1

New Theories / Re: How will buckyballs fired at a double slit behave?

« on: 17/06/2019 19:12:31 »

Atoms bouncing off each other collapses their waves.

That doesn't even parse.

There's something you need to understand.
It has already been pointed out, but you have missed it.
Imagine making a grating with a gap between the "wires" that's a little bit smaller than the molecules you are using.

Classically, no particles will get through it.

QM and the uncertainty principle means that a few will. They will quantum tunnel through.

Here's the bit you don't understand.
If you take the grating and hammer it until the wires are squashed flat and there are no gaps so it becomes a metal foil then repeat the experiment...

More atoms will get through the foil even though it no longer has gaps in it. (In some circumstances)

Do you understand that?
 The probability of tunneling is related to the thickness of the barrier.
Hammering it flat makes it thinner and so it's more likely that atoms will tunnel through.

Obviously, with the grating destroyed, there's no diffraction pattern.

And the (smaller number of) atoms that went through the grating before  you hammered it flat would also show no clear diffraction pattern because, at that level, the atoms are not going through the gaps.

It's the same , classically, with light
You know the equation
d sin θ =  λ
Where lambda is the wavelength and d is the spacing
you can rewrite that as

sin θ =  λ /d
Well, if you make d smaller than lambda then you are trying to find an angle where sin theta is more than 1, but that's impossible.

Diffraction doesn't work if the wavelength is bigger  than the grating's spacing.
And, returning to QM, a particle can't be "smaller" than the associated wavelength.

So, you can't sensibly calculate a diffraction pattern for the the experiment you have proposed.

So there's no way to say whether the particles would follow it or not.
And, as has been pointed out before, you also can't measure it because, in practice big  things don't go through small holes.

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is there remote sensor for pH?

« on: 05/03/2019 18:51:33 »

Heather doesn't grow well on alkaline soils, so here's a very rough map of pH of the UK
http://www.moorlandassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Heather-coverage-UK.png

3

Chemistry / Re: What happens during electrolysis of salt water with gold and copper electrodes?

« on: 02/03/2019 18:13:43 »

Wet chlorine will oxidise gold.

The rate will be dependent on things like concentration and temperature (as well as the presence of other ions like chloride)

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Do you think Tau Ceti e is inhabited?

« on: 10/02/2019 18:58:47 »

Call it 99%. 99% of 150° is  148.5°.

Sorry to be the pedant, but are you scaling a temperature? In ° F?!?

150° F

At the very least, please use an absolute temperature scale (Kelvin or Rankine) before multiplying temperatures by any factor, otherwise we end up with such silly results, like: "50% hotter than 32 °F (0 °C) is 48 °F (8.9 °C), but 50% hotter than 0 °C is, still 0 °C?" or even worse: "50 % hotter than 20 °F (–6 °C) is 30 °F (–1.1 °C)..."

Even with absolute temperatures, scaling is somewhat nonsensical, but at least the maths work out.

Yeah your right.  Silly mistake on my part.


  Using the same numbers gives ~ 144° F.  For difference of 6°F.  But then again, I was being generous with the 99% estimate.   At the highest resolution of the graph in the paper, you might get 99% of circular orbit equilibrium temp at an eccentricity of 0.4, better than twice the eccentricity of Tau Ceti e, and its on a curve that flattens out as you approach 0 eccentricity. 

So despite my embarrassing lapse, I still don't think that this is enough to significantly increase the chances of Tau Ceti e being habitable

5

General Science / Re: Are there aliens made of lava?

« on: 14/01/2019 19:18:23 »

A section of the textbook Life in the Universe: Expectations and Constraints by Dirk Schulz-Makuch and Louis N. Irwin does go into this subject matter. Here's a quote from chapter 6:

Feinberg and Shapiro (1980) suggested that the existence of lavobes, organisms that could exist in lava flows, and magmobes, organisms that could exploit thermal gradients or chemical energy sources within the molten rock. These organisms could make use of the chemical complexity of silicate rocks in which aluminum could replace silicon in the tetrahedrons and cation exchange reactions could occur in interlayer sites between the tetrahedral and octahedral sheets. For this to occur, silicates would have to be in the form of sheets, such as the clay minerals smectite and montmorillonite. Information could be represented as irregularities in the crystal lattice of minerals. A particularly intriguing example is the clay mineral amesite, which has a helical structure. Information could be encoded by substitution of silicon with aluminum.

