Science: it works, bitches!

[The fish]

Ok, this is a thread for all the geeks and nerds, and just casual scientists.
It's for posting of articles, asking questions, discussions, or just wanting to know more about what you did in school today.

For discussion of biology, chemistry, physics, geography, and good old fashioned mathematics.

Oh, and relevant XKCD cartoons are always welcome. :wink:

[uəʌəsʎɐɾ]

Anti matter.

Someone give me some sort of explanation that doesn't sound like a sell-out, plz.

[Zell]

Chemistry got more awesome now we're doing A2. A few weeks ago we were handling 18M Sulphuric Acid (nasty stuff). Today we determined the melting point of the aspirin we made.

[The fish]

Anti matter.

Someone give me some sort of explanation that doesn't sound like a sell-out, plz.

Most particles (bar the likes of, say, a photon) have a mass and charge. An antiparticle has the same mass, but opposite charge.

Antimatter is where matter is made of antiparticles as apposed to regular particles.

Yeah, that's a bit of a sell-out, I'll admit...

[uəʌəsʎɐɾ]

i've always thought it was a bit of a sell-out :P but hey, can't disprove it, so...

[Cube]

i've always thought it was a bit of a sell-out :P but hey, can't disprove it, so...

Considering they make tiny amounts of antimatter at CERN, it's a bit late to disprove it.

[The fish]

Considering they make tiny amounts of antimatter at CERN, it's a bit late to disprove it.

Evolutionists claim to be able to disprove Carbon dating, despite it being a tried and tested method!

The claim that, due to lava from the 1995 Mount St.Helen's eruption being carbon dated as being several thousand years old, despite (at the time of dating) having only been on the Earth's surface for 7 years.

This works because, as you know, when a volcano erupts, the lava comes into being, from no where.

Wait a sec... :blank:

[Hellfire]

Considering they make tiny amounts of antimatter at CERN, it's a bit late to disprove it.

I was at CERN a few years ago ^^ And since I know someone who works there I went to see things only staff can, like them working on the particle accelarator

[Sarka]

Currently reading Big Bang by Simon Singh. It's really good, so far about the history of astronomy - getting onto reletivity. Also, Fermat's Last Theorum by the same author is my favorite book ever. It's completely inspired by Maths side.

Can't wait to do some more advanced maths - at the moment it's a bit dull.

[Shino]

Creationism, someone care to explain what's so scientific about it that they want to teach it at schools?

[Ginger_Chris]

hmm antimatter, nice fun one there and I'm bored.

Basically there are 12 basic particles and their antimatter equivalents, these are:

quarks (which interact via strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces):
up quark - anti up quark
down quark - anti down quark
charmed quark - anti down quark
strange quark - anti strange quark
top quark - anti top quark
bottom quark - anti bottom quark

leptons(which interact via weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces):
electron - positron
electron neutrino - electron antineutrino
muon - anti muon
muon neutrino - muon antineutrino
tau - anti tau
tau neutrino - tau antineutrino

The antiparticle equivalents have the same mass but the opposite sign for other properties, such as charge, strangeness, charm etc.

Basically when a particle interacts with its anti particle equivalent they annihilate (to form 2 or more photons). Occasionally you get weird things like charmonium where the particle-antiparticle pairs orbit each other.

Anyway, things like protons, neutrons, lambda particles, sigma particles etc (baryons) are made out of three quarks, each of the same nature (either particle or anti particle). A neutron for example is made from two down and one up quark. A proton is made from a down quark and two up quarks. An antiproton is made of a antidown quark and two anti up particles. It has the same mass as a proton but a charge of -1 (e - same as an electron).

Mesons consist of a antiquark and quark and inclued things like a pion (pi+ is made of up quark and an antidown quark. pi- made of an antiup quark and a down quark.)

Not only do antiparticles annihilate in pairs they are also created in pairs from high enough energy photons. so you have a vacuum and electron-positron pairs can randomly from if high energy photons are around.

[The fish]

Creationism, someone care to explain what's so scientific about it that they want to teach it at schools?

They don't teach creationism, they teach Intelligent Design (which is creationism in a cheap tuxedo).

It's not science at all.

[Dyson]

hmm antimatter, nice fun one there and I'm bored.

