Sure—just like every particle in every embryo is entangled with every particle of the mother’s uterus and every other thing they’ve ever interacted with.
In order for entanglement to be useful, the particles in question need to be isolated from everything else.
Absolutely. Sound waves are vibrations. Vibrations can be transmitted to other materials. Like electrical conductors, some materials conduct sound better than others. The amount of energy in sound is pretty low, so it’s not going to create a lot of heat or light, unless we’re talking about sound levels that would be dangerous to not only hearing but would cause death.
10 years is actually considered not bad by most academic standards. The core ideas of evolution via selection, genetics, and population dynamics (the kinds of things taught in any general biology class in high school and college) really haven’t changed much in 25 years.
You may want to find a biology class and learn about the vocabulary, founding principles, and big ideas. Here is a free open source biology textbook, chapter 18 starts the unit on evolutionary processes. And keep watching YouTube! There are tons of good videos aimed at different levels. “Crash Course” with Hank Green is fantastic and the series covers many academic science topics as an entire course. Biology alone has 20 or 30 ten-minute episodes.
Crash Course is the channel I was watching, specifically the Big History series. I LOVE Crash Course, but of course the nature of it is that they can’t get too detailed with any given subject. I kind of wish they drilled down into a couple of things more: 1) evolution of animals during the time between dinosaurs going extinct and the arrival of hominids, and 2) different types of hominids. So that’s the sort of stuff I want to learn about next.
Ah, well this just happens to be something I’m into! There is a NOVA movie about the chicxulub (pronounced chick-zaloob) asteroid that hit Mexico and initiated the extinction of the dinosaurs. It’s called The Day the Dinos Died, season 44 episode 21. It’ll show you the ways scientists use different pieces of evidence to create a timeline of the destruction based on new fossils in South Dakota. Very new and cutting edge. They actually found a fragment of the original asteroid.
At the time, our mammal ancestor was kinda like a squirrel rat, nocturnal and lived underground. It would take 5 million more years before our intrepid grandma would venture out of the ground and inherit the Earth. 65 million years later, mammals are the wonderful animals we see today.
Ok, want your mind blown? There is a book called Evolution by Stephen Baxter. It’s fiction but it tells the story of hominid evolution starting from the Chicxulub asteroid. Each chapter is a segment of the life of one likely ancestor on the road to modern humans over those 65 million years. It’s very well written and puts together many well accepted pieces of evidence in a compelling way.
By the way, physical anthropology is the name of the field that covers hominid and human evolution and is it’s own subject.
Why is #1 an issue? You’re assuming physics at a subatomic level works the same as that at a macroscopic level, but they don’t. Things don’t have well defined boundaries.
I don’t think it’s likely that there is a minimum volume, at least not a discrete quantized one. It would have to be a [regular honeycomb tessellation](en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeycomb_(geometry)) that shows no bias towards any particular direction (i.e. no corners). There are no shapes that fulfill both of those conditions in 3D space.
Inside a sphere of constant density, gravity is linearly related to distance from the center.
So for example the Earth has a radius of ~4000 miles. Assuming it has constant density, a 200 pound man would be weightless at its center, weigh 0.2 pounds at 4 miles from the center, weigh 2 pounds at 40 miles from the center, weigh 100 pounds at halfway to the surface, and so on.
So the larger the star, given that most (or all) aren’t uniform, there will come a gradient of gravity at its center that one can’t even call it low gravity - it’s heavy material is simply churning too much for their to be a stable center of gravity?
I think the best way to visualize it is that when you are inside a star, you are effectively “standing” on a smaller star. Everything behind you can theoretically be ignored. When you are very close to the center, you are standing on a very tiny star.
Imagine you are standing on the surface of Earth, and you weighed 200 pounds.
Now imagine Earth were magically transported to the center of the sun, completely replacing an equal volume of solar core. Inside the very middle of the sun, standing on planet earth, you would still weigh 200 pounds. The gravity of all the solar mass surrounding the Earth would cancel out.
If you traveled upwards, to the surface of the sun, your weight would increase. At the sun’s surface, you would weigh 5400 pounds.
It’s kind of interesting to think of society like a videogame. Like we put our stats in oil and tech. But not much in biotech. The different style of civilisation advancement we are missing out on could be wild. But we can’t go back and play the game from the start again, so we’ll never see what that’s like.
Could be computers built off of nerves instead of wires. Computers that grow and multiply. I wonder if it could lead to a new understanding of the nature around us and how we all fit and play a role in the galaxy.
Maybe our desire to explore space is immature. There may be whole other types of space that we can’t see because we don’t have the tech.
We already have a lot of biotech and even some biocomputers. The main issue is that bio structures are fragile for our common use cases.
We also have self replicating machines, 3D printers for example. They are as much as alive as viruses as both require some input from the hosts for full replication cycle. It’s just that most people don’t think about 3D printers as alive and self replicating beings.
Continental drift or just the idea that the continents move. And it makes sense, looking at a map of the earth, you can clearly see that some landmasses look like they fit together like puzzle pieces. Combined with the fossil record with also supported this, it seems obvious to us now, the continents were once all one landmass. However, back then, the issue was Alfred Wegener, who came up with continental drift, didn’t have an adequate mechanism for how it worked. The question on everyone’s mind was, if the continents moved, HOW did they move? There wasn’t a good answer. It was suggested at one point that the continents maybe just plowed through the ocean crust. But that idea doesn’t work because the ocean crust is too rigid. So without any mechanism to get it to work, many geologists simply dismissed the idea. And to be fair to them, most of what Wegener claimed was indeed wrong.
Further advancements in geology and technology allowed for a better understanding of the earth. A key finding was paleomagnetic stripes on the ocean floor which proved that the earth’s crust, and the continents must be moving. This, combined with other evidence helped construct the modern theory of plate tectonics.
I’d say this is probably thermal cycling. Some polymers can degrade with repeated thermal cycling (ie tires ‘cycling out’). Google scholar has a few papers on it.
That’s one hell of an assumption. It’s not gonna break down equally across the entire spring. Whatever the weakest point is will eventually wear away first and cause it to break because of all the tension in it.
Even if it could dissolve equally across the entire spring, the outer parts would go first and it eventually will dissolve away from the things holding it in place and release that tension. If it doesn’t just break due to the dissolving metal weakening the structure while still under tension.
I feel like to get the meat and potatoes of the question a better way of asking would be what would happen to the potential energy if the spring was instantly vaporized, like by a Star Trek phaser.
I would imagine that as the tiny bits of the spring are released from one another, the stored energy would be released as a small force within the acid. That is, even if the reaction was perfect down to the molecular level, the new molecule combination would be “launched” away from the spring more vigorously than if the spring weren’t compressed. So you’d end up with the acid being “stirred” a bit by the reaction.
askscience
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.