It goes on later to say:

However, given the environmental conditions of Earth's crust and its composition (46% oxygen, 28% silicon) with abundant silicate melts, Earth should be more favorable than most other planets and moons in our Solar System for such a form of life. Yet no fossilized remnants or structures consistent with such an organism have been found, even though outcrops of igneous and volcanic rocks are abundant. Thus, the existence of such organisms seems very unlikely.

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does time stand still in the quantum world?

« on: 06/01/2019 08:35:41 »

In this perfect reverse universe with all the photons magically heading back to the sun

The trick of reversing time, and seeing if it makes sense says:
- Q1: If the Solar System were reversed in time, would the planetary orbits look normal?
- A1: Yes, The planetary orbits would look pretty normal.
          But if you looked closely at the orbit of the Moon, spiralling inwards is not normal, since tides dissipate energy as heat; the Moon should spiral outwards.

- Q2: If the Sun were reversed in time, would it look normal?
- A2: No, this would look very abnormal. Photons from across our galaxy (and beyond) do not spontaneously fly back towards the Sun. Heat does not spontaneously move from cooler places (the visible surface of the Sun) to hotter places (the center of the Sun). Helium does not spontaneously break down into Hydrogen. 

- Q3: If the Earth were reversed in time, would it look normal?
- A3: No, this would look rather abnormal. Heat does not spontaneously move from cooler places (the surface of the Earth) to hotter places (the center of the Earth). Cows do not regurgitate grass. Grass does not emit photons, turning complex chemicals like chlorophyl into carbon dioxide, water and nitrates. Random vibrations of the entire Earth's crust do not synchronise and converge at a point and move huge blocks of the Earth's crust.   

So parts of this macroscopic universe like the orbits of the planets are (close to) ideal, lossless, reversible systems.
But other parts like the Sun and the Earth have a clear direction to time's arrow, as dictated by entropy, and are clearly not reversible.

A Feynman diagram is time reversible

I agree that some simple Feynman diagrams with just 2 interacting real particles can be ambiguous in the direction of time.

But I suggest that by the time you get to the interaction of 3 or more real particles, a Feynman diagram provides a pretty clear idea of the direction of time (but not an absolute guarantee).

Take the decay of a neutron in a vacuum:
n⁰ → p⁺ + e⁻ + ν_e + 0.78MeV

1) The right hand side has 3 real particles which exist at the same time. The odds against these particles just happening to come together in the same place at the same time in a vacuum to form a neutron is so unlikely that it gives a clear direction to time's arrow.

2) The reaction releases 0.78MeV of energy, which is randomly split up amongst the products, and heads off in 3 different directions into the universe. Energy does not spontaneously gather from different parts of the universe and combine at a single point. This gives a clear direction to time's arrow.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_neutron_decay
This link shows a Feynman diagram for this reaction (with an arrow of time...)

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does time stand still in the quantum world?

« on: 05/01/2019 07:53:07 »

In spite of the presence of the word “tends”, the assertion “it never decreases” can still be found attached to many explanations.

If you have a small system, like the 4 coins mentioned by ChiralSPO, then entropy will (sometimes) decrease back to the original 4H. But it will be somewhat uncommon - the most common occurrence would be to have 2H + 2T, with other combinations being less common.

If you have a larger system, like 1 million coins, the most common combination (after allowing a few million flips for it to stabilise) will be around 500,000H+500,000T; combinations like 1,000,000H will almost never occur.

Now turn that into something practical that you can pick up with your hand, like 6x10²³ atoms, and you can say that returning to the original state will practically never occur. Hence the use of the emphatic "never".