I just bought 6000 Large Antimatter Cahregs on EVE Online. Those things are powerful at short range.



quarks (which interact via strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces):
up quark - anti up quark
down quark - anti down quark
charmed quark - anti down quark
strange quark - anti strange quark
top quark - anti top quark
bottom quark - anti bottom quark


As in the Quark gun from Half Life 1?


tau - anti tau
tau neutrino - tau antineutrino

Tau Cannon? HL1? :D


Hmm, science is crap.

[Goron_3]

Chemistry got more awesome now we're doing A2. A few weeks ago we were handling 18M Sulphuric Acid (nasty stuff). Today we determined the melting point of the aspirin we made.

Yet instead of doing the practical we just talked about video games and made you arm wrestle mark *good times*

[Ginger_Chris]

Intelligent design is not science by definition. The whole idea is that any scientific theory should be able to be disproved. You have to be able to test it by using predictions it makes. You can never fully prove a theory, just prove that its the best guess we have for a set of observables at this time.

Intelligent design however can never be disproved, because God did it. You cannot make predictions from it, and the answer to any problems with it, is God designed it that way and did it for a reason, mysterious or not. It's not science in the slightest.

[Chris the great]

how do people stand on chimaras?

bit controversial but the end resutls could be most benifitial.

for those not in the know a chimera, in science terms, is an organism that contains the genetic information of anouther anmal.

[Supergrunch]

For some nice chemistry, have a look at 4f atomic orbitals (http://winter.group.shef.ac.uk/orbitron/AOs/4f/index.html).

As for chimeras, I think that research into that area could be very fruitful indeed. This doesn't necessarily mean that it should be given the go ahead though, but I think that the sorts of experiments being proposed at the moment are probably acceptable.

[DomJcg]

i read in the new sciencist this month about the 2 headed dog thats a chimera i supose?,

but isn't a chimera what that whole thing about mixing human and cow genes was a few months ago? i didn't read much into it simply because i agreed with the move to do so

[Supergrunch]

i read in the new sciencist this month about the 2 headed dog thats a chimera i supose?,

but isn't a chimera what that whole thing about mixing human and cow genes was a few months ago? i didn't read much into it simply because i agreed with the move to do so
A chimera is where you have two or more populations of cells that are genetically different from one another - you can even get chimeras as a result of blood vessels connecting fraternal twins. So in fact, the 2 headed dog would be unlikely to be a chimera as it would be a form of identical (rather than frateral - the genetic information would be the same) siamese twin, i.e. all the cells would have the same genetic information.

However, the controversial ones are those containing genetic information from two (or more) different animals, such as when embryonic cells of one animal are implanted into those of another. Such experiments have actually been going on for quite a while, but it's when human cells or DNA is involved (such as in the incident a few months ago) that you get more people questioning whether the experiments are ethical.

[Zell]

Currently reading Big Bang by Simon Singh. It's really good, so far about the history of astronomy - getting onto reletivity. Also, Fermat's Last Theorum by the same author is my favorite book ever. It's completely inspired by Maths side.

Can't wait to do some more advanced maths - at the moment it's a bit dull.

I read Fermat's a couple of months ago, twas brilliant! It really helped me appreciate the beauty of Maths and the struggles of intellectuals. When I get round to it, I'll start reading The Code Book by him, supposed to be just as good.

[Chuck]

hmm antimatter, nice fun one there and I'm bored.

Basically there are 12 basic particles and their antimatter equivalents, these are:

quarks (which interact via strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces):
up quark - anti up quark
down quark - anti down quark
charmed quark - anti down quark
strange quark - anti strange quark
top quark - anti top quark
bottom quark - anti bottom quark

leptons(which interact via weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces):
electron - positron
electron neutrino - electron antineutrino
muon - anti muon
muon neutrino - muon antineutrino
tau - anti tau
tau neutrino - tau antineutrino

The antiparticle equivalents have the same mass but the opposite sign for other properties, such as charge, strangeness, charm etc.

Basically when a particle interacts with its anti particle equivalent they annihilate (to form 2 or more photons). Occasionally you get weird things like charmonium where the particle-antiparticle pairs orbit each other.

Anyway, things like protons, neutrons, lambda particles, sigma particles etc (baryons) are made out of three quarks, each of the same nature (either particle or anti particle). A neutron for example is made from two down and one up quark. A proton is made from a down quark and two up quarks. An antiproton is made of a antidown quark and two anti up particles. It has the same mass as a proton but a charge of -1 (e - same as an electron).

Mesons consist of a antiquark and quark and inclued things like a pion (pi+ is made of up quark and an antidown quark. pi- made of an antiup quark and a down quark.)

Not only do antiparticles annihilate in pairs they are also created in pairs from high enough energy photons. so you have a vacuum and electron-positron pairs can randomly from if high energy photons are around.

Im doing all this quarks bollocks right this very module. Also on another note - if you put a cat in a box you dont know if its dead or alive therefore it could be both

Addition - The only reason this quarks business is about is because a group of nutters thought that neutrons and protons etc cannot be fundamental (have nothing else making them up). + the list of quarks will keep growing ( what kind of name is 'top' or 'strange' for a particle)

[Blackfox]

Fucking kidneys..

Yes, a -very- valuable organ as without them we wouldn't piss, excrete drugs, maintain our acid/bade balance, rid ourselves of waste, etc.. but they ruin my fucking weekends!

Had to learn the anatomy, histology and the physiology of how they make piss; how and which hormones effect them; the pathology of a few nephropathies and renal failure. And add to that: the pharmacology of diuretics and testing methods = I've had no weekend and I'm tired. Boo.

And wow, first post on about two weeks.. go me!

[Hellfire]

I have to do an ecryption program in SCHEME. It's due wednesday. I have no idea what to do. lol
Programming is a science too!

[Ginger_Chris]

Actually I think there pretty sure the list of quarks ends there. There was some such theory that thought it would that has been right about other things. Plus there's a nice symmetry having 6 fermions, 6 quarks, both divided into 3 "families".

oh and the box thing, the pi0 is composed of http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/f/1/6f13add8a506e873c9306f9044e881ff.png which is a superposition of those two states. That whole quantum/nuclear stuff actually makes a decent amount of sense eventually if you just accept a few "interesting rules".



PS: i know i asked last year, but would it be possible to add in a bit of mathematical equation writing stuff into this here comment writer please?

[Shino]

I have to do an ecryption program in SCHEME. It's due wednesday. I have no idea what to do. lol
Programming is a science too!

What's course are you taking? And what class is that? Would you care to elaborate a bit on SCHEME?

[Blue_Ninja0]

I have to do an ecryption program in SCHEME. It's due wednesday. I have no idea what to do. lol
Programming is a science too!

I know JAVA, C#, C and C++ and to a certain extent Assembly, but I never heard anything about SCHEME so I can't help you much.

I'd say, to a non-professional work, a few random mathematical equations you can come up with are enough to mask the data, but it depends on what specifically is asked in that work.

[Oxigen_Waste]

They don't teach creationism, they teach Intelligent Design (which is creationism in a cheap tuxedo).

It's not science at all.

And you get it easy, over here in Portugal they call it by it's name. We study creationism! ... I did, in high school, like... 2 years ago or so.

[Hellfire]

I know JAVA, C#, C and C++ and to a certain extent Assembly, but I never heard anything about SCHEME so I can't help you much.

I'd say, to a non-professional work, a few random mathematical equations you can come up with are enough to mask the data, but it depends on what specifically is asked in that work.

SCHEME comes from LISP, both are usually unused and unknown, but very good for learning.
But it's very specific, so you really can't help. Thanks anywyay :)

[Blue_Ninja0]

SCHEME comes from LISP, both are usually unused and unknown, but very good for learning.
But it's very specific, so you really can't help. Thanks anywyay :)

:sad:

the cake is a lie and this message was too short

[Supergrunch]

I think we need more sciencey love.

Here, maybe this will inspire you all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGZXhUeLh90

[Chuck]

If the cat is put inside the box you dont know whether if its dead or alive, so its both (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc)

[Supergrunch]

If the cat is put inside the box you dont know whether if its dead or alive, so its both (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc)
Only if the life of the cat depends on something very simple, like a decaying nucleus, which is able to exist in quantum superposition.

Anyway, the guy in that video is a bit irritatingly patronising. :wink:

[Chuck]

Oi! A-level physics is hard enough as it is

[Supergrunch]

Oi! A-level physics is hard enough as it is
I wasn't talking about you, I just found the guy irritating. Anyway, if you're doing A level physics then you're more qualified than me...

[Ginger_Chris]

I hope this thread hasn't taken over the beloved "homework thread". Chuck if you need any help with physics I'd be happy to, hopefully later in the year I'll be teaching a A-level class, but until then I could do with answering questions that aren't about KS3 biology.

PS when did supergrunch get bestowed the blue name thingy?

[Shino]

If the cat is put inside the box you dont know whether if its dead or alive, so its both (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc)

That was awesome! I wish they used this in my days!

Someone care to explain why does the observer effects the electrons? Or is it still unknown?

[Supergrunch]

I hope this thread hasn't taken over the beloved "homework thread". Chuck if you need any help with physics I'd be happy to, hopefully later in the year I'll be teaching a A-level class, but until then I could do with answering questions that aren't about KS3 biology.

PS when did supergrunch get bestowed the blue name thingy?
Hmm, a couple of months ago.

And no, this hasn't taken over the homework thread, it is for science appreciation. :wink: If anyone has biology/chemistry/maths questions, post them in the homework thread and I'll try to help.

Someone care to explain why does the observer effects the electrons? Or is it still unknown?
It just does, quantum is crazy like that.

[The fish]

Someone care to explain why does the observer effects the electrons? Or is it still unknown?

I think there was something about that in a recent issue of New Scientist - I shall look into it and get back to you.

[AshMat]

Fucking kidneys..

Yes, a -very- valuable organ as without them we wouldn't piss, excrete drugs, maintain our acid/bade balance, rid ourselves of waste, etc.. but they ruin my fucking weekends!

Had to learn the anatomy, histology and the physiology of how they make piss; how and which hormones effect them; the pathology of a few nephropathies and renal failure. And add to that: the pharmacology of diuretics and testing methods = I've had no weekend and I'm tired. Boo.

And wow, first post on about two weeks.. go me!

I'm on kidneys atm.
Disecting one next week.

[Ginger_Chris]

That was awesome! I wish they used this in my days!

Someone care to explain why does the observer effects the electrons? Or is it still unknown?

Oh that I can do, The basic basic experiment Young's slits, except passing photons through, you pass electrons. If you choose the right size slits you'll observe an interference pattern very similar to that of light (except with a wavelength corresponding to that on a electron of whatever energy you give it). If you slow the rate the beam of electrons is emitted so that only one electron is passing through the slits at a time, eventually you'll still get an interference pattern. This is because in quantum mechanics the resultant intensity is equal to the probability of all routes to that point. The electron therefore will pass through both slits (as its described as a quantum wavefunction and both slits are equally likely a path) and interfere with itself.

The point where the observer interferes is when the observer puts equipment on one of the slits so that they can determine which slit the electron passed through. By taking a measurement you force the electron to pass through one or the other slit, rather than both. You will no longer measure an interference pattern because you know the path the electron has taken, so it can't go through both and interfere with itself.

Other examples include measuring individual atoms. Heisenberg uncertainty principle is an example. to measure the position of a electron you have to hit it with an photon, which will affect its position and momentum. I studied bose-einstien condensates for a while, which involve ultra low (nanokelvin) temperature atoms. If you took "photographs" of them in a traditional sense by bombarding them with photons, you'd heat them and completely ruin the experiment.

The simple fact is when you observe something you have to interact with it in some way, and that will affect the outcome. This is even more prevalent in quantum mechanics where taking a measurement forces the particle into one quantum state, rather than a superposition, which can completly disrupt the results of the experiment.

NB If this doesnt make much sense, I'm a tad tipsy, feel free to PM me if you want anything clearing up/more examples.

[Razz]

I'm on kidneys atm.
Disecting one next week.

The eye is so much more fun. Careful though, it can squirt.

[Supergrunch]

So ultimately, it's as I said - it just so happens that observing something cause the quantum wavefunction to collapse.

Am I right in saying that light travels at around walking speed through Einstein-Bose condensates? If so, that's slightly crazy - you could do all sorts of things if you could control light more easily...

