#313
| |
MMM thanks a lot. I remember learning about heat of fusion/vaporization, I just always thought that occurred in transit from 0 degrees to 100, not while the whole liquid simmers at 100. | |
01-18-2014 01:20 AM
#314
| |
I'm facepalming that you didn't mention pressure of 1 atm, but yes, you have it right. | |
01-21-2014 03:08 PM
#315
| |
Upon re-reading your post, Renton, I want to clarify something. | |
01-21-2014 03:22 PM
#316
| |
OK that makes a lot of sense. So when you put broccoli in boiling water, it soaks in some of the heat that would ordinarily have contributed to the heat of vaporization of the water, thereby making the broccoli potentially much hotter than 100 celsius and retarding the rate that the water boils. I guess that's why it is so common to turn the heat down once something begins to boil, cause then you know you've got a fairly consistent temperature with which to cook the broccoli/whatever. | |
01-21-2014 03:36 PM
#317
| |
Nothing that you put into the water will be hotter than the water, provided it's floating in the water. (If it's resting on the bottom of the pan, where the heat is applied, then blah, blah, blah) | |
01-21-2014 04:00 PM
#318
| |
So is the fact that nearly every instruction calls for turning down the heat once boiling start indicate a thermodynamic fallacy? Or is it just better to reduce the rate that the water boils off? | |
01-21-2014 08:57 PM
#319
| |
I don't understand the fallacy part. | |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 01-21-2014 at 09:01 PM. | |
03-17-2014 10:05 PM
#320
| |
|
I believe I have finally found the answer to the ultimate question -- you know, the one that goes like "who/what created the universe, what's the purpose to existence, etc?" |
03-25-2014 10:06 PM
#321
| |
|
Horribly, terribly, genocidally interesting: http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/21cplp/time_is_an_emergent_phenomenon_that_is_a_side/ |
03-26-2014 07:58 AM
#322
| |
That probably explains reality. We're seeing a 3-dimensional cut from a (say) 10-dimensional reality and we get the impression time is advancing while nothing is actually happening, we're just observing different states of the same thing. That's how I understand it at least. | |
| |
03-26-2014 12:27 PM
#323
| |
| |
03-26-2014 02:33 PM
#324
| |
| |
03-26-2014 04:30 PM
#325
| |
Shh he's really sensitive about time. | |
| |
03-28-2014 05:18 PM
#326
| |
Quantum Mechanics explains what happens at the ridiculously small scales. The actual physics going on at that scale is so far removed from our daily observations and interactions with the universe that it's stupendously hard to make emotional sense of it. | |
07-23-2014 05:49 PM
#327
| |
|
Question: what is impossible? |
07-23-2014 06:05 PM
#328
| |
|
Something which has a 0% probability doesn't happen. |
07-23-2014 06:19 PM
#329
| |
|
What has 0% probability? If there are an infinite number of different universes/timelines, doesn't that mean nothing has 0% probability? If there are infinite unique universes, then by the time you have every universe with all the things you say are >0 probability, you have an additional infinite number to find |
07-23-2014 06:37 PM
#330
| |
| |
| |
07-23-2014 06:45 PM
#331
| |
|
I don't think that's happening anywhere, but I don't understand how that is reconciled with the concept of infinity. |
07-23-2014 06:50 PM
#332
| |
|
I really would like to know if there is something I'm missing about the concept of infinity WRT math/physics. Maybe infinity doesn't mean infinity. Maybe when we say "infinite possibilities", we say it because that's the closest thing to how we can understand it, even though it isn't true that there are infinite possibilities. But then, how could we know that? I would think that if there is any infinity in any way whatsoever, it means everything is possible and there is an infinite number of examples of each possibility |
07-23-2014 06:50 PM
#333
| |
I think I can prove to you very easily that not everything is possible... here are two statements... | |
| |
07-23-2014 06:55 PM
#334
| |
Ok my language wasn't the best. I can't know your understanding of infinity is flawed, it just seems that it is. Infinity doesn't mean everything is possible. From a mathematical pov, zero multiplied by infinity is zero. So something with a zero percent probability of happening will happen zero times in a sample of infinity. | |
| |
07-23-2014 06:56 PM
#335
| |
| |
07-23-2014 07:08 PM
#336
| |
I have no idea, but that doesn't make any sense to me. I thought Schrodinger's cat is either dead or alive, not both; I thought that whole thought experiment was designed to show that certain interpretations of quantum mechanics is flawed. | |
| |
07-23-2014 07:11 PM
#337
| |
No, it was to show the wave nature of things. How electrons take every possible path when they're going from A to B (or that really, to calculate the position of the electron, you have to sum up all possible paths). The cat takes every possible state until you 'collapse the waveform'. | |
