Why does the flame of a cigarette lighter aid visibility in a dark room, but the flame of a blowtorch has no effect? | AskScience Blog

Pages

Sunday, June 23, 2019

Why does the flame of a cigarette lighter aid visibility in a dark room, but the flame of a blowtorch has no effect?

Why does the flame of a cigarette lighter aid visibility in a dark room, but the flame of a blowtorch has no effect?


Why does the flame of a cigarette lighter aid visibility in a dark room, but the flame of a blowtorch has no effect?

Posted: 22 Jun 2019 04:27 PM PDT

Is is possible to tell a perfect spherical mirror which is spinning from a stationary one?

Posted: 22 Jun 2019 11:38 PM PDT

Also will it depend on how fast the sphere spins?

submitted by /u/jhakash
[link] [comments]

How can you get a laser that emits a single frequency?

Posted: 23 Jun 2019 04:28 AM PDT

I read about how scientists used an inferometer in conjunction with a laser that only emits a single, known frequency (or a very slim spectrum of frequencies) in order to calculate the speed of light. By using the inferometer they could find out the wavelength of the light and then use that to calculate the speed of light. But how can you actually get a laser that emits a single frequency and how can you measure that frequency?

submitted by /u/TheGamingHashtag
[link] [comments]

Why has no theory on baryogenesis considered that particles in the early universe could've collided in more than pairs, explaining why there is more matter than antimatter in the Universe?

Posted: 22 Jun 2019 03:26 PM PDT

In the early Universe there should've been an equal amount of matter and antimatter particles, as matter and antimatter particles always form in pairs as we've learned from experiments at the Large Hadron Collider and elsewhere; yet there appears to be more matter than antimatter in the universe.

No one, it seems, has been able to figure out why this imbalance, dubbed the baryon asymmetry problem (or the matter-antimatter asymmetry problem) occurred, and many proposed theories, from hypothetical X and Y bosons that can violate the symmetry and lead to baryogenesis (the creation of matter independent of antimatter), to entire areas of the universe dominated by antimatter that are too far away to see, explaining away the missing antimatter; all of which so far have fallen flat in the search for experimental evidence.

Yet all those theories, to my understanding, seem to take a strange assumption: that particles can only collide in pairs.

What if in the early universe some of the matter and antimatter particles collided in groups of three? In my amateur research into the topic, I've read up that particle and antiparticle collisions are 100% efficient, and produce their entire mass worth of energy when equal amounts of particle are collided. Under a collision of three particles, however, there seems to be little research I could find, most likely because such collisions are so rare in nature and experimentation (which as a side note could explain why so few matter particles, about one in a billion, survived).

Extrapolating what I know of how matter collisions work (please correct me if I'm wrong, I don't do this for a living), if a collision of 3 particles, let's say a certain particle P and two identical antiparticles Q such that the two Q particles' properties "add" up to be equivalent to the properties of the antimatter counterpart of P, then shouldn't all three particles get converted into energy just as if the particle-antiparticle pair of P would've collided instead? The example may be a ways off from how it works, I'm no physicist, but I hope the gist of it comes through.

If such a scenario that I've described above is impossible, then is there another scenario such that an odd number of particles and its associated antiparticles can collide and completely be converted into energy with 100% efficiency? If so, then could such three-particle collision be common enough to result in the slight difference in the ratio of matter to antimatter from baryogenesis?

submitted by /u/JakoNintenCraft
[link] [comments]

Why does Uranium-238 decay into Lead-208?

Posted: 22 Jun 2019 12:54 PM PDT

Uranium-238 has too many neutrons, which causes it to be really unstable, so it decays via alpha radiation and beta radiation. One of my questions is 1) Why does it decay via alpha radiation and not just Beta radiation? It seems more effective to turn a neutron into a proton than just emit 2 neutrons and 2 protons.

Also: Why does it decay to Lead-206? This isotope still has a neutron to proton ratio of 2-1, so why is it stable? Why cant Uranium-238 decay into Bismuth-207 which has the same number of neutrons as Lead-206 but one more proton making it a little more stable?

submitted by /u/Soytuwuweere
[link] [comments]

How can scientists make determinations on a planets composition that is lightyears away?

Posted: 22 Jun 2019 09:10 PM PDT

In other words how can they also determine if a planet has water or how the atmospheres can produce extreme climates that can produce odd weather, i.e. diamond rain?

submitted by /u/colebrv
[link] [comments]

What exactly is the goal of electron beam litography ?

