November 27, 2013
thatscienceguy:

Bionic Implant: http://bit.ly/17OmB7D Dinosaur: http://bit.ly/1iLQR7s MAVEN: http://bit.ly/1hSmq1x Purple bacteria: http://bit.ly/18CmRqM Hominin Sex: http://bit.ly/1i9SIVP Photons: http://bit.ly/17UuB9a Gamma-ray Burst: http://bit.ly/1aOBt7d Ancient DNA: http://bit.ly/19X75Tx

THIS WEEK IN…SCIENCE

thatscienceguy:

Bionic Implant: http://bit.ly/17OmB7D 
Dinosaur: http://bit.ly/1iLQR7s 
MAVEN: http://bit.ly/1hSmq1x 
Purple bacteria: http://bit.ly/18CmRqM 
Hominin Sex: http://bit.ly/1i9SIVP 
Photons: http://bit.ly/17UuB9a 
Gamma-ray Burst: http://bit.ly/1aOBt7d 
Ancient DNA: http://bit.ly/19X75Tx

THIS WEEK IN…SCIENCE

(Source: facebook.com)

1:09pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZsdL4y-bkHMy
  
Filed under: physics science news 
November 27, 2013
thatscienceguy:

Where the different rules of physics apply:
Regular, otherwise known as Newtonian physics only applies on the average, everyday, scale. That is, objects larger than an atom at low energy, where energy in this context refers to velocity and (sometimes) temperature.
Once you step it up, increasing to high energy levels, (when velocity approaches c, the speed of light) newtonian physics no longer works due do what we call relativity, and observations or calculations need to take into account this effect usually using some form of the Lorentz factor,
gamma = [ 1 - (v^2)/(c^2) ]^(-1/2)
On the other hand, if you keep to a low energy system but bring the scale down to sub-atomic particles, such as electrons, things change yet again, but this time in an entirely new way. This is where Wave-Particle dualtity theory comes into play, the theory that waves (namely electromagnetic, i.e. light) are particles, and particles are wave packets. not only do you need to account for this, but you also need to take into account Heisenbergs uncertainty principle; It is impossible to know both the exact velocity and exact position of a sub atomic particle, the more certain you make one the less certain the other becomes.
Finally we come to Quantum Field Theory, which i honestly do not know anything about, at least i won’t until third year physics when i start taking courses on it.

This is a brilliant way to explain the different disciplines.
In the class I’m teaching, we will be working in the lower right quadrant of that graph where energies are (relatively speaking) rather low, however the scale (from a quantum point of view) is really rather large.
One could apply many of the approaches used in other sub-fields. For instance, you could calculate the mass of an object by using the multi-part mass calculation from nuclear physics, except summing up every nucleus within the object.
This is, however, a bit cumbersome and time-consuming, so we often don’t do it. The only time we run into issues is if we attempt to use Newtonian physics to explain quantum effects (as it has nothing in its framework to account for things like magnetic spin, Pauli exclusion principle, etc.)
Just remember, everything is connected.

thatscienceguy:

Where the different rules of physics apply:

Regular, otherwise known as Newtonian physics only applies on the average, everyday, scale. That is, objects larger than an atom at low energy, where energy in this context refers to velocity and (sometimes) temperature.

Once you step it up, increasing to high energy levels, (when velocity approaches c, the speed of light) newtonian physics no longer works due do what we call relativity, and observations or calculations need to take into account this effect usually using some form of the Lorentz factor,

gamma = [ 1 - (v^2)/(c^2) ]^(-1/2)

On the other hand, if you keep to a low energy system but bring the scale down to sub-atomic particles, such as electrons, things change yet again, but this time in an entirely new way. This is where Wave-Particle dualtity theory comes into play, the theory that waves (namely electromagnetic, i.e. light) are particles, and particles are wave packets. not only do you need to account for this, but you also need to take into account Heisenbergs uncertainty principle; It is impossible to know both the exact velocity and exact position of a sub atomic particle, the more certain you make one the less certain the other becomes.

Finally we come to Quantum Field Theory, which i honestly do not know anything about, at least i won’t until third year physics when i start taking courses on it.

