1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / MOVED: How do we measure the energy of a photon?

« on: 30/03/2019 19:03:06 »

What initially appeared to be an interesting question regarding quantum epistemology has turned out to be (or transformed along the way into) the original poster trying to proselytize a new theory that is outside generally accepted science--thus I have moved the entire thread to the "New Theories" section, where this discussion may continue.

You may find it here: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75960.0

2

General Science / I can haz complete list of Realz?

« on: 05/03/2019 19:30:14 »

Hello!

I am interested in knowing how many different types of numberz there are. Please provide a complete list.

3

Just Chat! / What does Russia do after Putin?

« on: 04/03/2019 19:17:26 »

Vladimir Putin has been the leader (de facto and official) of Russia since 1999. As I understand it, he solidified his image by dramatically improving life for Russians after Yeltsin, and he now maintains a very tight grip on Russian politics and money by keeping the wealthiest Russians (oligarchs) happy enough, keeping other aspiring politicians down, ruthlessly attacking media and opposition groups at home and abroad, and keeping the general population distracted.

But Putin (as far as I know) is mortal, and if the wikipedia page can be trusted (big IF, I know), he is only 5 years away from the expected lifetime of Russians (Putin is 66.5 years old, and life expectancy in Russia is only 71.5 years!). Of course as an ultra-wealthy and very powerful man, he probably has much longer than that, but somehow I doubt there will be more than another decade of Putin in power (his term officially ends in 2024). Having so few other major politicians, how does succession look for Russia?

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / MOVED: Is my Theory Of Gravitational Field valid?

« on: 12/02/2019 16:54:23 »

Please find this new theory posted in the New Theories section of the forum: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=76176.0

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Moved: Photoelectric effect as resonance phenomena?

« on: 30/01/2019 14:48:03 »

This New Theory has been moved to the New Theories subforum:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75994.0

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Moved: he intriguing gsas and dust ennveloping black hole is SOLVED.

« on: 30/01/2019 14:45:33 »

This New Theory has been moved to the New Theories subforum: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=76026.0

7

General Science / Are there aliens made of lava?

« on: 14/01/2019 14:56:47 »

I'm not sure where to put this (and I wouldn't be offended if this thread were moved to New Theories). I recently watched an excellent youtube video about Saturn's moon, Titan:

I realized that we would be “lava aliens” on Titan—where cryo-volcanoes release liquid water (with dissolved species, like salts and ammonia), which freezes back into ice at the surface, creating domes and other geological features almost completely analogous to our own volcano-dominated landscapes. Our body temp would certainly be high enough to boil their lakes (liquid methane and ethane) and melt some of their "rocks" (many of which are composed of water ice or heavy hydrocarbons, like benzene). We would need to bundle up to keep ourselves from freezing to death.

Likewise, we could imagine molten silicate-based life forms, from much hotter places (maybe even inside the earth???) which would need to bundle up quite warm to keep from freezing to death on our surface. They would instantly boil water, and could melt our rocks. Would they consume lava from volcanoes as we would water from cryo-volcanoes on Titan?

Many have previously discussed the possibility of silicon-based life, some recognizing that higher temps might be involved.

I wonder what sort of chemistry would be involved in such life forms...

8

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

« on: 06/11/2018 15:05:15 »

Remember Oumuamua? (that interstellar thing that whizzed by us in 2017?) They're not saying it's aliens... (please be aliens! ...maybe?) but they are saying it is consistent with a light sail. (and "they" includes the chair of the astronomy department at Harvard)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.11490.pdf

Part of the evidence is a previously published result that shows non-gravitational acceleration away from the sun with a statistical significance of 30 sigma (that's very high)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0254-4

9

Physiology & Medicine / Moved: Hpv is only sexually transmitted. This is a neurological disease and not

« on: 01/10/2018 19:10:50 »

I have taken the liberty of moving the thread, "Hpv is only sexually transmitted. This is a neurological disease and not a vener" to the New Theories section of the forum. It can be found here:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74976.0

I would like to reiterate that most of the sections of this forum are reserved for discussions of generally accepted science, and are not suitable for threads that focus on selling new theories that run contrary to generally accepted science. Threads that do focus on selling new theories that run contrary to generally accepted science belong in the "New Theories" or "That CAN'T be true" sections.

