1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Do the electrons that generate an electric current come from the wire's atoms?

« on: 18/12/2019 15:01:12 »

Yes, the electrons come from the atoms in the wire. No, it's not true that light and energy is released when electrons come out of atoms. The opposite is true. Removing an electron from an atom requires the input of energy, not the release of energy. It isn't proper to think of the electrons as "coming out" of the atoms when electric current is passed through a wire anyway. The valence electrons are already distributed between many atoms as an "electron sea". The electrons are simply moved or vibrated through this sea when an electric current is applied.

If by "speed of electric current" you mean "drift velocity", then it's actually very, very slow: on the order of micrometers per second: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity The electric signal itself can travel close to the speed of light.

2

General Science / Re: Can I turn Pixie into a diamond?

« on: 17/12/2019 14:10:14 »

My parents currently have a cat named Pixie as well.

Any carbon-based matter could potentially be turned into a diamond with enough heat and pressure. Like Halc says, you might need to isolate the carbon first. I'm not sure what would happen if you tried to compress it with all of the nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen mixed in. I used to sometimes heat sugar in a spoon until water boiled off of it and left carbon behind, so perhaps most of those extra elements would boil off on their own if the conditions were right.

3

The Environment / Re: How much does human heat contribute to global warming?

« on: 04/12/2019 23:41:31 »

An average adult male produces about 100-120 watts of body heat: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph240/stevens1/
The current world population is about 7.7 billion. If you multiply the two, you'd get 770 - 924 gigawatts (although this is an over-estimate, since much of the population is made up of children). The total solar energy received by the Earth is around 173,000,000 gigawatts: http://news.mit.edu/2011/energy-scale-part3-1026 That would make the total body heat contribution from human bodies less than 0.00045% of the contribution from the Sun. So it's practically non-existent.

4

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Is the mystery killer of the Bermuda Triangle killer waves?

« on: 29/11/2019 17:41:33 »

The Bermuda Triangle does not appear to experience losses of ships and planes at a greater rate than other areas of the world based on percentage: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/bermuda-triangle-mystery-solved-latest-theories-dr-karl-kruszelnicki-debunked-unexplained-a7861731.html

If there was some kind of anomalous loss of vehicles, however, killer waves wouldn't explain the loss of aircraft.

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How can quantum entanglement be proven?

« on: 10/11/2019 01:48:52 »

Surely this could convey information.

The reason you can't use this to convey information is because you can't force the particle to be in a particular state. It's random.

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does information have mass?

« on: 07/11/2019 22:05:35 »

I would say that information as a concept doesn't have mass, but anything that can actually store information will have a mass (at least one associated with its energy via E=mc²). That mass-energy, however, can be arbitrarily small (there is no known upper limit to the wavelength of a photon, except, perhaps, the diameter of the Universe).

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is it possible for the laws of physics to change in time?

« on: 25/10/2019 23:58:22 »

It seems pretty unlikely that laws of physics don't change over time, Entropy would see to that.

Entropy doesn't affect the laws of physics because it is a by-product of the laws of physics. The second law of thermodynamics, in particular.

I mean, honestly, how can chaos be lawful? You either have a descent into chaos or you dont.

Depends on how you define "chaos" and "lawful". The way in which chaos is defined in terms of entropy requires no change in the laws of physics over time.

What's so special about stupid old energy  that only it should suffer entropy, why shouldn't laws be affected too?

Because entropy is defined in terms of energy specifically.

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is the cosmic microwave background?

« on: 08/10/2019 16:50:24 »

The fact that we're 'seeing' this radiation is proof that it's moving through space, right? It isn't just loitering around in our vicinity with nothing better to do. So the radiation we saw last week must now be gone forever. It sounds like this radiation must have been tavelling past us and 'disappearing forever' for the last umpteen billion years. why is it STIIL travelling past us in a way that we can register with instruments?

It's true that the radiation is constantly on the move. However, that radiation is travelling in all directions at very nearly the same rate. As many photons of this radiation are entering any given cubic meter of space as are leaving it. So there is always radiation present to measure.

9

New Theories / Re: What exactly is gravity

« on: 28/09/2019 20:44:14 »

In case if it is a gas giant, it is spread in a wide area and more particles are exposed to energy, resulting in curvature.  Though energy is weak particles gets into its grip.

So what you're saying is that it depends on the density of the planet, is that right?

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is it possible for the laws of physics to change in time?

« on: 26/09/2019 21:47:44 »

Albert Einstein for example may have found it a 'big deal' and decided to hide the truth to protect societal interests. I wonder, what may those interests have been?

Maybe you should find some actually evidence for that conspiracy first.

Some recent sources show that the Big Bang theory may be incorrect:

Big Bang theory wrong? Star older than Universe discovered - threat of ‘scientific crisis’

Quote
The Big Bang theory has been thrown into question after scientists discovered a star which appears to be older than the Universe itself – and it could lead to a “scientific crisis”.

Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1162808/big-bang-theory-how-old-is-universe-physics-news-astronomy-space-2019 [nofollow]

Big Bang theory wrong: Black hole found that's so big and old it makes Big Bang impossible

Quote
Astronomers have spotted a black hole that is as old as the universe itself, putting a huge question mark over the Big Bang theory.

Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/889405/black-hole-big-bang-theory-wrong-big-bounce-universe-space [nofollow]

Firstly, Express is a sensationalist website. Everything there should be taken with a large grain of salt.

Secondly, there is no problem with that star's age. The uncertainty of its age is large enough to be consistent with the Big Bang. The black hole thing has also been addressed using a "direct collapse" model (as opposed to the idea that it formed from a collapsing star that then consumed matter to become larger).

When the Universe is to be considered infinite, how likely would those ideas remain?

Just as likely as they are now. Evolution is separate from the Big Bang. Evolution was already widely-accepted when the eternal, steady state model of the Universe was also accepted. Neither requires the other.

11

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: What would happen if we combine human DNA with dinosaur DNA?

« on: 16/09/2019 18:22:30 »

You wouldn't become some kind of dinosaur hybrid. The DNA would be treated as a foreign substance, instigating an immune reaction. This person injected himself with foreign DNA and only experienced "minor inflammation": https://www.livescience.com/64388-boy-encoded-and-injected-dna-bible-quran.html

12

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: The Moon from Earth 4 billion years ago?

« on: 15/09/2019 17:45:16 »

This page goes into details about this very question: https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/07/11/what-did-the-moon-look-like-from-earth-4-billion-years-ago/#3cba74001151

These illustrations give visual comparisons of the Moon's appearance in the sky in the distant past: https://www.lpi.usra.edu/exploration/training/illustrations/earthMoon/

This calculator can tell you how long it took for the Moon to complete an orbit long ago: http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/planet_orbit

At a distance of 15,000 kilometers, the Moon would have taken a bit over 5 hours to complete an orbit. At 20,000 kilometers, it's about 7.8 hours.

Given that most gases are colorless, Rayleigh scattering would have probably made the sky of the ancient Moon blue. It would have been darker than the Earth's sky, since it was a much thinner atmosphere (about 1% the pressure of Earth): http://www.astronomy.com/news/2017/10/moon-atmosphere

13

General Science / Re: Science Fact or Fiction: The Online Version Part I

« on: 11/09/2019 05:34:23 »

Is the earth the densest planet I always thought tha Mercury was.

Mercury: 5.427 g/cc
Earth: 5.514 g/cc

14

Chemistry / Re: (CONFUSED) Water fuelled car engine possible?

« on: 11/08/2019 17:33:29 »

You can get net energy by reacting chemicals like lithium or fluorine with water, but it wouldn't be worth the trouble. Unlike an air-breathing engine, you'd have to carry those extra chemicals in the car and you wouldn't get nearly as much range as you would burning gasoline. Then there is the hazardous nature of lithium and fluorine to consider...

15

Chemistry / Re: What is the proton number in NH3 and NH4+?

« on: 24/07/2019 16:45:34 »

Could you explain this point in an easy way please 'each proton just has to be its own nucleus, ie a H+ ion.'?

The atom is bonded to a positive hydrogen ion.

16

Chemistry / Re: What is the proton number in NH3 and NH4+?

« on: 23/07/2019 22:24:29 »

Like I said in another of your threads, the number of protons in a given element never changes. Nitrogen always has 7 protons, regardless of what molecule it is in or what its electric charge is. The number of protons is what defines the element. If the number of protons was different, it would no longer be nitrogen.

17

Chemistry / Re: What is the proton numbers of carbon in CH3+?

« on: 23/07/2019 07:57:33 »

Carbon always has six protons. It wouldn't be carbon otherwise.

Now, how many electrons does carbon have in this state 5 or 6? and what is the hybridization state of carbon here SP^3 or SP^2?

If it has a +1 charge, then it has one fewer electron than normal, which would be 5. The methyl cation is isoelectronic with a single borane unit (BH₃), which has sp² hybridization.

18

Chemistry / Re: In this reaction How many electrons carbon anion has?

« on: 23/07/2019 06:37:14 »

Where do the carbon get the extra electron for the negetive charge?

Presumably by taking it from some other atom before it became involved in the reaction that this thread is about.

19

Chemistry / Re: What is the proton numbers of carbon in CH3+?

« on: 23/07/2019 06:33:15 »

Carbon always has six protons. It wouldn't be carbon otherwise.

The positive charge would be due to the carbon losing an electron somehow.

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Will all moving objects with mass generate gravitational waves?

« on: 14/06/2019 14:15:36 »

Yes, even small objects can release gravitational radiation when they accelerate (so long as they have a gravitational quadrupole moment, that is): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrupole#Gravitational_quadrupole