Posted: 22 Jun 2019 12:13 PM PDT

From Wiki

" Electron-beam lithography (often abbreviated as e-beam lithography) is the practice of scanning a focused beam of electrons to draw custom shapes on a surface covered with an electron-sensitive film called a resist (exposing"

" The primary advantage of electron-beam lithography is that it can draw custom patterns (direct-write) with sub-10 nm resolution. This form of maskless lithography has high resolution and low throughput, limiting its usage to photomask fabrication, low-volume production of semiconductor devices, and research and development. "

So from what I understand the goal is to create masks, which will later be used in photo-litography to create micro-chips. Is that correct? Because as far as I can tell this kind of maskless writing takes from 10-50 hrs PER MASK and that's waaay to slow to manufacture micro-chips themselves. But to create masks it might be just enough.

So can someone explain to me the basics steps? The way I see this now is:

  1. Get a silicon wafer
  2. Put a resist on it
  3. Write (without a mask) using an electron beam, anything you want on it.
  4. Use something to dissolve the the rest of the resist such that only the part we illuminated with the e-beam remains on the silicon wafer.
  5. Now we have created a mask.
  6. Ship this mask to a micro-chip manufacturer.
  7. The manufacturer will use photo-litography (regular light beam, short wavelenght) to illuminate the mask we shipped to him to create micro chips.

Is that more or less correct? Ps: I've noticed that some papers mention reverse e-beam litography. At what step of my list is that technology used?

submitted by /u/sta6
[link] [comments]

What kind of instruments directly measure space debris?

Posted: 22 Jun 2019 01:20 PM PDT

I saw a statistic stating 29,000 objects over 10cm are tracked and was interested on how those object are tracked and how we use instruments to determine their location. Thanks!

submitted by /u/zoofunk
[link] [comments]

My question is: how do fingerprints form?

Posted: 22 Jun 2019 11:37 AM PDT

I've heard they form because of random motions in the womb, although that makes little sense to me..

submitted by /u/LordTin
[link] [comments]

Is there anything, apart from the cost of it, preventing us from accelerating Moore's Law?

Posted: 22 Jun 2019 12:37 PM PDT

How much carbon dioxide is stored in leaves, then released back into the atmosphere through decay each year?

Posted: 22 Jun 2019 08:08 PM PDT

Why does the US coastline have so many beaches, such as Atlantic Beach or Cape Hatteras National Seashore, detached from the coast?

Posted: 22 Jun 2019 05:34 PM PDT

Hey r/askscience!

I was planning a trip to the US and while I was perusing the map of the country I kept seeing these almost "blade-like" coastlines that seem to almost always be off the coast of the mainland. I especially noticed a lot on the East coast scanning from New York and South from there, a place called Kitty Hawk is probably the most obvious example I can think of. So my main question would be, why is it that there are so many of these long, thin coastlines around the country? Are they man-made to protect the natural coastline that is usually home to major cities? Or are they naturally occurring?

Many Thanks!

submitted by /u/ImaTryMyBest
[link] [comments]

Would an environment with a redox gradient (e.g. the mixing zone near a hydrothermal vent), itself, be an example of a "dissipative system," as defined in non-equilibrium thermodynamics?

Posted: 22 Jun 2019 01:08 PM PDT

Can anyone please answer some questions re nuclear physics in general, and Little Man in particular?

Posted: 22 Jun 2019 07:31 AM PDT

Non-scientist here (though that will become readily apparent I'm sure). In a spherical critical mass of say, U235, with no neutron reflectors, etc, roughly what percent of neutrons would hit another nucleus? And is there a way to estimate roughly how many fission generations would have taken place in Little Boy, and I guess ancillary to that (or perhaps required to know), how many nuclei would have split from the supplementary neutron source? Thanks!

submitted by /u/Kid_Charlema9ne
[link] [comments]

Can there be a lower limit to how much energy a given computational task (like encoding a video) can consume?

Posted: 22 Jun 2019 07:27 AM PDT

How do storms cause power outages?

Posted: 21 Jun 2019 05:54 PM PDT

I'm not talking about long-term outages because a branch fell on a line, I mean the couple second long flickers.

submitted by /u/thegreatestsnowman1
[link] [comments]

If I can apply a once a month tick repellent to my dog why isn't there one for humans?

Posted: 21 Jun 2019 06:15 PM PDT

Why is Pripyat, the town where the Chernobyl nuclear disaster occurred, abandoned/uninhabitable but Hiroshima and Nagasaki are inhabited?

Posted: 21 Jun 2019 03:20 PM PDT

Is it due to the concentration of radioactive material that was dispersed in the reactor accident, whereas the atomic bombs actually used up a substantial amount of radioactive material to fuel the explosions?

submitted by /u/ear2theshell
[link] [comments]

No comments:

Post a Comment