Thank you.

10

Physiology & Medicine / Moved: Can cancers be treated by burning them with a hot probe?

« on: 29/09/2018 18:47:22 »

I have taken the liberty of moving the thread: Can cancers be treated by burning them with a hot probe? to the New Theories section of the forum. It can be found here: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74771.0

I would like to reiterate that most of the sections of this forum are reserved for discussions of generally accepted science, and are not suitable for threads that focus on selling new theories that run contrary to generally accepted science. Threads that do focus on selling new theories that run contrary to generally accepted science belong in the "New Theories" or "That CAN'T be true" sections.

Thank you.

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Moved: Why do protons not decay?

« on: 25/08/2018 16:51:47 »

This thread appears not really to be a question about protons decaying, and more of a case for a new theory of matter-antimatter asymmetry. Thus, it has been moved to the New Theories sub-forum, and can be found here: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74586.0

12

That CAN'T be true! / Is yuno44907 really banned?

« on: 29/05/2018 01:24:06 »

Yes, yuno44907 has been banned, and the thread started by this former member has been moved to the recycle bin. Apologies to those members who did spend time responding to the posts within this thread, they are also in the recycle bin (if you feel strongly about having the text of those messages, PM me, and I can send it your way). And apologies as well to anyone else who spent any time reading the posts of yuno44907... we gave him a chance, and it was squandered.

13

Chemistry / How toxic is cinnabar (vermillion)?

« on: 05/05/2018 14:09:31 »

Cinnabar is a beautiful naturally-occurring mineral composed of mercuric sulfide (HgS). There are many examples of jewelry, statues, and even plates made of the stuff, but a quick online search also reveals many pages warning of its unparalleled toxicity (and nearly as many talking about its "crystal healing properties"--ugh I hate that pseudoscience! but I digress...). The only material safety data sheets I have come across do not list any LD50 data. The question is, is cinnabar actually really toxic, or are people just assuming that it is because of the mercury content?

I am well aware of the toxicity of elemental mercury, organometallic mercury compounds, and water-soluble mercury salts, but I also know that actual toxicity is a function of both inherent toxicity and bioavailability. HgS is one of the most water-insoluble compounds: its K_sp is on the order of 10^–54, meaning that a saturated solution in water would only contain about one or two mercury atoms per liter!! And other resources indicate that it will only react with very strong acids to produce soluble species (I wouldn't want to eat it).

Industrially, the compound is roasted to produce sulfur oxides and elemental mercury. So is the toxicity of the mineral due to slow oxidation in the air, leading to production of Hg metal?

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How fundamental is time?

« on: 01/05/2018 17:50:19 »

