BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Stupid Science Questions 2

 
  

Page: 1 ... 7891011(12)131415

 
 
spectre
13:02 / 08.11.06
A photon's mass does not reach infinity b/c a photon has no mass. Well, no non-relativistic mass, anway.
 
 
jentacular dreams
15:22 / 08.11.06
But if photons have no mass, why are they affected by gravity? I get that at a certain point gravity stretches spacetime itself, so when they say that a photon cannot escape from a black hole's event horizon I presume that they mean that the end result of the dilation is that the photon would take an infinite time to escape? However, I don't get why, if they have no mass, a photons' path may be bent by smaller gravitational fields? And why they don't whip straight through things?
 
 
Quantum
16:36 / 08.11.06
The photon has zero invariant mass and travels at the constant speed c, the speed of light in empty space. However, in the presence of matter, a photon can be slowed or even absorbed, transferring energy and momentum proportional to its frequency. Like all quanta, the photon has both wave and particle properties; it exhibits wave–particle duality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

Light is directly affected by matter, and moves through space-time which is also affected by matter (gravity). Gravity wells bend light because they bend space, and light is travelling through space. (As I understand it)
 
 
SiliconDream
22:13 / 08.11.06
But if photons have no mass, why are they affected by gravity?
Well, they do have mass; they just have no rest mass. IOW all of the energy they carry is accounted for by their momentum, and there's nothing "left over" to represent their mass-energy if they were brought to rest.

But they really do have mass, and a big ball o' photons would exert its own gravity, as occurs in a couple of the Heechee Saga books.

I get that at a certain point gravity stretches spacetime itself, so when they say that a photon cannot escape from a black hole's event horizon I presume that they mean that the end result of the dilation is that the photon would take an infinite time to escape? However, I don't get why, if they have no mass, a photons' path may be bent by smaller gravitational fields?

All gravitational fields bend spacetime, or more properly are expressions of bent spacetime. Black holes just bend it a lot. There's even an (undetectably small) amount of gravitational lensing around something small like the Voyager probe.

IIRC the bending of light by gravity can be conceptually broken down into a "time" component and a "space" component, each of which accounts for roughly half the effect. On the time side, there's the dilation effect you mentioned; time's moving slower near the massive object, so that side of the light ray moves more slowly and the overall ray bends toward the object. It's analogous to the refraction you get when light enters a region of glass/water/whatever at an angle.

On the space side, straight lines have been redefined to bend toward the object, so light again has a tendency to follow suit.

It's a long time since I read that explanation, though, and it was in SciAm or some such, so please take it with a grain of salt. It's certainly not how you'd actually calculate the effect mathematically.

And why they don't whip straight through things?

Mass doesn't much affect something's ability to collide with other objects; light interacts purely through the electromagnetic force, to which mass is irrelevant. Conversely, dark matter is massive but doesn't interact through the EM force, so it does whip straight through things.
 
 
Saturn's nod
11:47 / 14.12.06
Is it feasible for humans to refreeze the poles of the planet by evaporating salt out of the oceans on a massive scale, using solar energy? I imagine huge salt pans along coasts, with the salt transported inland and stashed in new salt mines in inhospitable inland areas.
 
 
Saturn's nod
11:51 / 14.12.06
Hmm, some stuff about salinity in oceans here and here.
 
 
jentacular dreams
13:43 / 14.12.06
I'm skeptical on that one. IMO it might work re the freezing thing, but wouldn't address the actual problem of warming, and would therefore be at best a stop gap with regard to the polar ice. Additionally, you'd have to replace the existing polar ice with some of the newer less saline stuff, which I suspect would take a long time.

I also have my doubts as to how well the marine ecosystems would handle this change. And I think I read somewhere that some of the ocean currents take decades to go through the whole cycle, so you may only end up increasing the salt gradient between the deep currents and the coastal waters.

Sorry, don't mean to shit all over your idea. It's a nice thought. I'd quite like to cover all the world's cities with vines to try to reclaim as much CO2 as possible, but am sure this is just as unfeasible.
 
 
Evil Scientist
13:51 / 14.12.06
If we were able to access solar energy on that scale it'd be simpler just to use that as our major power source. It'd cut our CO2 emissions massively.

Boiling off the water to leave behind salt on the scale that would be necessary to de-salinise the ocean would cause massive ecological damage anyway.
 
 
Saturn's nod
14:10 / 14.12.06
I was thinking passive solar like the traditional method of salt-making - remember gandhi's expedition to make salt? - rather than anything more heroic, The High Evil-lutionary. (Agreed solar's the key to the energy crisis, it's abundant. I like Stirling engines with parabolic mirror arrays, anyone got one?)

Good point about salinity gradient locations though, kingofthebees.
 
 
Evil Scientist
08:59 / 15.12.06
I was thinking passive solar like the traditional method of salt-making - remember gandhi's expedition to make salt?

Damn me, always thinking about giant solar weapons...uh I mean energy projectors, in the sky.

Gandhi would understand, he was all about the orbital death rays (or so I've been led to believe).

I would have thought that the amount of land needed to de-salinate the ocean enough to replenish the ice by the method that link suggests would possibly be more than that currently available on Earth though.

It's an interesting thought though.
 
 
Slate
10:45 / 16.01.07
Ummm, just wondering if this is real? Does anyone want to try it out? I'll have the Bowling Pin shaped thing bit. PM me.

Oh yeah, we'll share the cost 50/50.

[NOTE: LINK NSFW]
 
 
quercia
18:57 / 16.01.07
Where do those weird hairs come from where you have tons of short black armhairs (or any other random body hair) and then one hair grows pale, extremely wavy, and several times as long?
 
 
Feverfew
19:49 / 16.01.07
johnleespider: ew!

I realise that's not a scientific reaction, but still... ew!
 
 
astrojax69
21:45 / 16.01.07
a bit gruesome, but for all the kerfuffle over the beheading-whilst-hanging of saddam's bro-in-law this week, just what are the chances of a hanging being botched such that it turns into a beheading?

i've never heard of an account like this, even from all the gruesome accounts of executions in history when it was fashionable...

anyone know?
 
 
grant
01:55 / 17.01.07
Death Penalty Info page, Michigan State University:

Until the 1890s, hanging was the primary method of execution used in the United States. Hanging is still used in Delaware and Washington, although both have lethal injection as an alternative method of execution. The last hanging to take place was January 25, 1996 in Delaware.

For execution by this method, the inmate may be weighed the day before the execution, and a rehearsal is done using a sandbag of the same weight as the prisoner. This is to determine the length of 'drop' necessary to ensure a quick death. If the rope is too long, the inmate could be decapitated, and if it is too short, the strangulation could take as long as 45 minutes.


So yes, it's a known problem. More at Yahoo Answers.
 
 
astrojax69
02:44 / 17.01.07
i just knew you'd know, grant! so, they didn't rehearse this one, huh?

thanks!
 
 
jentacular dreams
09:02 / 18.01.07
OK, so my questions today are mostly about my radio/alarm-clock (which is pretty much perma-tuned to radio4). Can anyone tell me why...

1) the quality of the reception wanders through the day, being pretty good in the morning and early evening, but pretty rubbish the rest of the time?

2) the reception seems to improve when I have my hand on the (plastic) tuning dial, then deteriorates as soon as I take it off?

3) Plugging in something like a phone charger sends the reception all wobbly (I've assumed that this is because the charger creates a new electromagnetic field - am I wrong)?

So in short, is my radio rubbish? I was given it by my dad about 15 years ago (and it was his for a while before that) so I'd hate to throw it away.
 
 
grant
13:31 / 18.01.07
so, they didn't rehearse this one, huh?

Well, the possibility exists that they did....

1) the quality of the reception wanders through the day, being pretty good in the morning and early evening, but pretty rubbish the rest of the time?

My *guess* is that it has to do with a ground fault in the circuit you plug into -- more electric appliances are on elsewhere in your building during the middle of the day, thus more electric interference via the power supply. I know I'd get some weird hums in guitar amps from turning certain things on or off that were plugged into the same circuit, and was told "Oh, that's a ground fault issue."

2) the reception seems to improve when I have my hand on the (plastic) tuning dial, then deteriorates as soon as I take it off?

That's because the human body can act like a giant antenna. It's not so much the touching as the proximity, in all likelihood, unless the pressure of your fingers is nudging the control a little bit.

This might be easier to explain by going into diagrams of a crystal radio (tuning is done using thin copper wire wound around a cardboard tube -- your station is selected by moving a piece up and down along that coil) and a theremin (in which the magnetic field of the human body becomes part of the instrument). But I'm not going to go into that in detail -- just google "theremin diagram" and "crystal radio diagram" (or schematic) and you should find plenty.

3) Plugging in something like a phone charger sends the reception all wobbly (I've assumed that this is because the charger creates a new electromagnetic field - am I wrong)?

No, that's pretty much it. Unless it's that ground fault thing -- which is just another way of saying you've created a new electromagnetic field (just one using the wires in the wall instead of just the gizmo itself). Someone with electronics experience can probably say more in more detail.
 
 
tom-karika nukes it from orbit
13:56 / 18.01.07
1) could also be an atmospheric effect - as air temperature varies throughout the day, so does pressure and humidity, both of which can have an effect on radio signals. I notice this phenomenon in a house with very poor TV and radio signal (bottom of a valley). In addition, the effect is seasonal - signal is very poor most of the day in summer, but can be good all day in winter. Thunderstorms knock it out completely

2) and 3) are probably linked to the bad overall reception - you need to remember that radio waves are of the length of metres, so any metre-sized objects (you, a charger wire) which start interacting eletrically near the radio are going to interefere. If the signal were strong it'd be a very weak effect, but you notice it on a weak signal. I imagine the phone charger is producing messy broad-band radiation from a noisy transformer, and that you are grounding the antenna slightly when you touch it, reducing signal overall.

A good strategy for improving your reception is to change the angle of the aerial, to compensate for any polarisation of the radio waves that they've picked up on the way. I have a DAB radio (in the same house with poor reception) that is so sensitive that one angle (-10 deg. from vertical) works best in the evening, whereas another (80 deg from vertical, 90 deg. out) works best in the morning.
 
 
jentacular dreams
15:22 / 18.01.07
Fanks all. I shall try a few things to sort out the problem. Sadly there's no ariel, and we live in a house, but I may try re-orienting it 90 degrees or plugging it in elsewhere to see if the socket/circuit in question is the problem. Apparently for anyone else experiencing such problems steel frames in houses make a big difference too, though I don't think ours has one.

I might also borrow a radio from a housemate to see whether its the conditions or the radio. Part of me suspects that it may just be getting a bit old, and if I really want it to work as well as it used to when I was living with my folks I may have to learn how to take it apart, replace bits and put it back together again. Well, I guess I already know the first part...
 
 
Ticker
13:08 / 25.01.07
Ball Lightening Reproduced in a Lab

Though really, how many silicone wafers are out there wandering around...
 
 
Twice
17:36 / 25.01.07
In his State of the Union address, President Bush said

America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. And these technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change. (Applause)

Is he referring to something in the public domain, or is it #secret#?
 
 
Red Concrete
18:22 / 25.01.07
Probably he's been fed the line by the Oil companies, who are starting to realise that's the way they should go, or rather appear to go.
Although, it would be nice if DARPA had personal cold fusion generators for everyone in the audience.
 
 
Axolotl
15:53 / 26.01.07
I think it was more a vague kind of promise that science will save us from climate change, so there's no need to actually, y' know, look at your lifestyle and see if it's actually sustainable. The only really concrete thing I can think he's referring to is biofuels. But typically even his policy on that is a bit screwy.
 
 
locusSolus
05:34 / 28.01.07
I've always wondered about true nature of formularized physical laws. Are they absolute or are they approximate descriptions of reality?
 
 
Closed for Business Time
13:09 / 29.01.07
The latter. There's a longer answer too, which I'm sure someone will have the knowhow and patience to provide. Perhaps even me at some stage.
 
 
locusSolus
07:45 / 30.01.07
I'd love some leads on this. Perhaps existence of constants and other such patterns in natural laws are inherent in structure of mathematics rather than the structure of nature?

Physical implications of the Goedel uncomputability theorem always bothered me...

I may be a physics major, but they don't really teach you about these in most undergraduate courses... And most of the sources about the matter I've found so far goes off into disturbingly unscientific territories.
 
 
Closed for Business Time
09:01 / 30.01.07
locusSolus - I just reread my reply to your short'n sweet question and realised what a complete nincompoop I sounded. And when you said you're a physics major.. whoa...

Anyway, to expand a tad on my opinion, which I've culled from a lot of whimsical philosophy of science reading:

There are obviously longstanding philosophical debates about the true nature of the laws of nature. They tend to the dense and intractable, curling in and out of ontology, metaphysics, epistemology and even social sciences. My hunch is that physicists and other natural scientists work very much on a pragmatic basis - what works, be it experimentally or theoretically, works, and let's just leave it at that. In that sense, science is more or less an approximation to reality. However, the mathematical community has traditionally been divided into a realist and an idealist camp. The realists, which I think is the modern majority, has removed all essentialist assumptions from their work. For them, mathematics is all about the structure of objects and function in an idealised (almost make-believe), abstract universe of symbols that can be manipulated in certain ways for certain purposes, in the process having to obey certain rules that seem to make sense, predicated on certain fundamental axioms,. See here, here, andhere for a much better explanation. In fact, just start there, and I'll stop these ill-advised ramblings.

Best of luck.
 
 
Benny the Ball
07:40 / 28.02.07
Could a partical accelorator be dangerous? Could it create a mini-big bang that could destroy?
 
 
Evil Scientist
09:15 / 28.02.07
Could a partical accelorator be dangerous? Could it create a mini-big bang that could destroy?

Normally, not really. I take it we're talking about the big CERN style accelerators here and not the common or garden ones you find in cathode ray tubes or X-ray machines?

The biggest risk from particle accelerators is the radiation they produce. However that is what all the shielding is for.

On the extreme outer limits of liklihood is the risk that experiments to generate mini-black holes could catastrophically backfire. Alternatively particle experiments could accidentally create "strangelets" which would convert the world into strange matter. But both are extremely theoretical risks with no real evidence to support them.
 
 
Closed for Business Time
10:05 / 28.02.07
I think there were similar worries before the first A-bomb tests - something about hoping not to start a chained fission reaction involving all the hydrogen in the atmosphere. That would've been a major bummer. But wasn't. Phew!
 
 
Sibelian 2.0
11:13 / 11.03.07
Another light question:

Relativity would suggest that time dilation slows down perception of time from the point of view of an observer travelling at relativistic speeds. Does this dilation tend to or in fact *become* zero when the "observer" is, in fact, a photon?

What I'm asking is: If relativity means that photons take zero time from their *own* POV to get from A to B...um, how can the photon happen at all?
 
 
Blake Head
13:04 / 13.03.07
Does the Earth "spin" at a constant speed?
 
 
Closed for Business Time
13:56 / 13.03.07
No. The Moon (and maybe other objects too) slows it down. Actually, here's an interesting letter to Nature outlining another factor. Quite old, so there should be some new data out there.

Discontinuous Change in Earth's Spin Rate following Great Solar Storm of August 1972


JOHN GRIBBIN* & STEPHEN PLAGEMANN†


*Nature, 4 Little Essex Street, London WC2R 3LF
†NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Institute for Space Studies, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025


THE question of a link between changes in the Earth's spin rate and the activity of the Sun is of topical interest, and there is good evidence that the changing length of day is influenced by the mean level of solar activity1,2. The possibility of a one-to-one correlation between specific events on the Sun and specific changes in the length of day has remained more controversial, however, although there was a suggestion of such an effect associated with the great solar storm of 1959 (refs. 3−5) Specifically, Danjon suggested3−5 that there was an increase in the length of day when the nucleonic component of solar cosmic rays increased ; this was in addition to the usual steady increase in the length of day. Other observers questioned the reality of this effect (for a discussion of the controversy see ref. 6), and because the 1959 solar storm was the greatest recorded since the time of Galileo, there was no immediate hope of an independent test of Danjon's claim. In August 1972, however, an even greater disturbance occurred on the Sun7−9. It seemed to us that this might provide the ideal opportunity to resolve the controversy, and we have indeed found a discontinuous change in the length of day, and a change in the rate of change of the length of day (a glitch) immediately after that event. Changes in the length of day, and thus in the spin rate of the Earth, are revealed by regular measurements of Universal Time (UT) carried out at many observatories around the world. For our purpose, we are interested in UT2, the version of Universal Time with the effects of the Chandler Wobble and seasonal variations removed. The difference between Atomic Time (AT) and UT2 shows, on average, a monotonic increase as the Earth's spin slows down and the length of day increases.



References 1. Challinor, R. A., Science, 172, 1022 (1971).
2. Gribbin, J., Science, 173, 558 (1971).
3. Danjon, A., CR Acad. Sci. Paris., 254, 2479 (1962).
4. Danjon, A., CR Acad. Sci. Paris., 254, 3058 (1962).
5. Danjon, A., Notes et Informations de l'Observatoire de Paris, 8 No. 7 (1962).
6. Schatzman, E., in The Earth–Moon System (edit. by Cameron A. G. W., and Marsden, B. G.), 12 (Plenum, New York, 1966).
7. Pomerantz, M. A., and Duggal, S. P., Nature, 241, 331 (1973).
8. Chupp, E. L., Forrest, D. J., Higbie, P. R., Surie, A. N., Tsai, C., and Dunphy, P. P., Nature, 241, 333 (1973).
9. Mathews, T., and Lanzerotti, L. J., Nature, 241, 335 (1973).
10. Macdonald, N. J., and Roberts, W. O., J. Geophys. Res., 65 529 (1960).
11. Roberts, W. O., and Olsen, R. M., J. Atmos. Sci., 30, 135 (1973).
 
 
Closed for Business Time
14:00 / 13.03.07
Actually, I was sorta wrong. The speed of Earth oscillates. As well as slowing down. So it's doubly not constant...
 
  

Page: 1 ... 7891011(12)131415

 
  
Add Your Reply