21

New Theories / Re: Universal Utopia? What's The Universal Terminal Goal?

« on: 19/03/2024 10:56:12 »

Afaik, WW2 is a reaction for what happened in the results and aftermath of WW1.

And what was WW1 about? Certainly not the welfare of the combatants.

22

The Environment / Re: If we used wood for fuel, what % of our energy needs could this supply?

« on: 19/03/2024 10:14:42 »

Hugely dependent on population density and climate. No problem in Canada, Scandinavia (excluding Iceland - no trees!), Scotland, Siberia, maybe some central African states and possibly New Zealand. Almost impossible to make a significant contribution anywhere else.

23

Chemistry / Re: What are the hazards of sodium tetracarbonyl ferrate?

« on: 19/03/2024 01:48:52 »

It can also decompose, releasing significant quantities of CO gas.

I wouldn't be surprised if the complex itself were pyrophoric (it is formally Fe(-II), or Fe^2-, which is ready to dump electrons into the first oxidant it can find)

Another option is that, through slow decomposition and loss of CO, it may become enriched with Fe(0) nanoparticles which are pyrophoric (similar to those formed by the decomposition of ferrous oxalate.)

I have never worked with the compound in question, but I have plenty of experience working with cobalt carbonyls, including compounds containing a tetracarbonylcobaltate(-I) anion. Although I did not observe any samples catch on fire, these compounds readily reacted with oxygen in the atmosphere, and I do recall one sample of finely divided dicobalt octacarbonyl which began smoking immediately upon (accidental) exposure to air.

24

New Theories / Re: Could quantum mechanics be wrong?

« on: 18/03/2024 09:27:20 »

"Could quantum theory be wrong?", yes of course it could be wrong, as could any theory. However quantum theory has been stunningly successful in explaining observations and making predictions and to debunk it would require a better theory and I see nothing on the horizon. Quantum theory is counterintuitive and baffling but that in itself does not make it wrong.

25

New Theories / Could quantum mechanics be wrong?

« on: 18/03/2024 04:40:12 »

               There seems to be a consensus, in the scientific community that regardless of the complexities involved in Standard Theory, that the mathematics used is so brilliant that, the theory cannot possibly, ever be wrong. This, in spite of many illogicalities and oversights.

      If one examines the properties of light it is apparent that light when it interacts with matter, follows the laws of reflection, when the term reflection is used it is not referring solely to light reflecting off a mirror but stating that light follows the property of reflection in general, as for instance if one is sitting in the garden and admiring the flowers, the incoming sunlight is reflected off the flowers in  keeping with the classical laws of reflection : angle of incidence = angle of reflection. The same goes for refraction.
 
           Following this line of thought, quantum mechanics does not see electrons as little ball bearings orbiting around the nucleus but as an electron cloud that has no definite location or velocity, in stead it is described as a spread out or smeared out wave function: So, Schr?dinger's equation provides the mathematical framework for understanding the electron cloud as a probabilistic distribution of electrons in an atom. It describes the behavior of electrons around an atomic nucleus as probabilistic wave-functions.

             The convention following from the use of Schrodinger?s wave-function to describe the electron cloud means that no scope for the reflection or refraction process is possible. When the electron cloud absorbs a photon, the subsequent emission of a photon doesn't necessarily obey the law of reflection (angle of incidence = angle of reflection.) The same applies to refraction because the process of absorption and emission involves transitions between quantum energy levels within the atom, which can occur in any direction. The emission of a photon from an excited state is generally isotropic or governed by other factors like the quantum mechanical properties of the atom and its environment. 

           In the context of our modern world with the immense strides that have been made in technology, is this aetiology good enough? Look at the smart phone in your hand. It is processing data at the rate of several gigabits per second. Which means that it is taking input data, processing that data and outputting the answer. Consider that the electron which is miniscule in size by comparison and the infinitesimal sub-atomic distances it has to traverse, should surely be able to oscillate at the rate of several hundreds of trillions of times per second. That this is indeed the case can be seen in the working of atomic clocks that depend on the oscillation of the fine structure valence electrons in the Caesium 130 atom. However, it should be noted that the oscillation of the fine structure electron in the Caesium atom does not result in the emission of photons of that frequency and rate, there is not enough energy in these photons to allow for emission, therefore the energy is transferred to the atom which enters a super metastable state.  Therefore, one of the age-old axioms of quantum mechanics that a single photon cannot possess a frequency but that the term frequency is only applied to the photon as a mathematical artifice to calculate its energy, is challenged and the contention is made that single photon frequency is real. It is apparent therefore, that when we speak of a photon possessing a frequency of 500THz, it means exactly that, the electron is absorbing and emitting photons at the rate of 500 trillion photons per second.

To be continued with your permission???..