It is possible to manually flip all the coins back to the original all-H state, but this takes information and hence energy. So you can reduce entropy by expending energy, but left to itself, entropy tends to increase in macroscopic systems (at any temperature above absolute zero).

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Could Oumuamua be a light sail?

« on: 10/11/2018 20:36:19 »

How do we know what shape it is? From what I heard at the time, all they had was a regular brightening and darkening as it rotated, suggesting that we were getting more light from it when it's side on and less when it's end on, but it could simply be round with two bright spots on opposite sides.

9

General Science / Re: Why is the atmosphere transparent to CO2 lasers?

« on: 30/09/2018 16:35:22 »

The object of laser weapons is to deliver a huge amount of energy in a short pulse, to cause failure by adiabatic heating of the target. Most work has been done with carbon dioxide lasers because they are easy to make up to very large sizes, and considerably more efficient than most other solid or gas lasers. Nobody seems to have told the military that atmospheric carbon dioxide has a strong enough infrared absorption to destroy the earth's climate, and they just go on merrily shooting down drone targets, oblivious to the facts of global warming enthusiasts, which clearly prove that they can't work.

Thank you for clarifying your lack of understanding.
When a molecule in a CO2 laser emits radiation it falls to a lower excited state- rather than the ground state.
It's more efficient to get lasers to do this.
The ground state usually has a very high population- so getting a population inversion is very difficult if the lower state is the ground.

Because the lower state in the CO2 laser is already an excited state, the reverse process- absorption of the laser radiation by the atmosphere- would only happen if the air contained a significant amount of that excited state.
It doesn't.

It's funny how often global warming deniers fail to get the physics right.

If you want to lose this argument in more detail, start another thread.

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How can a universe start from nothing?

« on: 26/08/2018 21:30:05 »

m×c² – 2×G×m×M/r = 0  (we have to count the gravitational term twice because each body exerts on the other, I think...)

I disagree. The potential energy is for the system of two particles in this case so you don't need the two.

11

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Honey against sugar: which sweetener should I use?

« on: 25/08/2018 11:08:21 »

Oh, I forgot to mention the only case where it's likely to matter
"Honey is a known dietary reservoir of C. botulinum spores and has been linked to infant botulism. For this reason honey is not recommended for infants less than one year of age"
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulism#Infant_botulism

12

New Theories / Re: Who is the author of the theory of tidal resonance?

« on: 17/08/2018 20:40:18 »

Yusup. Instead of spewing out new questions on this, go and open it up in New Theories.
It's very clear that you're not satisfied with peoples answers, that means that you already have a opinion.
Place that one in New Theories.

Or be banned
Because that is what I would do if I was a moderator here.

Looking at this sub forum it seems you fill it up Yusup, asking the same questions in various disguise,
That's not how the TNS is thought to work.

13

General Science / Re: Is drinking water better off alkaline?

« on: 11/08/2018 00:58:32 »

water is more natural so it is better

Would you like to show how you can parse that  statement in a way that makes it helpful?

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does hot air gain potential energy when it rises?

« on: 04/08/2018 20:53:35 »

Temperature is a form of kinetic energy (largely), and therefore we would expect a mass of warm air to cool as it rises, as the kinetic energy of its temperature gets exchanged for potential energy of its height (and this is typically what is observed).

Excellent response. My compliments to the chef!

15

Physiology & Medicine / Re: What's the best way to hydrate?

« on: 06/07/2018 15:50:20 »

I am eager to be shown wrong,

Happy to help
https://www.nhs.uk/news/food-and-diet/a-small-amount-of-coffee-will-not-dehydrate-you/

16

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Are LEDs harmful to health?

« on: 27/06/2018 22:58:27 »

bluer frequencies ...can interfere with our sleep-wake cycle.

The idea that some cell in the eye was affecting sleep/wake cycles (the circadian rhythm) was supported by certain blind people who stayed synchronised to the day/night cycle, despite having no rod or cone cells in their eyes.
It was eventually traced to a special type of cell in the retina, which is sensitive to the blue light of day, but provides no perceptible conscious input.