[Ginger_Chris]

light travels at the same speed as it usually does, very close to c (as BEC's have to made in a high vacuum). The special thing about them is that the wavefunctions of individual atoms overlap to such a degree that they become indistinguishable. Basically what you get is 10^6 or 10^7 atoms acting like a single wavefunction, one giant particle. Its really weird because you can split this blob and then get it to interfere with itself. Seeing patterns of interference with a few million rubidium nuclei is a little strange.
These guys do alot of research and were the first to produce a BEC in a lab. http://cua.mit.edu/ketterle_group/ (the picture gallery has lots of nice images and Wolfgang Ketterle has written a few really nice introductory papers on the subject)

[AshMat]

The eye is so much more fun. Careful though, it can squirt.

Don't know if i'll get to do that this year. I did a heart a few months back though, that was an interesting disection.

[Supergrunch]

Hmm, then I must have been reading a book that was lying or confused...

[Ginger_Chris]

No you're right. I'm slightly wrong (possibly completely wrong depending on my understanding of those papers)

I did a bit of digging around. this is the website (http://www.seas.harvard.edu/haulab/publications/HauPublications_All.htm) of the group that did it with a bunch of publications about it on. Several of those articles are talking about group velocity rather than photon velocity (the whole phase vs group velocity thing again). Even if it is group velocity they are slowing, its dead useful for sending information and computing, but from those articles it seems the actual photons are still moving at a decentish proportion of the speed of light, just the light pulse as a whole is very slow. I think.

Have a look through those supergrunch, there's a few actual papers in the bunch, maybe you'll be able to decipher a little more from them than I could. (personally i think they deliberately write most papers just to sound clever. Thank god for articles)

Oh and the whole group vs phase velocity, I found a nice little java applet (http://publicliterature.org/tools/group_and_phase_velocity/).

[Meta_Omega]

On an unrelated though scientifical note, the genes that determine the length of a man's reproductive organ can be inherited from his mother. How deep isn't that?

[Supergrunch]

I don't pretend to understand this in depth - I read it in a popular science book somewhere. Anyway, the papers vary in comprehensibility - the abstract of this one (http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/26/article1/article1.html) makes some sense. You'll be shocked (:wink:) to hear that I switched from physics to evolution a few weeks ago, methinks I'll go into biochemistry or genetics.

[Blue_Ninja0]

I studied bose-einstien condensates for a while, which involve ultra low (nanokelvin) temperature atoms. If you took "photographs" of them in a traditional sense by bombarding them with photons, you'd heat them and completely ruin the experiment.

The simple fact is when you observe something you have to interact with it in some way, and that will affect the outcome. This is even more prevalent in quantum mechanics where taking a measurement forces the particle into one quantum state, rather than a superposition, which can completly disrupt the results of the experiment.

Oh, damn it! I knew about that, but I discarded that idea because I though it was too simple for that to be the reason. If I knew that was the reason I would have stealed your thunder.:heh:

On an unrelated though scientifical note, the genes that determine the length of a man's reproductive organ can be inherited from his mother. How deep isn't that?

And the woman's reproductive organs can also be influenced by her father, I guess.

[Strider]

Don't know if i'll get to do that this year. I did a heart a few months back though, that was an interesting disection.

I did lungs/heart/tongue all in one the other week, was quite interesting.

Here's a pic (I think the spoilers appropriate)
http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/6623/dsc00857em4.jpg

[Supergrunch]

Best dissection I've done was of a whole rat. It was a pretty big one too.

[Strider]

Best dissection I've done was of a whole rat. It was a pretty big one too.

Funny you mention that, i'll be doing it this coming friday.

[Blackfox]

I'm on kidneys atm.
Disecting one next week.

Human...? ;)

[Ginger_Chris]

Last time I did a dissection:

Pupil: "Sir, isn't blood poisonous"
Me: "Yes. Yes it is"
Pupil: *runs over to sink and starts scrubbing her hands vigorously*

When will they start teaching children sarcasm as part of the curriculum?

I don't pretend to understand this in depth - I read it in a popular science book somewhere. Anyway, the papers vary in comprehensibility - the abstract of this one (http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/26/article1/article1.html) makes some sense. You'll be shocked (:wink:) to hear that I switched from physics to evolution a few weeks ago, methinks I'll go into biochemistry or genetics.

Still isn't clear that they slowed the pulse of the actual photons. Silly physicists.

I'm not that shocked actually, if I could have chosen a different degree i would have liked to have done zoology or evolutionary biology. Might have been a bit to much stats for my liking though, but i know where your coming from.