26

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Gas discharge tube hydrogen

« on: 16/03/2024 23:50:19 »

Hi.

The initial excitation is by collision with cations (in this case protons) streaming from the anode.

    Some if it is but there are also always going to be some free electrons to be found.   
For one reason or another, there will be some atoms in the gas tube that are ionised so that we have a free electron and a positive ion (a "cation").   This might be a consequence of cosmic rays striking some atoms or something else.   One way or another you have a tiny number of cations and free electrons in the gas, even though it might be a very small number.

Most gas discharge tubes work by causing an "avalanche effect".   See  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Townsend_discharge   for a description of the "Townsend Avalanche".



   Basically if you have a small number of free electrons to start with and then accelerate them in an electric field, they have collisions with other atoms and quickly start to liberate more electrons and leave more positive charged ions.   Under the right conditions the numbers of electrons increase geometrically (typically doubling on each collision).   So fairly quickly you have a large number of free electrons and positive ions in the gas tube.   There is a more detailed discussion in the Wikipedia page that was linked to.

Now let's go back to your ( @theThinker ) comments:

But QM requires that the electrons could only be excited by the exact frequency light

     That's half right.    If electrons were going to be moved from one orbit to another by absorbing a photon then those photons should have exactly the right amount of energy corresponding to the energy gap between the orbits.    However, QM never said that absorbing a photon was the ONLY way to move electrons from one orbit to some other  (or in this case to liberate them from the atom completely).
      It is quite possible to liberate electrons through impact between the atom and some other particle.   In our case, we have free electrons (and also some cations which can also be accelerated and get involved) these collide with the (un-ionised) atoms and liberate electrons from them.
    Actually, if you just want to completely free the electron then you CAN also do this with photons and it's a lot less restrictive then trying to move them from one orbit precisely to another.   See "the photo electric effect",   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect ,   provided the photons have energy greater than the ionisation energy then the electron can be freed and the surplus energy will usually just become kinetic energy that the electron leaves the atom with.   However, that isn't what is done in gas discharge tubes - we just have electrons liberated as a consequence of collisions and impact energy.

In the gas discharge tube experiment for H2,  we have four emission lines in the visible spectrum.

    Once you have quite a few free electrons these will start to fall back into the ionised atoms.   They don't usually go from being free electrons straight to being bound in the lowest energy ground state of the atom.   Indeed they will usually start at some higher orbit energy and steadily fall further down to lower energy orbits.   Exactly as you have stated,  some of these transitions will be to the final level n=2  from higher energy orbits (this is the Balmer series of emission lines).   These are the ones which produce visible light.   More discussion and diagrams available here:  https://www.chemguide.co.uk/atoms/properties/hspectrum.html

 

I hope that helps.
Best Wishes.

Your reply is very helpful. I like to note that GDT works with AC/DC.

I have a related question on the ionization part.The first process in gas discharge is ionization. It is easy to explain classically as the electric field applied pulls the nuclues and the electrons apart in opposite direction thus separating them.

But if we want a QM viewpoint, it may be difficult. An electron could be free of the nucleus only if it absorbs a photon raising its energy beyond the transition limit. But where do such an initial photon come from?

27

New Theories / Re: Universal Utopia? What's The Universal Terminal Goal?

« on: 15/03/2024 18:16:31 »

I've defined consciousness as the capacity to achieve goals effectively and efficiently.

Which puts a spider several orders more conscious than any human.

28

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Besides humans, what animals are raised by both parents?

« on: 15/03/2024 14:09:45 »

But utter gullibility and the ability to set rational thought aside does seem to be a particular strength of humans, if not unique to us.

Every second countless non-human animals lose their lives due to gullibility and hubris.

29

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is a 3-wheeled car more stable if two of the wheels are at the front?

« on: 15/03/2024 12:26:22 »

Three-wheeled cars with two wheels at the front typically offer better stability compared to those with two wheels at the back. The front-wheel configuration provides improved steering control and stability during cornering, enhancing overall safety and handling. However, the stability of a 3-wheel car also depends on other factors such as weight distribution and suspension design. Considering these factors can help determine how much a 3 wheel car costs and its stability.

30

Just Chat! / Re: How Much Dish Detergent To Use.

« on: 14/03/2024 19:25:20 »

If there are any bubbles left when you have finished the task, you have used too much. When I worked as a detergent chemist we reckoned that at least 90% of washing-up liquid was wasted. Start with two drops, and add more when the bubbles don't form. Or just put a smear on each plate, rub it over by hand, then rinse off with hot water.

But for really good results, to save the planet, and to maximise the utility of your one life,  use a dishwasher - 60 degrees and a really active detergent (hand washing-up liquid contains less than 5% active surfactant) would seriously damage your skin but it cleans sterilises and dries metals and ceramics whilst you do something useful.

