Are some 3D curves (such as paraboloids, spheres, etc.) 3D "sections" of 4D "cones", the way 2D curves (parabolas, circles, etc.) are sections of 3D cones? |
- Are some 3D curves (such as paraboloids, spheres, etc.) 3D "sections" of 4D "cones", the way 2D curves (parabolas, circles, etc.) are sections of 3D cones?
- How do the lasers that remove rust work?
- Why is Theobromine named Theobromine when it contains no Bromine?
- If we were to magnify to an almost molecular level the edge of a circle, would we reach a point when it is completely straight?
- Why are bubbles spheres and no other shapes?
- Up to what Richter value is linear elasticity still applicable to soil?
- Is there any essential difference between ignition by flame/spark and autoignition?
- Do people in cultures where the traditional music is in semi-tonal (non-western music) have perfect pitch to semi-tonal scales?
- What ranges of the EM spectrum are we currently unable to produce a light source for?
- Is there a conservation law associated with CPT symmetry? Shouldn't it be conservation of probability?
- How long would a 100km^3 block of butter power humanity?
- Are neurotransmitters hormones?
- What if you cut the Planck length in half? Does physics break down at that point?
- Why can't dark matter just be neutrinos?
- As Per Special Theory of Relativity, Length Contracts and Time Dilates. Does Length Contract in All Three Dimensions?
- [Math][Physics]How can the Many-World Interpretation make meaningful statements about probability when infinity is involved?
- X-ray Crystallography - What do the extra peaks on Patterson maps refer to/ Where are they from?
- How much energy is produced (converted) to useable energy in a particle collision? i.e. how to calculate available/useable energy to create new particles?
- Why do waves diffract at all?
- Why did nucleosynthesis in the early universe allow neutrons to merge quickly with protons, but not allow protons to merge with each other?
- If I throw an object while standing on the ground, is the object's path (assuming vaccuum) truly parabolic or is it elliptical around the center of the earth like an orbit?
| Posted: 12 Mar 2016 04:33 PM PST |
| How do the lasers that remove rust work? Posted: 12 Mar 2016 09:58 AM PST |
| Why is Theobromine named Theobromine when it contains no Bromine? Posted: 12 Mar 2016 09:11 AM PST I was googling around caffeine and other xanthines and noticed the lack of bromine in this molecule, why is it named this? [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 12 Mar 2016 08:34 AM PST Not sure if the question makes a lot of sense since English is not my first language, however what I am trying to ask is: Is there such an area on a circle which is completely straight? [link] [comments]  |
| Why are bubbles spheres and no other shapes? Posted: 12 Mar 2016 06:57 PM PST |
| Up to what Richter value is linear elasticity still applicable to soil? Posted: 12 Mar 2016 09:10 AM PST Depending on the size of wave that passes through the earth/soil, you can model the soil's behaviour as linear elastic (at least, that's a decent assumption to make). Does anyone know up to what point this doesn't hold anymore? So when does plasticity become a part of it? Thank you for any answers! I'm interested in knowing the behaviour of soil under earthquake excitation. [link] [comments]  |
| Is there any essential difference between ignition by flame/spark and autoignition? Posted: 12 Mar 2016 09:51 AM PST I knew the difference in practical between them: for normal ignition we need "an external source of ignition, such as a flame or spark" (via Wikipedia), but this requires only a very low temperature (flash point/fire point). On the other hand, for autoignition you only need to heat/compress your fuel (and have oxygen fore sure) to a (much higher) temperature (autoignition temperature), and it will spontaneously ignite. But my question is, what's the essential difference between them, like in microscale? Doesn't that "external source" just heat certain area of your fuel to make it "auto-ignite" like how you heat/compress all your fuel together in autoignition? What will happen if I just shoot 1400F oxygen to your gasoline? Thanks! (I searched previous questions. This one is similar but not the same.) [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 12 Mar 2016 09:21 PM PST |
| What ranges of the EM spectrum are we currently unable to produce a light source for? Posted: 12 Mar 2016 05:49 PM PST |
| Posted: 12 Mar 2016 08:37 AM PST I've been reading a lot about symmetry lately and I can't articulate why but I feel like for there to be predictable laws that comes from an ultimately statistical (random) microscopic world, that the conservation of probability must come into play. So my ultimate question is, is there a conservation law associated with CPT symmetry? [link] [comments]  |
