CMYK actually sounds kind of complicated to do this with, so yeah look for a pre-made function to convert CMYK to CIE 1931 in whatever “normal” light you have. I can help you find the preimage from that once you do.
Edit: Oh wait, this was a Halloween thing. Maybe for next year?
I’m having trouble finding a comparable number for other animals, though. Apparently for a lot of trace elements (like copper or selenium) ruminants are actually much worse at absorption, because the microbes essentially put them into a less available form.
Im dealing with all rule breaking behavior. The unsourced comments have now been removed as the user is unable to provide a source to backup their claim. The comments that break civility rules, including this one, are also being removed.
Please report rule 9 violations so that we can act on them.
The source provided by another user gives a definitive counter argument.
From the article: “ The wheat kernel contains 8%–15% of protein, from which 10%–15% is albumin/globulin and 85%–90% is gluten (Fig. 1).1 Gluten is a complex mixture of hundreds of related but distinct proteins, mainly gliadin and glutenin. Different wheat varieties vary in protein content and in the composition and distribution of gluten proteins.”
loads of organisms that can digest gluten already exist. Not so much for polyethylene etc. Also gluten is made of proteins with definite length not polymers
Let me school you on this one, too. There are polymethylsilanes, polyphosphazines, etc. You aren’t even aware of common polymers like PVC that fall outside of your categories. There’s more exotic stuff like polyferrocenes. You ought to quit spouting off about things you know nothing about.
What would be ideal IMO is a bug with a gut bacteria exclusive to that species alone that could eat plastics and digest them fully so microplastics aren’t an issue. Likely, a species for each type of problem plastic. A natural analogue would be termites, which can only digest wood because of such a relationship.
It would have to be an artificially engineered relationship, and an insect that’s not particularly proliferate. Preferably with a narrow set of habitat tolerances. That way they could be farmed, but be unlikely to get into the environment and become a nuisance by eating plastics we don’t want them to.
Black soldier flies are prolific and when proper conditions to reproduce are met, the females do not wander far from the place they are born and because of this are already used in organic waste disposal.
Using a complex organism to treate waste, even if only plastic, requires specialized infrastructure, designed to contain any event possible to pose a threat to the environment; this is not something we want or can do at home. Specialized infrastructure would make possible ideal conditions for the flies.
Black soldier flies also have the advantage that adults do not live for very long, do not feed, do not pose threat to human beings and the larvas die quickly if no food is available.
These flies also are vulnerable to cold and extreme heat conditions.
The higgs particle itself isn’t important, it’s the higgs field that makes the world go 'round. The way I understand it, is the field permeates all of space and time (like all other fields) and the particle appears at places of high disruptions in the field, like what the LHC created.
Photons are excitations in the EM field, but they also carry the electromagnetic force between particles - thus giving them charge. But in order to do that photon actually needs to be created and travel from one particle to another. If Higgs works in a similar way also being a boson, one might expect it also to need to exist to do it’s job. . What is the difference here?
Higgs boson has mass and quite large one at that and this puts limitations on how hard is it to generate it and on how field behaves
When you don’t provide enough energy to get whole Higgs boson, interactions happen via virtual particles. It’s easier to grasp this idea with weak interactions and W and Z bosons
But in order to do that photon actually needs to be created and travel from one particle to another.
Not really, no. At some point I’m going to exceed my own expertise here since I’m not a QFT expert, but in quantum mechanics things don’t firmly exist or not exist. The photons in question are “virtual particles”.
But in order to do that photon actually needs to be created and travel from one particle to another.
The electromagnetic force is mediated by virtual photons. These don’t exist as free particles, such as a photon emitted by a light source, but only as an intermediate particle. Because they’re only intermediate states, virtual photons can have non-physical energies (so long as they’re within the uncertainty principle), resulting in some having an effective mass. Suffice it to say virtual photons are quite distinct from real ones! Technically, I believe you could have some of the basic features of the em force (namely attraction/repulsion by 2 point charges) with just virtual photons. Things get tricky once charges begin accelerating though, as this leads to the emission of real photons.
If Higgs works in a similar way also being a boson
The short answer is, it doesn’t. The Higgs Field gives mass to fundamental particles. Existing in that field causes certain particles to have mass due to their coupling to the field. The W and Z weak gauge bosons gain mass through electroweak symmetry breaking, quarks and leptons gain mass through a different coupling. I realize this is a very unsatisfying answer as to “how” the Higgs field creates mass, but the mechanism involves some complex math (group theory and non-abelian gauge theory), so it kind of defies a simpler explanation. Regardless, it’s through interactions with the Higgs field (which can exist without any Higgs bosons around) that fundamental particles gain mass. The search for the Higgs boson was just to confirm the existence of the field, because while the field can exist without Higgs bosons present it must be possible to excite it sufficiently to create them.