31

Chemistry / Re: What ingredients are in the withdrawn Takata airbags?

« on: 14/03/2024 14:48:59 »

The problem was that the airbags used phase stabilized Ammonia Nitrate, and that they did not include a desiccant.  Over time, humidity and high temps degraded the Ammonia Nitrate.  This led to it burning too quickly.  This, in turn, led to pressures inside the inflators beyond that which they could withstand, causing them to explode, spewing shrapnel.

32

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Besides humans, what animals are raised by both parents?

« on: 13/03/2024 23:13:36 »

You must be the only person who knows that. Nobody else has communicated with another species to the extent of knowing what they don't think. But utter gullibility and the ability to set rational thought aside does seem to be a particular strength of humans, if not unique to us.

33

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What is the relationship between an object and its field?

« on: 13/03/2024 00:09:25 »

As an example an electron and its electric field?

In QFT the former is described as an excitation of the latter,I believe.

Are there other ways of looking at it?

Can we imagine the field as an extension of the object(the two being aspects of the greater whole)?

Or is it just  easier to imagine it the other way round with the object being  some kind of  an "appendage" of the field ?(that would be more  along the lines of the QFT model ,I think)

34

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is the Hopf gauge?

« on: 11/03/2024 22:17:25 »

I was once told, along with the rest of the class, that some people have difficulty with abstraction.

Well, maybe. I like to think that isn't really true, it's possibly more the case that people have difficulty thinking about a thing that requires a bit of focus. Some people pull engines and other bits of car apart, and put them back together.

Some people write software and have to stay focussed on the problem and finding solutions. Some people keep computers and software working in a useful manner. Some people design communications networks. I like to think those are skills I might have already, if I just look for them hard enough. I like to think it's about letting go of how important you or someone else thinks it is, and just do it because maybe you can. Maybe you should stop listening to people who tell you it's hard to do.

35

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is the Hopf gauge?

« on: 11/03/2024 22:11:16 »

I managed the rubik cube ONCE, but could never repeat it.

36

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Is HCQ the antidote to Trump?

« on: 11/03/2024 22:04:04 »

It is likely that improvements in genetics will in the future allow a prescriber to know which medications will have the most beneficial effects and the minimum of side effects--the so called "personalised medicine". We are not there yet. As regards hydroxychloroquine the eye damage is a direct effect of the medication on SOME people and it has nothing to do with covid. All medications for autoimmune conditions have serious and sometimes severe(including lethal) side effects. Quite apart from this any drug, even the humble aspirin, can have unexpected dire effects. I know a person who having taken an aspirin developed an anaphylactic reaction and whose life was saved by a local doctor who happened to be at home at the time.

37

Just Chat! / Does an infinitely long iron bar have two tangible endpoints? (Have mercy.)

« on: 09/03/2024 13:15:03 »

Hello.

1. If You pour an infinite amount of water in an instant (by using a holodeck or advanced technology) in a bottomless well infinitely deep, by applying advanced replication, quantum teleportation and distribution of water particles,  would there be water aligned with its upper brink, at least for a short while, until it soon starts to descend, because of the antigravity plates placed equally everywhere in the well? AG here corresponds to Earth's gravity, that is to say, if you fall into the well, you will fall forever. Or the well would seem completely empty right from the start when you look into the abyss (right after putting off the magic bucket of endless water)? Forwhy, just because there is an infinite amount of stars in cosmos, that doesn't mean they are all placed next to each other filling almost the entire space (hence the blackness of space). And this perhaps applies to water molecules, if you somehow compare them to stars.

2. Everything is a matter of perspective. If you are infinitely small, a toothpick seems infinitely big to you. If you are infinitely big, the Sun seems infinitely small to you. And is it at all possible that cosmos is made out of infinitely small particles? "If from a stick a foot long you every day take the half of it, in a myriad ages it will not be exhausted." just as Zhuangzi suggested. (Is this a fine thought of mine, right before mentioning Zhuangzi, or You deem it a bit silly? I might use it for my prose project.)

3. Imagine two neighboring infinite, glowing, straight lines, that is to say, iron bars, parallel to each other, placed in a holodeck simulation, inside an endless empty space, filled with starless darkness, where the laws of physics more or less apply. And now, let's imagine that the iron bars are slowly starting to tilt towards each other, at the moment, 1 degree. Now, since the two bars are infinitely long, if they were to meet with their tips, endpoints, would that mean that their infinity is compromised? You see, if the two iron bars are truly infinite, their endpoints could NEVER touch, or else it would imply that they are not infinite after all, rather finite. So they must stay parallel to each other and never tilt, because of some unknown force, perhaps compatible with formula of creation. Ergo the two (infinitely long) iron bars MUST stop tilting (similar to the phenomenon when a starship slows down and becomes heavier when nearing the speed of light) or they cannot tilt in the first place, in order to preserve the integrity of infinity. Because, it would otherwise mean that they were finite, instead of infinite. This means, aside for yet another infinity paradox, that infinity has "certain" shapes, and it is capable of stopping or slowing down movement of certain shapes, then when two infinities would otherwise cancel each other out (similar to a computer safety measure, if we are indeed living inside a simulation generated by a quantum computer). Perhaps infinity means that there are no endpoints, tips of both iron bars, otherwise the bars would be finite? (I'm struggling with infinity.)