[Supergrunch]

I'm not that shocked actually, if I could have chosen a different degree i would have liked to have done zoology or evolutionary biology. Might have been a bit to much stats for my liking though, but i know where your coming from.
Well, what with natural sciences being as it is, I'm also studying biology of cells, chemistry, and behaviour, and differential equationy things. I just changed from the physics module... it wasn't such a good idea to do it without a physics a level, and I think I'd rather do biology.

[system_error]

Fun with science:

You are candidate in a quiz show. The grand price is a sportscar. There are 3 doors and you have to select one where you believe the car is behind. So one door has a car behind it and the other 2 doors goats.


You select a door then the quiz master opens one of the other doors. And that door has always a goat in it. Now you can select again ... do you stick with your choice or do you change? Does it matter at all :)?

[Shino]

Fun with science:

You are candidate in a quiz show. The grand price is a sportscar. There are 3 doors and you have to select one where you believe the car is behind. So one door has a car behind it and the other 2 doors goats.


You select a door then the quiz master opens one of the other doors. And that door has always a goat in it. Now you can select again ... do you stick with your choice or do you change? Does it matter at all :)?

Hmm, I've seen this in NUMB3RS. Can't remember though.

[Supergrunch]

Fun with science:

You are candidate in a quiz show. The grand price is a sportscar. There are 3 doors and you have to select one where you believe the car is behind. So one door has a car behind it and the other 2 doors goats.


You select a door then the quiz master opens one of the other doors. And that door has always a goat in it. Now you can select again ... do you stick with your choice or do you change? Does it matter at all :)?
Change, it gives you a better chance.

Can't remember the proof though, go ahead and post it.

[weeyellowbloke]

Fun with science:

You are candidate in a quiz show. The grand price is a sportscar. There are 3 doors and you have to select one where you believe the car is behind. So one door has a car behind it and the other 2 doors goats.


You select a door then the quiz master opens one of the other doors. And that door has always a goat in it. Now you can select again ... do you stick with your choice or do you change? Does it matter at all :)?

I doesn't matter, even if you choose wrong you don't loses anything and will still have a goat. So it's basically a 50/50 gamble between two doors in which you might not win anything but you certainly wont lose anything so go for it.

[Supergrunch]

I doesn't matter, even if you choose wrong you don't loses anything and will still have a goat. So it's basically a 50/50 gamble between two doors in which you might not win anything but you certainly wont lose anything so go for it.
That's the thing, it's not 50/50. The probability of winning a car is 2/3 if you switch, so it's always better to do so. This is a result of the quiz master knowing what is behind each door such that he won't reveal the car by mistake.

To see why, let's look at the possibilities if the quiz master doesn't know what's behind each door. (i.e. he may reveal the car by mistake)

Player chooses host reveals remaining door contains
Goat A Car Goat B
Goat B Car Goat A
Goat A Goat B Car
Goat B Goat A Car
Car Goat A Goat B
Car Goat B Goat A

So the chance here is 50/50. However, the quiz master cannot reveal a car, so he knows what is behind each door, and is constrained in the cases where he would usually reveal a car. This leads to the following possibilities:

Player chooses host reveals remaining door contains
Goat A Goat B Car
Goat B Goat A Car
Goat A Goat B Car
Goat B Goat A Car
Car Goat A Goat B
Car Goat B Goat A

So there is a 2/3 chance of winning if you switch.

This seems completely irrational to most people (myself included) - I think when it was first pointed out a great deal of maths professors complained, but it is now agreed that this is correct. Probability can be odd.

[Shino]

I didn't understood in NUMB3RS and I still don't get it now.

[Zell]

Grunchie is right. If you change, the probability is two thirds. I saw this a while ago.

A few days ago I stumbled across this countdown numbers game.

952 - 100, 75, 50, 25, 3, 6

There is a solution for this but it's not that obvious. In fact, it's bloody difficult.

[system_error]

Explaination is easy:

3 Doors - when you first choose a door you have a chance of 1/3 to get it right. When you have to change again your chance is 2/3 instead of 1/3 because one door with a goat has already been eliminated.

[Stalin]

So should you swap your box at the end of Deal or No deal?

I do love that programme, even if it does represent everything I hate about the world. I think it's that Noel Edmonds. Oh boy, does he do it for me. I mean, erm...

Fuck.

I like to have sex with women. Yes.

