Physics - August 2006

Wave Collapse Theory. Which do you think is more plausible?

2006-08-13 22:44:25 · 2 answers · asked by Tippy St Clair 3

Although there can be little room for argument about Newton's importance in the development of modern science, his achievements were not purely the product of his abilities. The intellectual climate of his times was a necessary ingredient and was, in part, the product of earlier thinkers - Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler being the most relevant to Newton's work. In this sense he was, indeed, standing on the shoulders of giants.

Once we admit that Newton's theories were ideas whose time had come, it follows that Newton himself was not essential to the formulation of those theories. If, for instance, he had remained in Cambridge during the plague years of 1665 to 1667 instead of returning to the relative safety of his home in Lincolnshire (a period which was, coincidentally, the most creative of his life) and if he had died as result, the underlying principles of motion and gravity would have been discovered by someone else, and probably not very much later than they were by Newton. Rem

2006-08-13 22:28:54 · 10 answers · asked by keerthan 2

2006-08-13 22:15:38 · 31 answers · asked by jack_adam2001 1

2006-08-13 21:40:30 · 8 answers · asked by Vicky 1

2006-08-13 21:31:32 · 8 answers · asked by vimla a 1

2006-08-13 21:21:46 · 12 answers · asked by vimla a 1

Explanations?

2006-08-13 20:53:41 · 4 answers · asked by gerlooser 3

there is no oxygen in the sun

2006-08-13 20:44:49 · 27 answers · asked by DHARMESH 1

2006-08-13 20:32:33 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

yes or no
please explane
tied to 20 ropes

2006-08-13 19:13:34 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

So tonight my friend showed us a "cool trick"- after emptying a beer bottle he rubbed it against the cornor of his apartment and we all watched in amazement as it stuck there. He explained that it was friction but I'm wondering if maybe his walls are just the perfect size. I didn't realize that glass & stucco created any kind of friction but I am not an expert in the matter. Can anyone affirm his answer or kindly give your own?

2006-08-13 19:03:27 · 2 answers · asked by Anna 4

2006-08-13 18:48:39 · 5 answers · asked by elakerfan2002 1

I'm sure you've seen the example of:
1/3 = .3333333 to infinity, hense
1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = .99999999 to infinity
But, clearly, 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1
Doesn't this simple example, along with other similar examples, actually demonstrate that when we speak of "infinite numbers" or "infinity," we are creeping into into the realm of philosophy and out of the realm of math and reality?

2006-08-13 18:31:01 · 18 answers · asked by LeAnne 7

2006-08-13 18:19:10 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-08-13 18:16:54 · 5 answers · asked by dahal 1

If the answer is yes,then would it be possible to Create a "bomb" that can suck all the energy around it when the "bomb" convert the energy around it into mass and freeze the whole place into ice?
If 1kg of atom can produce 9x10^16 joule of Energy..Then 9x10^16 joule of energy would be needed to produce 1kg,isn't it?

2006-08-13 17:26:28 · 9 answers · asked by NeoM5 1

2006-08-13 17:25:24 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

Gravity at the surface is G, at the center is zero. Does it depend linearly on the distance from center?

2006-08-13 17:09:14 · 4 answers · asked by none2perdy 4

Physicist are trying to combine quantum theory with relativity.
Both contradict one another in certain areas. One theory will eventually have to give way so that a successful newer theory will emerge ( quantum gravity ).

Do you feel that this new theory will incorporate quantum theory within the general framework of relativity OR

vice versa, that relativity will exist as subset of quantum theory ?

Please explain your answer and please, serious answers only ( preferably by professionals ).

thank you.

2006-08-13 17:04:26 · 4 answers · asked by fullbony 4

Let's say I start out at one end of a football field and begin walking toward the other end zone. When I reach the 50, it would be accurate to say that I have halved my original distance from the end zone. When I reach the 25, it would be accurate to say I've halved that remaining distance, and when I'm 12 and a half yards away, it would be accurate to say that I've halved that remaining distance. So one accurate description of my approach would be "continuously halving remaining distances from the end zone."

We know from mathematics that a number can be infinitely halved and will never reach zero because there will always be some infintesimal fraction remaining. Nevertheless, I will eventually find myself in the end zone, having not only reached zero, but surpassed it.

Is it actually inaccurate to describe me as halving the distances, and, if so, why does this seemingly incontrovertible description fail? Or is it that something I do not understand happens when I get there

2006-08-13 16:53:25 · 18 answers · asked by Matt F 1

We see refraction with marbles rolling on a plane encountering either a ramp up or down. It is another force, gravity that causes the refraction of the marble. What is the other force that is applied to the photon that causes it to change direction when entering glass say?
The angle of refraction infers that the photon is speeded up, and yet the texts refer to photons being slowed by their passage through glass. Also, what the heck is going on with double-refraction? Are the two beams travelling at different speeds through the same media?

2006-08-13 16:06:00 · 3 answers · asked by Plato X 2

2006-08-13 15:48:55 · 16 answers · asked by Mattman 6

What is the most comon speed of an electron around a hydrogen nucleus? Is it typically near light speed?

2006-08-13 15:39:55 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

Interesting that while melting, dry ice goes directly from solid to gas...bypassing the liquid state. So, is there a liquid state during manufacture? Or does it go from carbon dioxide gas straight to solid ice? What?

2006-08-13 15:17:14 · 6 answers · asked by gene_frequency 7

If I have one refrigerator (fridge A) that's set to 1 degree Celsius and one set to -5 degrees (an arbitrary number that's below freezing point- fridge B). I put one cup of water into fridge A and I put one into fridge B (waters are exactly the same). Will the water in fridge B freeze faster because the temperature is lower? Or will the waters reach 1 degree in the same amount of time but then the water in fridge B will decrease to -5 degrees (and become ice)?

2006-08-13 15:08:57 · 15 answers · asked by Max B 2

If time is relative to each observer traveling at different volocities and subject to different gavitational fields, and both observers measure the speed of light exactly the same using clocks that are running at entirely different speeds, isn't light in fact traveling at different speeds and constant only because it covers the same distance in relation to each observer's clock?

2006-08-13 14:36:48 · 6 answers · asked by LeAnne 7

According to theory, if we were to travel at the speed of light, we would circumvent the entire universe in zero time. Why then does it take light so damned long to reach us from the outer stars?

2006-08-13 14:09:30 · 13 answers · asked by LeAnne 7

Is it possible that the massive amounts of antimatter are so far away we have no way of knowing they're there or is there some kind of proof for the dominence of matter? I know they haven't found any "power flux" of gamma rays where the atoms and their anti-components are colliding with the probes they send up but how far are they accurate to? Has the whole theory just basically slipped to a treasure chest for sci-fi writers?

2006-08-13 14:08:01 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

A) No, because this would have no physical meaning
B) No, because the kinetic energy of a system must equal it's potential energy.
C) Yes, as long as the total energy is positve.
D) Yes, since the choice of the zero of potential energy is arbitrary.

2006-08-13 13:13:27 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

I don't have an incredibly firm grasp on relativity, but its my understanding that all matter contains its own gravitational force and that a body's total grav force is proportional to its mass. We stick to the earth because all of its mass is below us. If one could stand in the center of the earth (without burning up, suffocating, etc.), what gravitational pull would they feel? Since they have equal mass surrounding them on all directions, would they be pulled apart? Or would they be crushed because gravity still pushes inward through some mechanism?

2006-08-13 13:10:47 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous