Ask a physicist anything. (3)

[BrianOnEarth]

A change in density, either by adding or removing mass, or condensing or expanding the current mass. The Earth could have the gravitational sheer of a black hole... if it were squished to the size of a tennis ball.

I estimate g at the surface of the tennis ball sized Earth to be about 3.6x10^17 m/s/s.
It would be even harder to get out of bed in the morning.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So if you're out in the ocean, and you've got your scuba gear and junk, a tidal wave is approaching, don't even bother deep sea diving?

Just scream... would that be the best one could do? *lol*

Oh, if you're way out in the deep ocean, tidal waves won't be much concern anyway. The wave will be quite deep (it sucks up a lot of water to get that high), but below the wave itself, it's usually quite calm. So I suppose you could swim under it if you could go all the way below it's bulk.

And I wouldn't scream All that water would get into your lungs!

 

[Cabal]

So if you're out in the ocean, and you've got your scuba gear and junk, a tidal wave is approaching, don't even bother deep sea diving?

Just scream... would that be the best one could do? *lol*

Oh looky here, scuba gear just appeared in the question

Yes, if deep enough then you probably could. It's not exactly practical, however

 

[Doveaman]

A change in density, either by adding or removing mass

So could the earth have had less mass in the past to accommodate those "impossible" dinosaurs?

"It is a fairly easy demonstration that nothing any larger than the largest elephants could live in our world today, and that the largest dinosaurs survived ONLY because the nature of the world and of the solar system was then such that they did not experience gravity as we do at all; they'd be crushed by their own weight, collapse in a heap, and suffocate within minutes were they to." - Source

 

[Steffenfield]

What complex molecule has the most number of different elements from the periodic table that has found to bond naturally.

What's the one that can be created synthetically?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What complex molecule has the most number of different elements from the periodic table that has found to bond naturally.

What's the one that can be created synthetically?

I actually have no idea! I thought maybe an organic molecule, but they're just variations of C, H, and O. A star about to go nova has a huge number of elements (it basically has all the elements up to Uranium, and probably further), so there maybe. But I gotta admit, I'm stumped. I bow to your question

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So could the earth have had less mass in the past to accommodate those "impossible" dinosaurs?

"It is a fairly easy demonstration that nothing any larger than the largest elephants could live in our world today, and that the largest dinosaurs survived ONLY because the nature of the world and of the solar system was then such that they did not experience gravity as we do at all; they'd be crushed by their own weight, collapse in a heap, and suffocate within minutes were they to." - Source

It almost certainly did have less mass, because comet impacts had small amounts each year. However, I'm not at all convinced that gravity had to be fundamentally different in the past; there's nothing intrinsically difficult about large dinosaurs roaming around in today's gravity. Given that this site is devoted to Young Earth Creationism, it's doubtful to contain anything substantial. Is there anything on Pub Med about the mechanical feasibility of modern dinosaurs?

 

[canehdianhotstuff]

The largest molecule (DNA excluded) is Enaptin. But it only has I think C,H,O,N,S. Basically a ton of amino acids stuck together.

Best guess for the best number of individual elements present, I wouldn't say more than 10 in some complex ligand structure formed in solution usually. You can can't multiple metals and organics forming bonds in them.

 

[canehdianhotstuff]

 

[pgp_protector]

Does Soju Age Well?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Does Soju Age Well?

I don't know about Soju, but I've had some old Sake that had aged quite nicely indeed

 

[Steffenfield]

I'm such a turd since I'm incapable of Googling my nonsensical thoughts.

But here's one....

Can light react to light?

If it does, is it like a wave or a particle that it reacts to?

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Here's a question that I know the answer to but it's still an interesting brain teaser

"Can you build a wind powered cart that can travel directly down wind faster than the wind?"

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'm such a turd since I'm incapable of Googling my nonsensical thoughts.

But here's one....

Can light react to light?

They can interfere, cancelling each other or bolstering each other; two waves of energy E can create the effect that there's a single photon of energy 2E, or the effect that there's no photon at all, or anything in between, depending on just how they interact. But they don't collide or anything like that, as they don't have a charge, and are basically point particles

If it does, is it like a wave or a particle that it reacts to?

Like particles; I'm on the school of thought where waves aren't real things, just mathematical simplicities.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Here's a question that I know the answer to but it's still an interesting brain teaser

"Can you build a wind powered cart that can travel directly down wind faster than the wind?"

Alas, I know the answer to I never heard the puzzle till I saw the solution in a documentary, and I can tell you I'd have been firmly in the "Fooey, it doesn't work!" camp otherwise

 

[nojnoj]

Complex numbers, which use the variable i (the square root of -1) are invaluable in science and engineering, and widely used as a tool to aid calculation.

But they don't make sense in terms of our natural, "instinctive" understanding of mathematics, were the square root of a negative number is not permitted. It's as if we momentarily dip into an imaginary mathematical universe when using equations with complex numbers, then pop back into the real world once we've got the answer (in engineering for example). So, the question is ...

Is there any philosophical interpretation of the meaning of i? Is it evidence for some other "dimension" to the universe, or something similarly esoteric? Or perhaps no one really understands it at all, as Dick Feynman said of quantum physics.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

Is there any philosophical interpretation of the meaning of i? Is it evidence for some other "dimension" to the universe, or something similarly esoteric? Or perhaps no one really understands it at all, as Dick Feynman said of quantum physics.

Don't be fooled. Complex numbers are just a mathematical convenience for manipulating vectors. Nothing to see here. Not to be confused with quantum electrodynamics which shows that really small things behave in bizarre ways that have not been explained fully yet.

 

[Maxwell511]

Complex numbers, which use the variable i (the square root of -1) are invaluable in science and engineering, and widely used as a tool to aid calculation.

But they don't make sense in terms of our natural, "instinctive" understanding of mathematics, were the square root of a negative number is not permitted. It's as if we momentarily dip into an imaginary mathematical universe when using equations with complex numbers, then pop back into the real world once we've got the answer (in engineering for example). So, the question is ...

Is there any philosophical interpretation of the meaning of i? Is it evidence for some other "dimension" to the universe, or something similarly esoteric? Or perhaps no one really understands it at all, as Dick Feynman said of quantum physics.

I recommend reading this.

Also the most logical notation for imaginary numbers is j.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Complex numbers, which use the variable i (the square root of -1) are invaluable in science and engineering, and widely used as a tool to aid calculation.

Calling them the square root of -1 is technically incorrect, but I shan't descend into pedantry .

But they don't make sense in terms of our natural, "instinctive" understanding of mathematics, were the square root of a negative number is not permitted. It's as if we momentarily dip into an imaginary mathematical universe when using equations with complex numbers, then pop back into the real world once we've got the answer (in engineering for example). So, the question is ...

Is there any philosophical interpretation of the meaning of i? Is it evidence for some other "dimension" to the universe, or something similarly esoteric? Or perhaps no one really understands it at all, as Dick Feynman said of quantum physics.

There's nothing mathematically wrong with imaginary numbers, they're just, like you said, counter-intuitive. We're used to real numbers being 'real', but numbers are abstractions of such-and-such. Imaginary numbers are just another level of abstraction (like exponentiation is to multiplication).

But no, they don't have any more philosophical implication than irrational numbers do. It's just a human convention.

 

[Maxwell511]

But no, they don't have any more philosophical implication than irrational numbers do. It's just a human convention.

I should point out that this is because imaginary and irrational numbers have geometric interpretations unlike the natural numbers which are more algebraic. Pi is the circumference of a circle of diameter one, etc. j is a rotation about an axis, etc.