Talking of "natural" diasters

[2scoops0406]

I thought this was quite an interesting article.

http://www.kressworks.com/Science/A_black_hole_ate_my_planet.htm

Scientists eh?

 

[kendor]

Great reading Ed, the way technology and scientific research has come along recently i wouldn't write it off too quickly what worries me is that the way to do these things comes along first, then they decide that a study may be needed!!!! one day a trigger happy scientist might just decide to take the risk Also the early atomic experiments and their relevant studies seem a bit vague as to whether an accident would happen or not, after all isn't that what experimentation is about, to test the theories? And who really knows what will happen with cutting edge science?

 

[2scoops0406]

Having been brought up a scientist, and having trained as one, I see the argument from both sides. I can fully appreciate a scientists desire to experiment, looking for inner truths of our universe. However I also understand that it is very easy to get carried away, and not appreciate the possible repercussions of their actions.

I for one am all for scientists experimenting away, so long as at the end of the day it offers me a choice, do I want to take advantage of the research or not?

To my mind this brings me into conflict with GM foods, as it has been shown that cross contamination to non GM crops does result. This leaves me with no choice as to whether or not I believe GM food is dangerous or not. If it is grown in this country then you'll have no choice about whether or not you eat it. Whether or not it is dangerous, well, I honestly don't know.

The atomic bomb experiments. as you say were cavalier in their approach to say the least. Doubts voiced that the temperature of the explosion could set the atmosphere on fire seem to have been pretty much glossed over (thanks )

RHIC also is glossed over who's heard of it. The phrase that the probability that the creaton of a black hole is approaching zero, is that scientific clap trap to actually say we don't entirely know.

Mind you, you have to balance it I suppose. The fact that all my sub atomic particles stay in the right place at the right time is only a probability (albeit a good one).

Gotta goooooooooooooooo!

 

[kendor]

Mind you, you have to balance it I suppose. The fact that all my sub atomic particles stay in the right place at the right time is only a probability (albeit a good one).

Gotta goooooooooooooooo!

That last bit about your sub atomic particles staying together just sprung another thought.
Perhaps they don't stay together but buzz off to create another form or state a distance away, perhaps even the other side of the universe(s) and thn back again to form yourself but do this at such a fast uncomprehensible speed that we see no difference this might account for the miniscule amount of matter before the big bang, maybe there is and always has been the same amount of matter it just moves around very fast! and what we percieve is the remnant of the previous state which has to be present because previous interaction dictated that it must exist. good theory? or total cack as i've been accused of spouting before

 

[2scoops0406]

With proof, as good as any other !!

 

[AdamW]

Well, current theories (although remember that the theory of quanta is only 100 years old) would say that your particles are NOT whizzing off to some farflung corner of the galaxy to be part of something else. You are limited by 2 factors:

1) The speed of light: no particles have been observed travelling faster than light
2) The stability of subatomic particles: any particle with mass has a finite life. The lifespan of neutrons, protons and electrons is a really long time, but for other particles, the general rule is that the more massive the particle the shorter it's life.

Also it depends on which subatomic particles you are talking of. For example, it is very, very unlikely that a quark will temporarily dissociate itself from a neutron in order to zoom off around the galaxy, as it would require so much energy that it would be hella massive and wouldn't be around for any appreciable length of time.

Of course, the emphasis is on "current theory"... try telling someone in 1800 that we are composed of nothing but nicely ordered energy and you would find yourself locked up in a looney bin. Who knows, some genius could make a breakthrough in a few years that allows easy faster than light travel, or proves that subatomic particles fly out of your ass, halfway across the galaxy and then return via your left nostril.

There is a lot of crazy funky physics to discover still!

 

[kendor]

I've gone off the idea now you have mentioned the bit about nostrils and asses thinking that part of me could have just been in one of those places beforehand mind you didn't a recent experiment have a particle appear in two different places at the same time? i seem to remember reading it somewhere.

 

[AdamW]

Ah, the old "spooky interaction" that Bertie Einstein came up with. He was a clever old sausage, wasn't he!

I've not read much on it, but I believe it is known as "quantum entanglement", where the properties of two particles are inexplicable linked.

From what little I have read, it seems to mean that you can take a photon A, and using this interaction create an identical copy, photon B, without all the inconvenience of Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle. Thus it's potential for teleportation.