07-23-2014 07:13 PM
#338
| |
|
The probability of me rolling a dice numbered 1-6 and getting a 7 has 0 probability. |
Last edited by Savy; 07-23-2014 at 07:24 PM. | |
07-23-2014 07:19 PM
#339
| |
| |
| |
07-23-2014 11:51 PM
#340
| |
| |
08-07-2014 06:26 AM
#341
| |
Dunno if these are more chemistry questions, but I've got some questions about graphene and can't find the answers anywhere. So help would be most appreciated! | |
08-20-2014 11:23 AM
#342
| |
1) It is one atom thick, so you can't feel it or be cut by it. | |
08-21-2014 04:37 PM
#343
| |
Thanks. But I still don't get why you can't feel it. I read that theoretically a single sheet of graphene can support the weight of a cat over a big enough surface area. Does that mean the cat would look like it's floating in midair? If you can't feel it, can you put your hand straight through it? If so, how is it possible that it supports weight? | |
08-22-2014 07:03 AM
#344
| |
You actually wrote the keyword yourself: 'Theoretically' | |
08-22-2014 09:03 AM
#345
| |
09-26-2014 02:59 PM
#346
| |
Hi guys! Maybe you wont mind if a monkey butts in? (monkey butts) | |
09-26-2014 03:00 PM
#347
| |
Chemist is misleading that graphene can't be seen. | |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 09-26-2014 at 03:05 PM. | |
09-26-2014 03:40 PM
#348
| |
On the whole "infinity" thing: | |
09-26-2014 04:15 PM
#349
| |
Oh... the original questions: | |
10-19-2014 09:49 PM
#350
| |
Are particles actually waves until we observe them? | |
| |
10-20-2014 12:45 AM
#351
| |
Particles are waves. Waves are particles. | |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 10-20-2014 at 12:47 AM. | |
10-20-2014 07:53 AM
#352
| |
Interesting. So a single photon fired through a lens will show evidence of refraction? | |
| |
10-20-2014 11:07 AM
#353
| |
Wow thanks monkey for the responses If the above is true though, are you saying my finger would go straight through it? in which case, would I effectively be breaking the bonds between the carbon atoms, and so why did whoever it was say it could support the weight of a cat? | |
10-20-2014 11:45 AM
#354
| |
Yes. Each photon interacts individually. | |
10-20-2014 12:03 PM
#355
| |
I'm saying that there is no sheet of graphene that exists unsupported. | |
10-21-2014 04:35 AM
#356
| |
OK cool. | |
10-21-2014 08:33 AM
#357
| |
| |
10-21-2014 01:57 PM
#358
| |
A) this makes no sense. The complexity of a human being can not be expressed by any known particles on such a scale. | |
10-21-2014 01:59 PM
#359
| |
If something that tiny could see, it could only see very short wavelengths... like gamma rays and higher. The trouble is that gamma rays have so much energy that they tear apart atomic nuclei... causing nuclear fission. | |
10-21-2014 03:40 PM
#360
| |
Talk about how the loudest sound possible on Earth is 1 atmosphere of pressure of loudness. | |
10-21-2014 06:44 PM
#361
| |
10-21-2014 07:19 PM
#362
| |
This sounds fun. | |
10-21-2014 07:31 PM
#363
| |
No | |
10-23-2014 12:16 PM
#364
| |
But what if it left that membrane and traveled through another brane and then returned, couldn't it travel not only faster than the speed of sound but even faster than the speed of light. Could String Theory Booms be bigger than sonic booms, but which brane would boom. | |
10-23-2014 05:20 PM
#365
| |
OBV. a dead rillawolf shows up with challenging questions when MMM in the heat of battle lynching his wolf buddy JKDS. | |
10-24-2014 12:41 PM
#366
| |
Sorry, rilla. Stupid fake-howl from JKDS. I suck at ww, btw. | |
10-25-2014 08:17 AM
#367
| |
10-25-2014 01:31 PM
#368
| |
no love for my use of {blah}? It's one of my favorite variables. | |
10-26-2014 10:38 AM
#369
| |
{blah} is better than {some positive constant}*T | |
10-26-2014 11:54 PM
#370
| |
You and I both know that {some constant} is the Gas Constant. It's enough for this discussion to know that the value is non-negative and non-zero. | |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 10-26-2014 at 11:57 PM. | |
10-29-2014 12:33 PM
#371
| |
Shock waves are tough. | |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 10-29-2014 at 12:43 PM. | |
10-29-2014 02:19 PM
#372
| |
If pressure is simply particle density, why does a large body of an incompressible medium, such as an ocean, have immense pressure at its depths? How are particles more dense when water in incompressible? | |
| |
10-29-2014 03:40 PM
#373
| |
Pretty sure pressure has no effect on density unless the material is a gas or plasma. Pressure is just the force acting on a material. [/layman] | |
10-29-2014 03:46 PM
#374
| |
I always assumed pressure was the collective weight of what's above you, so water pressure is the weight of all the water directly above you, plus 1 atmosphere of air pressure. | |
| |
10-29-2014 03:48 PM
#375
| |
TL;DR | |