So, to be safe, use the "warm" types of LED in the bedroom, or areas where you relax before going to bed.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsically_photosensitive_retinal_ganglion_cells#Research_in_humans

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What are the pressure differences within sound waves?

« on: 12/06/2018 17:47:13 »

The sound pressure of 100dB is not an absolute measure against local air pressure, but a measure against a reference auditory threshold of 2x10^-5 Pa.
So to find the actual pressure you would need to use:



Where p₀=2x10^-5 Pa
L_p=100

P is rms pressure and it is pressure swing either side of ambient - there are compressions & rarefactions so pressure difference between these two is 2p.

In a free field - no reflections - p decreases at 6dB for every doubling of distance so p varies as 1/r not 1/r².

The air molecules vibrate rather than move so there is no net movement of air.

18

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: If nothing is faster than light, how can we look back in time with a telescope?

« on: 24/05/2018 12:39:03 »

If nothing is faster than light, how can we look back in time with a telescope?

An example: Chinese observers saw a "guest star" in the sky in the year 1054.
- It was bright enough to see in the daytime.
- We now know that this was caused by a supernova about 6,500 light years away.
- The expanding fragments are now known as the Crab Nebula.
- The supernova actually took place around 5,500BC (roughly 1054 minus 6500 years).
- So when the astronomers saw it in 1054 AD, they were looking back in time about 6500 years.

But supernovae also emit some other particles that travel at well below the speed of light. This probably includes radioactive iron nuclei, ⁶⁰Fe.
- If these are traveling at (say) 2/3 the speed of light, they will take about 10,000 years to arrive at Earth (compared to 6,500 years for light)
- We can expect these to start arriving around the year 4,500 AD.
- So assuming that scientists then have radiation detectors in space, they would see this increase in subatomic particles.
- They would be effectively looking backwards in time at the same event - only now they will be looking back almost 10,000 years
- We can see a sprinkling of ⁶⁰Fe on the sea floor, hinting at nearby supernovae in our galaxy. This isotope has a half-life of about 2 million years, so we know that this did not occur naturally on Earth.

So far as we know, there is nothing that travels faster than light, so no high-technology astronomers on Earth could have seen the Crab Nebula explosion before 1054.
- There is one subtle exception: Neutrinos. It is estimated that a supernova in the core of a giant star may take from a few hours to a day to break through the surface of a star, emitting an intense flash of light, X-Rays and gamma rays. However, neutrinos (which travel imperceptibly less than the speed of light) can make the same trip from core to surface in a few seconds. So neutrinos might arrive at the Earth from the core of the supernova a few hours before the flash of light from the surface of a supernova. With today's neutrino detectors and X-Ray/Gamma ray detectors, I expect we would be able to measure this time difference if another supernova exploded to us as close as 6500 LY.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_Nebula

edit: Correct formatting of the iron isotope, as highlighted by PmbPhy.

19

Marine Science / Re: How can climate scientists claim 30% acidification of the ocean due to CO2?

« on: 12/05/2018 01:10:07 »

It is the phase relationship between temperature and CO2 that questions the accepted "wisdom" of anthropogenic climate change.

Which is plainly a bit silly.
Whether the CO2 takes a few months to turn up in the sea water isn't the issue here.
The "wisdom" of anthropogenic climate change is based on a number of factors; let us know which you disagree with.

(1) Humans have been burning a lot of fossil fuels in the last hundred years or so.
(2) That generates CO2  which (at least on a scale of centuries) ends up in the atmosphere.
(3) We know this because the excess CO2 in the air  tallies with the  stuff we have added.
(4) The CO2 levels in the air are rising.
(5) The added stuff has an "ancient" carbon dating age- which is consistent with it being from fossil fuel but not with it being from any more recent source.
(6) Additional CO2 in the air  means that more of the Sun's incoming radiation is trapped by the Earth- because that's what physics tells us..
(7) The temperature is rising.

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How fundamental is time?

« on: 01/05/2018 18:01:50 »

Interesting thoughts.
Do we have the same problem with distance, there is no true origin. All measurements are Δx, Δy or Δz.
Similarly, units are arbitrary.