 

[2scoops0406]

Well, current theories (although remember that the theory of quanta is only 100 years old) would say that your particles are NOT whizzing off to some farflung corner of the galaxy to be part of something else. You are limited by 2 factors:

1) The speed of light: no particles have been observed travelling faster than light
2) The stability of subatomic particles: any particle with mass has a finite life. The lifespan of neutrons, protons and electrons is a really long time, but for other particles, the general rule is that the more massive the particle the shorter it's life.

Also it depends on which subatomic particles you are talking of. For example, it is very, very unlikely that a quark will temporarily dissociate itself from a neutron in order to zoom off around the galaxy, as it would require so much energy that it would be hella massive and wouldn't be around for any appreciable length of time.

Of course, the emphasis is on "current theory"... try telling someone in 1800 that we are composed of nothing but nicely ordered energy and you would find yourself locked up in a looney bin. Who knows, some genius could make a breakthrough in a few years that allows easy faster than light travel, or proves that subatomic particles fly out of your ass, halfway across the galaxy and then return via your left nostril.

There is a lot of crazy funky physics to discover still!

I was thinking in this case, more along the lines of an atom being formed of protons, neutrons (usually) and electrons. Thus sub atomic particles being either:-

neutrons, protons, or electrons.

WRT to faster than light particles. Einsteins law dicatates that you cannot accelerate beyond the speed of light. However there is no law as far as I am aware that says you cannot travel at a velocity beyond the speed of light. Also, worth bearing in mind that the speed of light is not a constant.

 

[AdamW]

Well, people talk of tachyons and such (especially on Star Trek), but no-one has ever observed one.

I am in absolutely no doubt that one day someone will figure out a way to travel, or at least convey information, at superluminal speeds across great distances. It won't be for a good few hundred years, at least, but there is a lot of science still to learn!

 

[2scoops0406]

Indeed there is. Actually, it is intersting to converse with someone who did a physics degree almost 20 years afer I did my chemistry degree (god I feel old now) Needless to say a lot will have advanced now. When I did my Physical chemistry thesis, the most complex atom that could be mathematically described was Lithium, the third element in the periodic table, not entirely impressive !

 

[AdamW]

Mathematically described in what context? Modelling the nucleons and electrons in some fashion?

My chemistry knowledge isn't that great. I did pretty good in the A-level, but my chemistry teacher was heavily dyslexic... great bloke, brilliant teacher when he got it right, but when writing chemical formulae off the top of your head, dyslexia is something of a hindrance. We often got to the end of a lesson and he would find the end products of a reaction were all wrong, because he got the formula wrong at the start!

 

[2scoops0406]

Mathematically described in what context? Modelling the nucleons and electrons in some fashion?

My chemistry knowledge isn't that great. I did pretty good in the A-level, but my chemistry teacher was heavily dyslexic... great bloke, brilliant teacher when he got it right, but when writing chemical formulae off the top of your head, dyslexia is something of a hindrance. We often got to the end of a lesson and he would find the end products of a reaction were all wrong, because he got the formula wrong at the start!

In terms of the electronic orbitals, and quantised enery levels. As comes from Schrodingers wave equations. This allows chemists to predict how the atom will behave, but it gets remarkably complicated after hydrogen

 

[2scoops0406]

Mathematically described in what context? Modelling the nucleons and electrons in some fashion?

My chemistry knowledge isn't that great. I did pretty good in the A-level, but my chemistry teacher was heavily dyslexic... great bloke, brilliant teacher when he got it right, but when writing chemical formulae off the top of your head, dyslexia is something of a hindrance. We often got to the end of a lesson and he would find the end products of a reaction were all wrong, because he got the formula wrong at the start!

In terms of the electronic orbitals, and quantised energy levels. As comes from Schrodingers wave equations. This allows chemists to predict how the atom will behave, but it gets remarkably complicated after hydrogen

 

[kendor]

Mathematically described in what context? Modelling the nucleons and electrons in some fashion?

My chemistry knowledge isn't that great. I did pretty good in the A-level, but my chemistry teacher was heavily dyslexic... great bloke, brilliant teacher when he got it right, but when writing chemical formulae off the top of your head, dyslexia is something of a hindrance. We often got to the end of a lesson and he would find the end products of a reaction were all wrong, because he got the formula wrong at the start!

In terms of the electronic orbitals, and quantised energy levels. As comes from Schrodingers wave equations. This allows chemists to predict how the atom will behave, but it gets remarkably complicated after hydrogen

As far as i'm concerned it got remarkably complicated after the use of the word orbitals