[Domo Kun]

I really can't do science. I don't understand it at all. When comfronted with anything scientific I feel immense head pains.

What I'm interested to know is is there actually any hard proof for the big bang? It sounds a lot more plausable than the 7 days theory, but (keep in mind I don't understand science at all...) it really does sound like a bunch of bullshit to me.

I expect to get a hoard of angry replies for saying that :D


Oh and I got a C at GCSE. I stuck with social science.

[Sheikah]

An easy way to interpret the goat thing...

You have a 2 in 3 chance of picking a goat at the start. The host will then show the other goat. Therefore by switching using this method you will have a 2 in 3 chance that the door you switch to will be a car, because of the 2 in 3 chance of picking a goat.

[system_error]

I really can't do science. I don't understand it at all. When comfronted with anything scientific I feel immense head pains.

What I'm interested to know is is there actually any hard proof for the big bang? It sounds a lot more plausable than the 7 days theory, but (keep in mind I don't understand science at all...) it really does sound like a bunch of bullshit to me.

I expect to get a hoard of angry replies for saying that :D


Oh and I got a C at GCSE. I stuck with social science.

My life gets owned by maths every day....

But it was my choice solving equotations, creating efficient algorithms and calculating electronical networks. I hope it pays of some day and I get a decent job :)

[Supergrunch]

I really can't do science. I don't understand it at all. When comfronted with anything scientific I feel immense head pains.

What I'm interested to know is is there actually any hard proof for the big bang? It sounds a lot more plausable than the 7 days theory, but (keep in mind I don't understand science at all...) it really does sound like a bunch of bullshit to me.

I expect to get a hoard of angry replies for saying that :D


Oh and I got a C at GCSE. I stuck with social science.
The best evidence is cosmic microwave background radiation, a result of red shifted light from the big bang itself. In fact, the title of this topic is a reference to how beautifully the observed data fits the theory:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/science.jpg

The error bars on this curve were too small to draw at this resolution.

Further evidence is given by the fact that distant galaxies are also red shifted, suggesting that the entire universe is expanding, seemingly a result of a massive explosion. (this also had an alternative explanation - that everything was moving away from the Earth, but more complex measurements have disproved this perspective)

There is more evidence than this, but these are the main two pieces. As a result of this evidence, all the competing theories were rejected, including the steady state theory. In fact, Fred Hoyle, the creator of the steady state theory, claimed it was the case until he died, and indeed coined the term "big bang" to lampoon the competing theory. Perhaps this is partly why it seems silly to you.

[Ginger_Chris]

Cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation is the photons that last interacted with something during 'decoupling'. Before decoupling, the mean free path of light was tiny (ie it bumped into stuff every few centimeters), and electrons had so much energy they didn't orbit protons. It was a hot dense gloopy mess of photons, electrons and neutrons, and everything was the same temperature because they bumped into each other so often.

As this expanded it cooled. When it reached 3000K (still hot by our standards), the electrons started orbiting protons, and so light stopped scattering off all the free electrons. This happened about 400,000 years after the big bang. Its called decoupling because it's when matter and energy were no longer in thermal equilibrium (the same temperature). The CMB we observe are the photons that last interacted with an particle all that time ago (about 13.6 billion years ago) and has been travelling ever since. During that time, space itself has expanded causing the wavelength of the photons to increase and correspond to a temperature of 2.725K, rather than the initial 3000K (the photon kinda got stretched out as space expanded so it looks less energetic that it originally was).

[Supergrunch]

Cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation is the photons that last interacted with something during 'decoupling'. Before decoupling, the mean free path of light was tiny (ie it bumped into stuff every few centimeters), and electrons had so much energy they didn't orbit protons. It was a hot dense gloopy mess of photons, electrons and neutrons, and everything was the same temperature because they bumped into each other so often.

As this expanded it cooled. When it reached 3000K (still hot by our standards), the electrons started orbiting protons, and so light stopped scattering off all the free electrons. This happened about 400,000 years after the big bang. Its called decoupling because it's when matter and energy were no longer in thermal equilibrium (the same temperature). The CMB we observe are the photons that last interacted with an particle all that time ago (about 13.6 billion years ago) and has been travelling ever since. During that time, space itself has expanded causing the wavelength of the photons to increase and correspond to a temperature of 2.725K, rather than the initial 3000K (the photon kinda got stretched out as space expanded so it looks less energetic that it originally was).
That makes more sense... but anyway, there's currently more evidence for the big bang than for any other theory, which is why it's currently accepted. Because that's how science works, though some people don't seem to think so.