Please note: This thread may sit on the edge of generally accepted science and speculation. I would like to keep it in this sub-forum (which is intended for discussions of generally accepted science), so let us agree to be clear about when we are speculating/hypothesizing.  Thanks! (also note: While I personally have a fairly advanced understanding of QM, I have only a modest understanding of general relativity, so please bear with me, and know that I am here to learn)

~~~~

Time is simultaneously (sorry) a simple concept and a difficult one to grasp. Clearly, our perception (as human beings) of time is not entirely quantitative. There are many different biological and psychological aspects of our perception that I do not want to delve in to. Rather, I would like to discuss purely physical and mathematical interpretations of time.

I have had many questions about time swirling in my head for a while now, and I think I can distill them into two primary questions:

(1) Is time the most fundamental "temporal" dimension, or is it a function of an unrecognized dimension?
This question comes about when trying to conceive of an absolute time scale. Every equation I have come across in my education in the physical sciences deals with dt or Δt, and so is really just dealing with relative time (t = 0 is arbitrary or internally defined, and any indefinite ∫f(t)dt will have that pesky "+ c" term).

Many people point to the Big Bang as the natural t = 0, but this raises at least as many problems as it addresses.

So is time a function of another more fundamental parameter t = G(α), and most of our equations are actually only valid for α, but are comfortably within experimental error of t?

For example let us imagine that α = t +ln(t)/t (unfortunately, there is no algebraic solution for the inverse, but we can solve it graphically, just by swapping the α and t axes--it would be nice if someone can recommend a function that has similar properties but can be explicitly solved both ways):

Screen Shot 2018-05-01 at 12.11.47 PM.png (36.26 kB . 570x563 - viewed 3236 times)

(If we look at the blue curve pictured above, and consider the abscissa as the α axis and the ordinate is the t axis)
Clearly, consideration of t ≤ 0 gives only nonsensical results, but the function is well-defined for all values of α, and for large positive values of α (or t), α ≈ t. For example, t = 1000 returns α = 1000.006908 (an error of about 7 ppm), and for t = 10¹⁰ the error is only 2.3×10^–19, well beyond the temporal precision of any experiment I know of. And the convergence of dα and dt (or Δα and Δt) will come even faster.

This relation has the obvious shortcoming that it requires some explicit definition of the unit (you will get different answers using years, seconds, or any other arbitrary unit) ie we have traded the problem of an absolute zero for the problem of an absolute 1. Perhaps there may be a fundamental unit of time (and therefore a fundamental unit of space, based on the relationship defined by the speed of light)?

However, this may obviate some of the difficulties that come when considering inflation (the big bang type, and perhaps what we see now). How could we experimentally (or theoretically) test the validity of this type of model?

(2) Are there different "kinds" of time?
Just as there is inertial mass and gravitational mass, which are conceptually different, but appear to be the same, for reasons which (to the best of my knowledge) still elude us. Are there conceptually independent "kinds" of time?

15

Physiology & Medicine / MOVED: What is psychoenergetics research?

« on: 02/03/2018 20:53:28 »

This thread is now in the New Thoeries Section
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=72487.0

16

Chemistry / Does one invent or discover new synthetic compounds?

« on: 28/02/2018 18:00:32 »

This may be just an issue of semantics, but it has come up again in conversation recently, and I wanted to see what others think.

I think most would agree that when a chemist who isolates a previously undescribed natural product from a sea slug, this is an act of discovery. The compound already existed, and has been produced (or harvested) and used by these creatures for likely several millennia, at least.

But what about when a chemist performs a chemical reaction in the laboratory, creating a previously undescribed synthetic compound. For the most compelling argument in favor of "invention," let us say that the structure of the compound was specifically chosen (designed) for a particular purpose, and that this compound was then intentionally made. Furthermore the molecule is sufficiently complex and distinct from naturally occurring motifs that it is highly unlikely that the compound had ever existed before in the observable universe (it can be calculated that for even modestly sized molecules made from only a handful of elements, there are so many possible stable structures that there isn't enough matter in the observable universe to make a single molecule of each--not by several orders of magnitude!)

If this most stringent definition is not enough to claim "invention," why not?

And if it is, does it cease to be an invention if the compound had been intentionally made before? What about just naturally produced somehow? Or if it was not actually the intended product (if a new compound is made by accident, does it still count?)