This is a brilliant way to explain the different disciplines.

In the class I’m teaching, we will be working in the lower right quadrant of that graph where energies are (relatively speaking) rather low, however the scale (from a quantum point of view) is really rather large.

One could apply many of the approaches used in other sub-fields. For instance, you could calculate the mass of an object by using the multi-part mass calculation from nuclear physics, except summing up every nucleus within the object.

This is, however, a bit cumbersome and time-consuming, so we often don’t do it. The only time we run into issues is if we attempt to use Newtonian physics to explain quantum effects (as it has nothing in its framework to account for things like magnetic spin, Pauli exclusion principle, etc.)

Just remember, everything is connected.

March 6, 2013
subatomiconsciousness:

An oscillating pendulum, with velocity and acceleration marked. It experiences both tangential and centripetal acceleration.

Relevant and lovely. I could stare for hours; if only to avoid doing ACTUAL Vibrations & Waves work…

subatomiconsciousness:

An oscillating pendulum, with velocity and acceleration marked. It experiences both tangential and centripetal acceleration.

Relevant and lovely. I could stare for hours; if only to avoid doing ACTUAL Vibrations & Waves work…

(via understandingtheuniverse)

March 5, 2013

Every day in Vibrations&Waves/Electricity&Magnetism. (save for brief moments of “OOH I KNOW WHAT THAT IS,” of course)

(Source: , via drfinklestein-deactivated201309)

January 10, 2013
"I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring"

"I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring"

(Source: science-in-a-jar)

December 8, 2012
Finalz

Tussin (it’s a thing), First Doctor (“The Daleks”) and two Intermediate Theoretical homeworks to knock out. Inverse Laplace Transforms and Fourier Transforms all day, urry day.

Guh. I really should have come up with problems to ask my Differential Equations prof this morning.

Alas, it’s in the past and I can’t cross into (much less interact with) my own timestream, so onward and upward!

Yay, higher learning!

August 2, 2012

phulax-wolfgang:

Last of the Feynman series for now, absolute genius.

If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong; in that simple statement, is the key to science. It doesn’t make a difference how beautiful your guess is, how smart you are, who made the guess, what his name is, it doesn’t matter; it’s wrong.”

(via understandingtheuniverse)

June 27, 2012
discoverynews:

The Universe: No God Required
During a panel discussion at the SETIcon II conference in Santa Clara, Calif., over the weekend, scientists discussed the Big Bang and whether there was a requirement for some divine power to kick-start the Universe 13.75 billion years ago.
Unsurprisingly, the resounding answer was: No.
“The Big Bang could’ve occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there,” said astrophysicist Alex Filippenko of the University of California, Berkeley. “With the laws of physics, you can get universes.”
keep reading

Yeah, buddy! Physics doin’ work!

discoverynews:

The Universe: No God Required

During a panel discussion at the SETIcon II conference in Santa Clara, Calif., over the weekend, scientists discussed the Big Bang and whether there was a requirement for some divine power to kick-start the Universe 13.75 billion years ago.

Unsurprisingly, the resounding answer was: No.

“The Big Bang could’ve occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there,” said astrophysicist Alex Filippenko of the University of California, Berkeley. “With the laws of physics, you can get universes.”

keep reading

Yeah, buddy! Physics doin’ work!

June 5, 2012

fuckyeahfluiddynamics:

Rotating a fluid often produces different dynamical behavior than for a non-rotating fluid.  Here this concept is demonstrated by dropping creamer into a tank of water.  Both experiments produce a turbulent plume, but the way the plume spreads and diffuses is much different in the case of the rotating tank, thanks to the Coriolis effect. (Video credit: SPINLab UCLA)

Something I’ve pondered for far too many times in far too many diners (typically, at far too late of an hour.)

April 25, 2012

‎”(In Fundamental Physics), we’re always trying to investigate those things, in which we don’t understand the conclusions.

We’re not trying to all of the time, to check our conclusions. After we’ve checked them enough, we’re okay.

The thing that doesn’t fit is the the thing that’s most interesting. The part that doesn’t go according to what you expected.”