[Demuwan]

Chemistry got more awesome now we're doing A2. A few weeks ago we were handling 18M Sulphuric Acid (nasty stuff). Today we determined the melting point of the aspirin we made.

What exam board are you doing.

[Supergrunch]

What exam board are you doing.
Sounds like something better than OCR Salters. Even doing university chemistry (part of my course) I haven't got to use acid anything like that strong.

However, in my evolution practical today I did get to freeze leaves in liquid nitrogen before crushing them. And they let us use chloroform... apparently in the group before us, it got spilt is someone's lap. :heh:

[DomJcg]

ok...can anyone prove dark matter?

[Supergrunch]

ok...can anyone prove dark matter?
I doubt it - isn't that just the current theory explaining the disparities in mass between two different methods for measuring the mass of the universe?

[Blue_Ninja0]

ok...can anyone prove dark matter?

What? I think it's pretty much proved. I think it can be artificially produced in laboratory and sustained in very small quantities and only for a few instants.

[Demuwan]

Sounds like something better than OCR Salters. Even doing university chemistry (part of my course) I haven't got to use acid anything like that strong.

However, in my evolution practical today I did get to freeze leaves in liquid nitrogen before crushing them. And they let us use chloroform... apparently in the group before us, it got spilt is someone's lap. :heh:

Ahh nice. Are you doing Natural sciences then.

Im doing Nuffield (Edexcel) not the most exciting one in the world:indeed:

[DomJcg]

I doubt it - isn't that just the current theory explaining the disparities in mass between two different methods for measuring the mass of the universe?

as in...it doesn't exist? i think thats where its currently at.

So they see nothingness in space, that isn't pulling light and planets and gases in (i.e. not a black hole)

and @ Blue niinja, isn't that anti matter?

[Ginger_Chris]

Dark matter and dark energy are basically an unproven theory to try and explain why our formula formula to explain the universe doesn't fit what we're actually seeing, in fact its not very close at all. It's a guess, and they're trying to find the properties of it to see if they can prove it exists or not.

Blue_ninga: That's antimatter, seen all the time in the form of positrons in Beta+ decay.

[Blue_Ninja0]

and @ Blue niinja, isn't that anti matter?

I though they were both the same.:heh:

[Supergrunch]

Ahh nice. Are you doing Natural sciences then.

Im doing Nuffield (Edexcel) not the most exciting one in the world:indeed:
Yeah, natural sciences... I'll either go into biochemistry/geneticsy stuff or evolution I think.

Talking of which, I just finished an essay on evolution... it's really interesting, but there's so much jargon. For example, a sentence that could have been in my essay (I watered it down a bit in the actual thing):

"Wolbachia strains induce thelytokous parthenogenesis in haplo-diploid insects." :heh:

[Problematique]

Blue_ninga: That's antimatter, seen all the time in the form of positrons in Beta+ decay.

We predicted the energy levels of positrons today. It wasn't fun.

[Dyson]

What does science have to say about the mind?

[weeyellowbloke]

"Wolbachia strains induce thelytokous parthenogenesis in haplo-diploid insects." :heh:

They sure do. I'm wanting to go on and do a Masters in Evolutionary Palaeobiology, but I'm not sure when to apply and not sure if I did that I'd get on the course. It think they'd look at my overall results and think I'm academically weak. Might have emphasise that the areas I sucked in were things like Geophysics and Hydrology, while I regularly got high scores in my Palaeoenvironment Palaeontology and Micropalaeontology modules.

What does science have to say about the mind?

In what way? Like Neuroscience and the way the brain functions or like where consciousness comes from?

[Supergrunch]

They sure do. I'm wanting to go on and do a Masters in Evolutionary Palaeobiology, but I'm not sure when to apply and not sure if I did that I'd get on the course. It think they'd look at my overall results and think I'm academically weak. Might have emphasise that the areas I sucked in were things like Geophysics and Hydrology, while I regularly got high scores in my Palaeoenvironment Palaeontology and Micropalaeontology modules.
Sounds interesting.

We had a great lecture of plant defence mechanisms today, I'm really liking evolution at the moment.