In other words, if you were to imagine a simple iron ring with 1 m in diameter, and then you enlarge it so that it becomes infinite, because of its "shape", which corresponds to edge, endpoint or tip, it MUST vanish and not be there anymore. And this vanishing part, I believe, has to do with the core of infinity, which applies to certain shapes or at least endopints. In essence, the one who is chasing infinity, he is actually chasing nothingness. And lack of dimensions could be a dimension by itself.

In short, there is an iron bar, infinitely long. Since I don't understand infinity, not in the slightest, and yet I'm attracted to it like a magnet, although you may or may not agree, isn't it true that endpoints are either not possible to imagine with our limited brains, hardly quantum processors? Or the endpoints simply put do not really exist, otherwise they'd compromise the integrity of "infinity"? Forwhy if endpoints do exist, doesn't that mean that the iron bar is finite after all? If you CAN imagine endpoints of an infinitely long iron bar, then you are either John Nash, who can see Big Brother as well, or infinity is but an illusion. So, infinity equals non-existing endpoints, and "finity" equals existing endpoints. Ergo infinity has parts that do not really exist, sort of like an illusion or holographic particles.

Does the darn iron bar have two endpoints, or since I can't imagine them, or because the bar is infinitely long, perhaps the endpoints don't exist, which is precisely why the bar is infinite? If the answer is "yes", as in there ARE two endpoints,  why can't I imagine these endpoints?

Does anything at all I mentioned above, hopefully, corresponds to trace of intelligence? If so, please highlight it, forwhy I might use it for my short SF story.

I just can't Imagine (infinity). Hopefully Mr. Lennon doesn't mind.

So, when do I get the Nobel prize? -_- Hopefully, You will not remove this topic, unless you really have to. After all, members here are accredit to this fine forum, who, in retrospect, are a lot less clueless than myself (and thank God for that).

In my defense, and to paraphrase Mr. Einstein, I'm just a guy asking questions. And yet, in retrospect, his questions were a lot smarter than mine. At least he is not turning in his grave, being cremated instead. (Alas, I believe that scientists took his brain before cremation of his body, in order to study it. It appears, serving humanity has its disadvantages.)

38

Chemistry / Re: Can solutes migrate out of water?

« on: 09/03/2024 11:52:11 »

If the solutes are ions then, yes it's relatively easy.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81640.0


If not then it might still be possible.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S221415882200040X

39

Just Chat! / Re: William Shakespeare.

« on: 07/03/2024 09:20:26 »

Sadly, many university graduates nowadays seem to know less than previous generations of grammar school pupils. But, like Jonson, they have an unwarranted sense of privilege and superiority.

Shakespeare didn't need fluency in Latin, Greek, or even French to write plays in English, but he was literate and well grounded in history and mythology, and his audiences weren't too concerned with accuracy.

I'm not sure that his grasp of psychology went much deeper than knowing the Seven Deadly Sins, but his skill was in decorating a plot, however absurd, with matchless oratory, and the trick of writing in iambic pentameter makes it all exceptionally easy to remember.  So you could read all sorts of turgid Victorian pseudointellectual texts and bore yourself to death with Freud/Jung/Adler's contradictory conceits, or hear a few lines of pithy Shakespearian monologue and realise that this is an ordinary bloke talking about what ordinary blokes think, because it was written by an ordinary bloke with an ear for vocabulary and meter.

"There's a cracking bit of stuff!"  "But soft, what light through yonder window breaks?"   Same thought, same underlying psychology, audience recognises the situation; but Shakespeare pulls you into Romeo's mind by phrasing it as a question and adding a dimension. 

40

General Science / Re: How does ChatGPT work?

« on: 03/03/2024 15:21:30 »

Nothing new there.

25 years ago one of my children's college friends got a summer vacation job with an airline freight handler, initially entering data into a spreadsheet.  He quickly realised that with a few extra command lines he could get the spreadsheet to do all the rest of his work, so he sat at his desk for a few weeks watching the computer earn his wages. Then it occurred to him that he could replace everyone else in the office with a bit more software. Moral problem: tell the boss, get promoted and make 5 other guys redundant, or stay stumm and come back at Christmas?