1

General Science / Re: history assignment help

« on: 20/12/2021 08:21:18 »

Sorry mate, but all spammers are history on this forum

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How long does a gravitational wave last?

« on: 24/11/2021 08:46:33 »

@Harri
I’ve changed the title of your question from gravity wave to gravitational wave.
A gravity wave is one that uses gravity as the returning force eg water waves.

3

The Environment / Re: Should we conserve for a Single Species or Habitat

« on: 18/11/2021 06:30:54 »

I help look after a Trust reserve where Hazel Dormice have been reintroduced. There is Hazel coppice, that is degrading as time goes on.

Which group is running this reintroduction? I assume PTES who have been releasing. They ought to be aware of the importance of habitat management for dormice.
Have you spoken to the mammal society? https://www.mammal.org.uk/species-hub/full-species-hub/discover-mammals/species-hazel-dormouse/
It might be worth contacting researchers in this field eg https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326126680_Habitat_preferences_of_hazel_dormice_Muscardinus_avellanarius_and_the_effects_of_tree-felling_on_their_movement
Who are part of this team https://wildlifescience.org/portfolio/dormouse-conservation/
This document outlines the importance of hazel coppicing and tree cover management https://ptes.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Dormouse-Conservation-Handbook.pdf

I can’t give specific advice as this isn’t my field, but if you have problems finding the right people I have a personal interest in conservation and can ask around my contacts.

4

General Science / Re: Matter is Apparently Made of Fields, But How the Heck does that Work?!

« on: 16/11/2021 00:07:45 »

Soooo... fields, as I've described them in my question don't actually exist and are just an easy way to describe how something in the physical world works and behaves?

They don’t exist in the way you think about them, but what they measure and model are real enough.
Temperature exists, wind exists, the effect of what we call a magnetic field exists.
The last one is a really good example. We define a magnetic field by the force and direction of that force (vector) on a test magnet at a particular point. The force on the magnet is very real, it’s effect is one we can feel. The field is how we describe it.
This field does exist in all space, because in theory the field from one fridge magnet goes out to infinity, although it would be so small as to be impossible to measure it even at a few meters. So now you need to ask a question, does the field cause the magnet or does the magnet cause the field. Field theory doesn’t care, it just describes and predicts the behaviour of things affected by the magnetic field - there you see, our limited language forces us to attribute action to the field 
Not everything is cut and dried, as @Halc says current view is that particle & antiparticle are described by the same field, but we might find something in the future that changes that.

5

Just Chat! / Re: test

« on: 13/11/2021 14:40:59 »

Geeze!!  I was testing how to download a picture.  The test was a success, but I deleted the picture.  Now move along and let this meaningless post move down the list of unread posts until it disappears into the aether.

There is no aether 

6

New Theories / Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?

« on: 13/11/2021 08:58:42 »

Ps - I did not quite understand the reference towards tryin to be
 " BRITISH " .
I Strongly Object Racism.
(Are you trying to be a Racist?)

Is it racist to mention a general characteristic of a nation or group? Not sure whether we do talk about the weather more than other nations, but we have a lot to talk about in the local weather:
https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/why-do-the-british-talk-about-the-weather-so-much/
https://www.rabbies.com/en/blog/why-british-always-talk-about-weather

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: A particle in 2 places at once?

« on: 05/11/2021 22:45:25 »

You seem to me to be be saying or implying that ,if measurements were finer and more efficient that the position and the momentum of a particle could be determined separately and not as a pair that are joined at the  hip

No, I’m not saying that, as Alan has explained very clearly.
What I’m saying is that the analogy @Harri was giving is inappropriate. There are two factors at work here, one is our state of knowledge of a particle because we can’t see it in the same way as looking at a player on a field. We see the player on the field because photons bounce off him and hit our eyes, those photons don’t move him or alter his momentum significantly, but they do if the player is an electron. One way we can detect an electron is to have it hit a detector eg phosphor screen, but then it’s stopped moving. Even if we use a speed gun on the player s/he has to move in order to get a doppler reading. These are the physical and practical problems.
The second problem is answered by Alan.
Reread Alan’s reply https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=83459.msg659621#msg659621
There is an intrinsic limit to how accurately we can know these 2 properties at the same time and is quite different from the measurement problems already described. This is a limit set by the way the universe works. Reread both posts by Alan as he has put down very clearly what is an endless source of confusion to most non physicists, and unfortunately a few physicists!
For a large object like a ball kicked by a player the difference is so small that it is irrelevant around 10^-30m.

