If the Niagara falls is frozen where does all the water go behind it? Does it just spill over and flood surrounding land |
- If the Niagara falls is frozen where does all the water go behind it? Does it just spill over and flood surrounding land
- Why is/was there a tendency for like minerals to collect together on earth?
- If future data from the LHC and ILC suggest that our universe is metastable, what does that mean for the future of the universe?
- When heavier elements undergo fusion do they release more energy?
- Since a particle that interacts with the Higgs Field only gets a portion of their mass from it, can there exist a particle that has mass but does not interact with the Higgs Field?
- Is their a limit to the amplitude of a light wave/ is their a limit to how intense a light source can be?
- Is there scientific backing to vibrational "healing"?
- Is there a relationship between the amount of energy an isotope emits when it decays and its half-life?
- The least-intuitive question in physics: how does gryoscopic precession work? (e.g. Helicopter Blades)
- Why is there a critical spreading rate for epidemics in random networks while the spreading rate in scale-free networks are irrelevant for epidemics?
- (Stone) statue and radiation?
- What does the G tense in the Einstein field equation stand for and why does it have two other variables assigned to it?
- How does the falcon heavy have nearly double the payload to gto than the delta 4 heavy, a rocket just as big that doesn’t have to save feud in its first stage for a return trip?
- Why is the useful life of a smoke detector only 10 years?
- How do marine mammals (especially whales) become trapped in seasonal polynyas?
- Are there any theorized particles that existed only in the electroweak epoch?
- Does thrust and acceleration affect the body (or other objects) in space?
| Posted: 31 Dec 2017 03:23 AM PST |
| Why is/was there a tendency for like minerals to collect together on earth? Posted: 30 Dec 2017 08:20 AM PST It seems that the original source for minerals was random and that they should be randomly, and relatively homogeneously spread over the surface of the earth. Yet minerals like iron oxide, sodium chloride, gold, silver, (and most others it seems) have had a significant tendency to be found concentrated in various areas, making mining them and collecting them a practical endeavor. What has caused that to occur? [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 31 Dec 2017 05:01 AM PST 1) What does "metastable" mean in comparison to unstable and stable? Why is this related to the properties of the Higgs Boson and Higgs Field? 2) If it is metastable, what kind of event could cause it to suddenly want to seek a lower energy state? 3) How fast would this "new physics" bubble expand once it reached a lower stable energy level? 4) Would this be compatible with life chemistry as we know it? If the bubble hit Earth, would we just simply stop existing? Bonus Question: If the Higgs Field were to simply disappear in an area of space, would W+, W−, and Z bosons become massless and completely change the weak force? Does this have anything to do with a vacuum metastability event? [link] [comments]  |
| When heavier elements undergo fusion do they release more energy? Posted: 31 Dec 2017 12:44 AM PST Not actually sure if heavier elements can fuse without extreme conditions, but what would happen if heavier elements instead of smaller ones like hydrogen were fused? Since our sun releases energy this way could a star of heavier elements release more energy? [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 30 Dec 2017 10:29 PM PST |
| Posted: 31 Dec 2017 12:23 AM PST |
| Is there scientific backing to vibrational "healing"? Posted: 30 Dec 2017 01:10 PM PST I would love to see from a physics standpoint how vibrations/frequencies/waves from things like music or anything in general have a positive or negative effect on our bodies. I'm skeptical, but would be very interested to know if there is a connection. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 30 Dec 2017 05:20 PM PST I spent a while trying to figure this out, but was unable to come to any conclusion. Different isotopes release different amounts of energy when they decay, and the amount of time it takes to decay can vary significantly, but is there a good way to estimate how radioactive something is with only knowledge of the half life OR energy emitted per decay? Elements with shorter half lives are pretty much always more radioactive than their longer lived counterparts, but that's entirely because the atoms are releasing energy much more frequently, rather than releasing more energy in total. Is it possible to have an isotope with an extremely short half life that is fairly safe because its radioactive decay releases very little energy? I wasn't really sure if this is physics or chemistry, so I apologize if this was miscategorized. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 30 Dec 2017 11:45 PM PST This isn't a casual question for me, it's something I've tried to understand for some time now. Not sure what concept I'm missing. But the outright weirdness of how gyroscopes work still bugs me, the fact that placing a torque on a gyroscope produces a force that is 90° off-axis is freaking bizarre, and I'm not the only one that thinks so! Does anyone, anyone have a great explanation for how this concept works? Here's a video by Veritaseum if anyone wants an introduction to the problem: [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 30 Dec 2017 12:36 PM PST Hi, Im a little bit confused after I read a paper* about the network topology and how they influence speading of diseases. My basic understanding was that there is reproduction rate (R) and the critical reproduction rate is 1. If R<1 then the disease will eventually die, but if R>1 then the disease will grow and eventually contaminate everyone in the network. Can someone explain me why the spreading rate in scale-free networks is irrelevant, but relevant in random networks? I didnt quite understand the explaination by the authors. Source: *Pastor-Satorras, Romualdo;Vespignani, Alessandro (2001): Epidemic Spreading in Scale-Free Networks, in: Physical Review Letters, 86 (14), 3200-3203 [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 30 Dec 2017 11:29 AM PST Recently I took a tour of the UN in New York, and they had a statue (made of stone, I presume, but I'm not sure) on display that was in Japan during the Nagasaki bombing. The back part of it had melted off due to it. The statue was fully exposed, with no glass casing or anything, so I was concerned whether it was safe to display like that since it had been exposed to so much radiation. Would something like this contain/emit a harmful amount? (pic for reference) [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 30 Dec 2017 08:52 AM PST I recently encountered the field equations of Einstein as I was inquisitive about the expansion of the universe. Unfortunately for me I dont have an in-depth of physics (yet). I am a high school student. I was able to understand most of the variable components of the formulae but I have trouble understanding the G and T tenses of the formulae. Would love to get an explanation for this. Thank you for your time. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 30 Dec 2017 11:35 AM PST |
| Why is the useful life of a smoke detector only 10 years? Posted: 30 Dec 2017 08:00 AM PST Given the half-life of the radioactive source is FAR greater than that, shouldn't these work for far longer (barring other causes of failure)? Or have smoke detectors been engineered to perform within specific tolerances for only 10 years (i.e. planned obsolescence)? [link] [comments]  |
| How do marine mammals (especially whales) become trapped in seasonal polynyas? Posted: 30 Dec 2017 04:45 AM PST Having recently watched a sequence covering whales trapped in polynyas in an episode of the BBC's 2001 "Blue Planet" series entitled "Frozen Seas" I became curious to know how mammals (particularly whales) became trapped in them? Having searched online a bit I found little information about the development of this type of a situation. [link] [comments]  |
| Are there any theorized particles that existed only in the electroweak epoch? Posted: 29 Dec 2017 09:33 PM PST My current understanding is that at the beginning of the universe, at least two forces, the electromagnetic and the weak force, were under the right conditions to be considered a single force. Are there are particles, akin to what a photon is to the electromagnetic force, that exist only in a merged electroweak force? [link] [comments]  |
| Does thrust and acceleration affect the body (or other objects) in space? Posted: 30 Dec 2017 07:23 AM PST The question comes from a novel series I've read (the Expanse). In the series, they mention that at faster/higher thrust speeds, they have to have crash couches and drugs to handled the force of the thrust. When near a planet or star, that would make sense. But, if you're out in deep space with zero gravity, would you feel it if a ship had a sudden or constant acceleration? I would think in a zero gravity environment, you wouldn't feel the thrust. Or, you might feel an initial "bump" since the ship begins to travel before you do, but it would settle very quickly. Love the series, but that part bugs me when I read it. [link] [comments]  |
| 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, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