| How long would a 100km^3 block of butter power humanity? Posted: 12 Mar 2016 02:20 PM PST How long could a block of butter power our cars and generators, lights and factories etc. for? [link] [comments]  |
| Are neurotransmitters hormones? Posted: 13 Mar 2016 06:32 AM PDT |
| What if you cut the Planck length in half? Does physics break down at that point? Posted: 12 Mar 2016 02:54 PM PST |
| Why can't dark matter just be neutrinos? Posted: 12 Mar 2016 11:58 PM PST It seems like an obvious sort of answer, so there must be a good reason it's not right [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 13 Mar 2016 04:30 AM PDT |
| Posted: 12 Mar 2016 02:36 PM PST If we have a barrel containing 5 red apples and 5 green apples, then there's a 50% chance of randomly drawing a red apple from that barrel. But if we have a barrel containing 5 red apples, and infinitely many green apples, it doesn't seem like anything meaningful can be said about the probability of drawing a red apple. I'm curious about how this relates to the Many-Worlds interpretation and Physics overall. So, say we want to describe the probability that something violates Newtonian mechanics. It seems like what Many-Worlds is saying is we just have to compute
But the number of possible events produced by wave collapses is either infinite or unaccountably large. Another concrete example: A asteroid is on path to hit earth. You want to calculate the probability that it will miraculously violate Newtonian mechanics and change course. There's a simple formula for this
We can't calculate this probability because the denominator is either infinite or unaccountably large. But intuitively, we want to say that there is a probability and that it's very low. Furthermore, we would want to say that the probability starts very low and approaches zero as the asteroid approaches earth. I'm confused about how we can make meaningful physical statements at all. Edit, additional example: Let's say there's a 25% chance of an event happening and a 75% chance of it not happening. We would want to say that the event does not happen in more universes than it does. But if we apply this to the Many Worlds theory, 25% of worlds is ∞ worlds. 75% percent is ∞ worlds. So how can we meaningfully say that ∞ < ∞ in this situation? [link] [comments]  |
| X-ray Crystallography - What do the extra peaks on Patterson maps refer to/ Where are they from? Posted: 13 Mar 2016 04:04 AM PDT http://people.mbi.ucla.edu/sawaya/m230d/Patterson/step4a.gif The image above shows a Harker section from a Patterson map, as far as I understand the major peaks refer to the position of the heavy metal atom. But I am confused as to what the other peaks refer to. I have tried to find reference to what these peaks mean in various text books but to no avail, any help would be appreciated. Thanks [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 12 Mar 2016 05:08 PM PST I'm having trouble understanding how to exactly calculate this quantity (if its a possible/meaningful thing to do at all). Say we have head on proton-proton collision where each has some initial momentum p (where the speeds I'm considering here are highly relativistic). Calculating the kinetic energy of each of these is simple enough, KE = E_total - E_rest = ( (p1*c)2 + (m*c2 )2 )1/2 - m*c2 So after calculating each of these, the total kinetic energy of the system is KE_1 + KE_2 yes? Is this sum of kinetic energies all available to "use"? i.e. to make new particles with? On some level I know that it depends on which particles actually get created, but I'm trying to look at particle collisions in a more general way and find this quantity in a way that is agnostic of what particles are actually produced (again if its possible/meaningful). Would a better way to look at this be to look at the total energies in the collision instead of their kinetic energies? So E_total = ( (p1*c)2 + (m*c2 )2 )1/2 And so the total "available" energy to work with is E_1 + E_2? Ideally here I'm just trying to find the quantity (which is dependent on each of the particles' initial kinetic energy and mass) that represents the sum total of energy (including the rest energies of the protons, i.e. their masses are "useable" since they could conceivably be destroyed in the collision) that could be used to create new particles. I also keep confusing myself with special relativity which I haven't mentioned here because I'm having trouble figuring out if its relevant here to be changing frames etc. Can someone please help me to understand what I'm missing here and how this quantity might be calculated? [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 12 Mar 2016 09:40 AM PST |
| Posted: 12 Mar 2016 08:47 PM PST At the time, was the pressure and temperature too low for this to happen? [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 12 Mar 2016 06:16 PM PST |
| You are subscribed to email updates from AskScience: Got Questions? Get Answers.. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
No comments:
Post a Comment