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: A particle in 2 places at once?

« on: 31/10/2021 23:25:30 »

I often read that particles can be in two separate locations at once.

This has certainly never been demonstrated, and while not denying it, I am unaware of a quantum interpretation which goes to far as to assert this.

I’m not aware of one either. I think this is a misinterpretation of the solution to some wave equations where there is equal probability of 2 or even 4 solutions; that doesn’t mean those solutions exist simultaneously.

It is when I read that 'a particle' can be in two separate locations at once I wonder if the statement is true and if it is at all helpful to describe it as such when discussing superposition?

A cat being in superposition of dead and alive is not the same as saying it is both dead and alive. I think that's the disconnect not spelled out well in statements that word it otherwise.

Agreed, it’s a common misunderstanding of the Schrödinger’s thought experiment.

9

General Science / Re: How to reach orbit from dehradun

« on: 26/10/2021 12:55:44 »

(Let's just Forgive & Forget & move on...bcoz they certainly do not know, what they are doin)

Agreed, let's leave this thread as quickly as the OP left.
Must have got a rocket from somewhere 
Thus is the fate of returning trolls 

10

Physiology & Medicine / Re: SuperBug?

« on: 24/10/2021 18:55:29 »

👷
(Helmets/Headgear should be made Compulsory for All Mods)
🤞
Tc!

Thick skins are issued as standard 

11

New Theories / Re: Coronavirus will get weaker and then what?

« on: 22/10/2021 09:48:22 »

All women need to be impregnated immediately by men who show natural resistance to the lethal covid disease,

As women have a stronger immune response than men and men are more likely to die from covid, it may be the other way round. Look for the women who had very few symptoms?

12

Just Chat! / Re: Do Two Steps From Hell have anything else worth listening to?

« on: 21/10/2021 21:03:03 »

I Agree with the Simulation Hypothesis.
👍
But i find it Futile to respond to your OPs.
👎
Considering they will be Gone Away with the Winds.
(They Disappear)

Not our doing. Curious, furious, billy is playing some odd self pleasing game.

more of like from Knockin on Heaven's Doors.

Guns version was very good, Dylan is one of my favourites, and Dylan + Knofler is well worth hearing. Raign version very atmospheric, used on ‘100’ and ‘Sons of Anarchy’. Clapton version is a classic. One of the fascinating things about Dylan’s songs is how they inspire very different arrangements, very few are straight covers.

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What if the universe really is infinite?

« on: 20/10/2021 10:11:14 »

But for those who have indicated the possibility of this being the case, have they or do they need to take into consideration what happens to 'me' and our universe before relativity, at the uncertain quantum level?

Not sure how relativity would come into it, but if you don’t know of their existence then it would be impossible to take into account what happens to them.
As @Halc says, you need to consider what you mean by identity ‘me vs otherme’. This has been explored to some extent in Star Trek and other sifi with respect to the transporter.

14

General Science / Re: Anti-Aging, Testosterone, Peptides and Spam Clinic

« on: 20/10/2021 10:00:26 »

The idea of Spam is that the canning process has anti-aging properties for the Spam - mod.

I believe the frying process also releases extra anti-agens, particularly if deep fried in batter. It also helps if you sing along as you fry 🎶spam, spam, spam, spam🎶

15

New Theories / Re: Coronavirus will get weaker and then what?

« on: 19/10/2021 21:18:50 »

However, with time, this virus started to show less and less symptoms, until it became almost completely harmless to rabbits.

This is rubbish.
The acute form of myxomatosis can kill a rabbit within 10 days and the chronic form within two weeks, although some rabbits do survive this. There are still high risk areas in the uk.

16

General Science / Re: How can photons have momentum but no mass?

« on: 19/10/2021 21:07:37 »

You know, it's funny. I LITERALLY just had an online chat with a cosmologist yesterday evening and one of the things he said to me was that matter, as we currently know it, may not actually exist at all. Fields exist, and particles such as Protons, Neutrons and Electrons are merely excitations of those fields

I agree with @Halc on this, but I think you need to sit down and think what you mean by the word exists.
We generally accept that the table your computer is sitting on exists.
A few hundred years ago no one would have known that it was made of molecules, or of the existence of atoms, electrons, etc. Knowing about those does not change the fact that the table exists, maybe not in the form everyone thought, but still the same at the macro level. I am surprised at your cosmologist, describing Protons, Neutrons and Electrons as merely excitations of those fields really doesn’t answer or change anything, it’s just a lower level of detail. We don’t describe a table as merely molecules.
As Ian Hacking said of electrons "if you can spray them, then they are real."

At any rate though, I do understand most of what you're saying. Mostly that we have very little idea what light actually is.

Actually we we know a great deal about what light is, how it works etc. It is another of those “merely” excitations of a field, and that means we can understand it in ways we couldn’t before.

Hi ES. I would like to offer an alternative view on this:

The next important thing is that you have probably read or been taught that    momentum = mass x velocity.    This is probably why you are concerned about the photon having 0 mass   but still having a non-zero momentum.
    There are at least two ways we can address this issue.   The first is to say that many physicists were also troubled about this.  It's a very good question to ask and something that does seem quite puzzling.
     Physicist's were sufficiently determined to maintain this simple concept of momentum that they developed a quantity called "relativistic mass".   They accepted that the invariant mass of a photon wasn't anything you could ever really measure, it certainly wasn't going to be measured as the mass of the particle when it was at rest in some inertial frame.  So they determined that the invariant mass wasn't something that should be used in that formula     momentum = mv.

I may be misreading what you say, but it implies that relativistic mass was ‘developed’ in response to the ‘rest mass’ of the photon being zero, and hence to maintain the concept of momentum for the photon.
The concept of mass varying with relative velocity predates special relativity and the concept of the photon, coming from the work of Lorentz and others. Lorentz was trying to work within a stationary aether theory and postulated that the measuring apparatus designed to detect movement relative to the aether was length contracted (Fitzgerald contraction) and so could never detect the movement. This led to his famous transforms.
There was also parallel work on the concept of electrostatic mass, that a charged body is harder to accelerate than an uncharged one, and this electrostatic mass increases with velocity. Lorentz was working on an electron theory and applying this electrostatic mass via his transforms he developed the concept of relativistic mass (both longitudinal and transverse). Interestingly he also changed the original Newton’s law that “force = rate of change of momentum” into the form we know today, F=ma.
What is really interesting is that Poincaré took the Lorentz transforms and gave them the form we use today. He also showed they were the result of principle of least action, showed that what we call the spacetime interval is invariant, suggested c might be an unsurpassable limit, suggested a clock synchronisation method using light, and suggested gravitational waves might exist. He apparently decided that developing the work would be too much effort for no useful result. So near!
Einstein originally took on the term relativistic mass in his early papers when he showed his famous E²=(m₀c²)²+(pc)² , but spoke against its use later.
Maintaining the concept of momentum for the photon was never an issue, as long as you believe that momentum is conserved (which thou shalt). If the photon has momentum as it leaves the atom, then the atom should recoil, which it does, and that can be measured. Similarly momentum is transferred at the receiving end.

17

General Science / Re: Easily Research Any Unusual Numbers on Your Significant Other's Phone

« on: 18/10/2021 22:21:26 »

All I need to do is call that number and scream into the phone a few times. It has never failed me. 

LOL you must have some traumatised dentists in your area!

18

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: How are microorganisms grouped and classified?

« on: 15/10/2021 08:56:44 »

........I thought perhaps I would email some private dermatologists or find one where I can present this as clearly as possible.

That sounds a good way forward, but they are going to be interested in appearance (photos) and symptoms (eg itch). They might suggest skin sample for analysis, but this is a specialist job for a lab as they are looking for more than microorganisms.
I really don’t think you will be able to do any analysis that will help.

19

Chemistry / Re: Why don't plastic food containers dry in a dishwasher?

« on: 12/10/2021 00:06:06 »

Perhaps the surface has something to do with it.
Maybe Plastic ain't as smooth as Others.

Dishwashers (including me when I do them by hand) rely on retained heat to do the final drying. Glass & ceramics retain heat, plastics don’t.

PS Alan knew it all along, but was just toying with you 

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can we ever truly describe space as empty?

« on: 06/10/2021 13:13:37 »

"Can space ever be described as empty when the electrostatic field of oscillations is always active allowing us to perceive the history of our universe?"

Well Ron, you are right that the electromagnetic field is continually active in the form of light, radio waves including microwaves etc and these fill space.
I think what people mean by empty is no solid stuff, but even then there is hydrogen, charged particles, neutrinos, dust and other stuff.
So not empty at all

Edit: Whoops, overlap with Origin. He’s not as wordy as me