Physics and Math
After addressing some physics questions on a previous thread, I thought I would go ahead and post here. I have masters degrees in both subjects plus several credits beyond(would have had a PhD if personal life hadn't turned to crap in the middle of things). So if anyone wants to know anything about those subjects for something you're writing, or just in general, feel free to ask.
Whether it be about the basics, or something more advanced--Newton's laws, mechanics, electrodynamics, nuclear & particle physics, relativity, qunatum mechanics, statistical mechanics, algebra, calculus, abstract algebra, topology, analysis, dynamical systems and chaos theory, probability, differential geometry, differential equations, etc, etc, come here for all your math and physics needs!
Was there time before the big bang?
Geez, go right for the tough one! So here's the deal with that as far as I understand it:
The conventional answer is no--the big bang is the point in which space-time began, so there is no time before time. This seems wierd except when you think about what it means to be a singularity(an infinetly dense point or space-time, which the big bang is considered to be). General relativity tells us that the stronger the gravitational field, the more time slows. A singularity is infinitely dense, and hence there is an essentially infinite gravitational field and time is at a dead stop. There is no "before." If the time slowing thing wierds you out, let me assure you that this effect has indeed been observed. By general relativity, the farther you get from earth, the weaker the earth's gravitational pull is on you, and hence the faster your time flows. So a clock put in orbit around the earth measures time passing at a different rate than one on the surface of the earth. Indeed, global positioning satellites have to be adjusted to account for this effect. At a singularity, this result is just taken to the extreme.
Now, the real answer to your question might actually be yes. Possible yeses come from quantum gravity theories--see string theory, or loop quantum gravity. The idea behind these being that an actual singularity isn't possible. Things only shrink down to a fundamental length called the Planck length and hence we don't run into the same problem as mentioned above. So then you might ask--if those theories are correct, what happened before? To that I answer, everything on that front is still largely speculation and it depends on which theory you're looking at. It could be that our universe is the rebound from the collapse of a previous universe, or that our universe was birthed from inside an existing universe, and the list goes on and on.
Moral of the story is: we don't really know.
Nuclear question for you - I believe I've read that nuclear waste hovers at around 300º F, why aren't we using that residual heat for energy?
Think for yourself. Question Authority.
Here is my understanding of nuclear reactors:
The fuel they use requires certain isotopes of radioactive materials to sustain their reactions. Some free neutrons are needed to trigger fission and then in the by-products of the fission reaction are more free neutrons which then trigger further reactions and etc. Hence you get a chain reaction that is self sustaining. That is, until you've spent most of your fuel. The left over is the nuclear waste and, while it is still radioactive, isn't producing the neutrons needed; it's producing other byproducts (alpha particles, gamma radiation and etc.) And because it is still radioactive, it is warm. As for the details of why we don't harness that excess heat, I'm not sure. It would likely have to do with efficiency and practicality--how do you extract that heat energy from a source in a way where you are both handling the source properly and getting enough energy out as a result of your effort. I do know that there are types of reactors either beign made or at least thought about that are called sub-critical reactors. These ones somehow throw some extra neutrons in the mix to get a sustained reaction from the nuclear waste of other reactors. So people are certainly trying to come up with ways to harvest energy from the left-overs.
When you think about it, there are many things that produce heat that we don't go and try to harvest the energy from--your computer, for example, just fans away the excess heat it builds up and doesn't reprocess it for energy. Why don't they take that heat, turn it into useable energy to power your computer? Answer: there's not an efficient way to do so.
Okay, so I've got a question that I could've easily researched myself but got too lazy, in turn having to ask it over and over again and putting up little disclaimers like this one whenever I ask it again, resulting in the rolling of eyes and much other annoyance.
SOOOO.
Really simple: Matter can turn into energy, BUT, can energy turn into matter? Basically, can the Human Torch exist in real life? CAN IT BE ME?
The matter energy thing was just discussed recently on another thread(the "Alchemy ( or MC2 = E)" thread). I've posted a lengthy answer to it there, so I'll refer you to that for now. To sum it up, the answer is yes, in theory, but it doesn't tend to happen. To get 1 gram of matter, you need about the amount of energy equivalent to that released when a nuclear bomb goes off. Processes by which energy converts to matter are not favored in nature--it's like running a clock backwards, things don't like to go that direction.
I have no idea what this would have to do with the human torch, so maybe you could clue me in to what you are thinking there. Perhaps some lighter fluid and a match could help you in your effort...
I have a Masters in EE with a Physics and EE BS thrown in there as well, so I understand the inefficiency of small power devices. However, I am under the assumption that this waste is 200-300F for hundreds of years, a constant source of boiling water seems like it could be used efficiently. I understand that it could make the water radioactive, but I'm sure that that could be overcome by lead insulated pipes. I also understand that this would be on a much smaller scale than a nuclear reactor, however, daisy chaining or paralleling barrels of waste, or however they are stored would allow an efficient and profitable use of that wasted energy.
Where I work used to store the wasted heat from all the fluorescent light fixtures in a brine tank and used the stored heat to heat the building which I assure you is quite large.
Think for yourself. Question Authority.
bassplr19-
Nice to know there are other science nerds on here!
You mention:
However, I am under the assumption that this waste is 200-300F for hundreds of years, a constant source of boiling water seems like it could be used efficiently. I understand that it could make the water radioactive, but I'm sure that that could be overcome by lead insulated pipes. I also understand that this would be on a much smaller scale than a nuclear reactor, however, daisy chaining or paralleling barrels of waste, or however they are stored would allow an efficient and profitable use of that wasted energy.
Yes, the waste products do stay hot for quite awhile. Again, I'm not sure of the details of why this isn't harnessed and can only give the blind answer of it likely isn't practical for one reason or another. The waste is certainly not anything you would want to be around, hence why it is typically buried several hundred meters below ground. People are often not too happy to have nuclear reactors around in the first place despite their massive energy output, so maybe the small bits of energy harvested from the waste in this way isn't worth the hassle of complaints about safety? But really, the waste is going to be there anyway, so who knows.
Where I work used to store the wasted heat from all the fluorescent light fixtures in a brine tank and used the stored heat to heat the building which I assure you is quite large.
wow, awesome idea--how exactly did that work?
wow, awesome idea--how exactly did that work?
I'm assuming they had piping going through the fluorescent fixtures pumping a brine solution, I don't really know how as they removed the system long before I was born. The building now, along with most of downtown Milwaukee, gets it's heat from the nearby power plant's "waste" steam.
Think for yourself. Question Authority.
Please explain the Monty Hall problem to me. I just don't get it.
Edit - never mind, I figured it out. I'm a freaking dolt. It all comes down to what your initial probability of picking a goat is: 66%. Since your initial pick is probably wrong, your better off switching.
Found a 'game' online that models the paradox. Ran it 30 times for switch and 30 for stay and the odds came out 66% win for switch, 33% win for stay.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/science/08monty.html
When I was in university, all the clubs on campus held beer gardens on Fridays. For some reason, the math club's were the best. Better than the ski club - hotter chicks, bigger larfs.
Good authors who once knew more clever words,
Now only use four letter words,
Writing prose.
Anything Goes.
-Cole Porter
Yeah, sounds like you got it. Basically you have a 1/3 chance that your initial pick is a winner--if you change nothing, that probability stands. Now there's a 2/3 chance that one of the other doors is a winner and since "Monty" reveals to you one that is not, then by switching, your chance of winning jumps to that 2/3.
¿Was there time before the Big Bang?
"They sold you hippies grunge, hip hop, now liberty activism."
http://freeconcord.org