Going back to your original question: these particles have almost certainly been created “naturally” in high energy collisions between particles and matter. Nature can achieve much higher energies than our particle accelerators. The highest energy particle ever observed was a cosmic ray. However, Higgs bosons are extremely short lived, with a lifetime of 10^-22 seconds. So whenever they’re created, they don’t stick around for a meaningful amount of time.
Sorry, can’t answer your question. Quick correction though, uranium is the highest atomic number that occurs nationally.
Edit: so I’m wrong about this. In school we learned that it was uranium and that’s also what it said when I checked sources, but not enough. Apologies.
The Higgs boson isn’t an atom like plutonium, it’s “further down”. I think of it in levels:
atoms, which are made up of
electrons “orbiting” the nucleus, the nucleus being made up of protons and neutrons. In turn, protons and neutrons are made up of
quarks
Quarks are a kind of elementary particle called fermions, which are at the same level as bosons (and electrons). Down here it’s all weird and quantum but in an oversimplified nutshell, it’s not so much that they physically exist as that in the maths* we can treat them as existing which makes it easier to think about.
of the physics models we use
I’m a computer scientist, not a real scientist, so I stand ready to be corrected by those more knowledgable.
edit: @SzethFriendOfNimi is more knowledgable and helped me fix this up a bit.
The fermions are particles with mass, an electron is already a fundamental fermion and not made up of quarks like protons and neutrons. The fundamental bosons (as far as I know) are particles that “handle” the interactions between other particles for instance gluons enable the strong force, while W and Z Bosons enable the weak force.
I believe the fundamental Higgs boson does occur in nature but likely immediately decays. (if I’m wrong I’d love to know how it actually enables certain interactions in nature)
Also I’m not studying quantum physics so I wouldn’t be surprised if someone needs to correct me. :)
Edit: clarified when fundamental fermions/bosons were meant.
Yup, should’ve clarified that I meant fundamental bosons, as any particle with integer spin is considered bosonic, while particles with half integer spin are fermionic, fundamental bosons alone still can’t make up matter though and protons/neutrons are fermionic.
I’m bad at regurgitating information that I’ve only quasi understood from afar, but I will tell you the “Chris the Brain” on YouTube has some fantastic videos about things like this. I know he’s covered it in a few videos. They are long, but he’s SUCH a good teacher. That man is an absolute fucking genius, mark my words.
You’re in for SUCH a wild ride!! I’m so excited for you. He’s opened my mind SO MUCH, and the theory he’s working on is going to be revolutionary I suspect.
PBS space time, as user friendly as it is, constantly misrepresents the nature of reality for the convenience of explanation, just as a grain of salt. Not saying it’s a bad channel, just saying it’s supposed to be entry level.
Definitely. There’s always whole swathes of nuance and you have to do that. Even so I still find some of it hard to follow.
Similar to viascience. Great introductory material that gets harder and harder the deeper you go.
Which, to me, just speaks of the incredible depth of knowledge we have and astounds me that we figured out as much as we have as it gets less and less intuitive.
Its better to not think of it as something we created in a lab. Higgs plays a part in making nature do what it does.
If you want to learn more about the Higgs Mechanism, check out this video from PBS Space Time. You might also find some good info in the comments as well.
Particles are just a way of looking at excited quantum fields. The Higgs field is always everywhere, giving things mass.
Honestly, depending on interpretation of quantum mechanics, you don’t need to acknowledge particles exist at all. It could all be fields becoming ever more entangled and wrinkled.
Photons are also bosons, right? Why do we need all the huge energy particle smashing experiment at LHC, while we can get any energy photons everywhere? What’s the difference?
No, because frequency is a fundamental quality of a wave. Things that are affected by one frequency could also be affected by another in certain cases (such as when two frequencies are integer multiples), but the waves themselves will never affect each other.
As an analogy, imagine playing a specific note on a flute. It doesn’t matter how many other notes you play, that original note will always be there alongside the others.
Thanks for the analogy! It’s pretty easy to understand how that works. I think I was imagining that EM waves shared some qualities with mechanical waves like sound, but I suppose that’s not the case!
askscience
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.