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Can you believe this photo of a single atom?

« on: 15/02/2018 22:11:39 »

atom-big.jpg (184.12 kB . 1863x1863 - viewed 1647 times)

The speck of light in the center of the photo is purported to be light being emitted from a single atom. Impressive!

From: http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2018/02/photo-of-a-single-atom/

18

General Science / Must ∞ monkeys on ∞ typewriters really write everything given ∞ time?

« on: 13/02/2018 18:56:05 »

There is something that has been bothering me for quite some time now, and I would like to try some discussion of it here.

I have some trepidation starting a thread about infinity, as it is a very difficult topic, but I trust that the discussion will at least be interesting.

There is a commonly presented notion that infinite sets must contain everything. It often comes up when someone claims that infinitely many monkeys each with a typewriter and an infinite amount of time typing will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakspeare (as well as every version of the bible, including one in which every mention of God is replaced with the word Spatula. etc.) Or it is said that the multiverse theory implies infinitely many different variations of the universe, representing all of the things that are possible. Or that any finite string of digits that one can imagine must be present in the digits of π (or e or φ) etc.

I have always felt that there was some logical fallacy in this line of reasoning, but I cannot quite prove to myself that there is a contradiction.

When trying to think of a counterargument, I usually start with something along the lines of:
I can come up with infinitely many infinitely long strings of numbers that are non-repeating, but never contain a certain string of numbers. For instance 0.1234567890011223344556678899000111222333444555666777888999000... will never ever contain the string 2468 in it.

Now, I think that the problem this argument has is that the example I used is clearly not random. However, I could make adjustments to the algorithm that I use to generate these strings of numbers such that they are effectively random--equal ratios of each digit, and each dyad and each triad (pairs and trios of digits), and no way to predict the next number in a string given all previous digits, other than the number won't contain a single instance of finite string X. The longer finite string X is, the easier it is to generate an algorithm that is otherwise random.

I suppose the counter-argument to that is that "effectively random" and "actually random" are not the same thing. If each digit truly has a random distribution within the string, then any string of finite length must have a finite nonzero probability of happening, and that therefore with infinitely many digits the expected number of times the string appears would have to be infinite (any finite, nonzero number times infinity must be infinite).

Thoughts?

19

General Science / what are the complex solutions for x[sup]2[/sup] + y[sup]2[/sup] = 1 ?

« on: 11/02/2018 21:54:21 »

The familiar equation for the unit circle centered at the origin of the (x,y) coordinate system is:
 x² + y² = 1

Using only real numbers for both x and y only yields useful solutions for –1 ≤ x ≤ 1 and –1 ≤ y ≤ 1. But if we allow for either x or y to have nonzero imaginary components (x or y can be imaginary or complex), then the solution is no longer just a unit circle, but an odd 2-dimensional surface in 4-dimensional space (x, a, y, b) such that (x + a×i)² + (y + b×i)² = 1.

Try as I might, I am having great difficulties trying to visualize this surface. I can generate a few different 3-d slices, like a = 0 for which all of the points have only real components of the x coordinate. This slice contains a unit circle in the x,y plane, and a hyperbola in the x,b plane (x² – b² = 1). Similarly for the b = 0 slice we also see the same unit circle and a hyperbola in the y,a plane (y² – a² = 1).

Which other slices would be useful for me to try to graph to visualize the rest of this shape? (I am tempted to look at x=y or just something like several parallel planes using integer values of a or b.

20

Chemistry / Why does cocoa powder disperse faster in hot black tea than in hot water?

« on: 09/02/2018 17:07:35 »

There is a phenomenon that I have witnessed many times over the years, but haven't actually seriously addressed at any point (yet).

I happen to like a little extra kick in my cocoa occasionally, and will brew a cup of strong black tea, to which I will add the dry ingredients for hot chocolate. Cocoa is quite hydrophobic, and when added to hot water will clump up on itself, only dispersing into the water after vigorous stirring. When added to the tea however, it appears to be much more easily wetted, and much less stirring is involved in preparing the hot chocolate. Question is why?

Perhaps some components of the tea reduce the surface tension of the water. Or maybe they act as detergents and decrease hydrophobicity... Is it a pH thing? What components would it be? Polyphenols are my best guess for any of the explanations (see compositions of tea: https://worldoftea.org/tea-chemistry/), but I am wondering if there are other possible explanations I have missed.