PDA

View Full Version : 6 Scientific Discoveries That Laugh in the Face of Physics



dirty_g
2012-Jan-22, 09:45 AM
As always it's cracked so watch out for bad naughty words etc..... :whistle:


http://www.cracked.com/article_19668_6-scientific-discoveries-that-laugh-in-face-physics.html

WaxRubiks
2012-Jan-22, 10:41 AM
I don't think the black hole one belongs, as all they are talking about is theory, rather than observation.

dirty_g
2012-Jan-22, 11:44 AM
Not really scientifically minded at all. But in layman's terms for the Sun article.....

Is it not possible it is hotter around the Sun than on the surface due to some kind of... well global warming effect? Something traps the heat of the sun and it rebounds back on itself? I kow that's simplistic and crazy talk. If it's baffled the brightest of minds for this long I dount my explanation will do. lol

Shaula
2012-Jan-22, 01:46 PM
There are two main theoretical mechanisms for how energy is pumped into the corona. At the moment it is probable that some combination of them accounts for most of the temperature discrepancy. What is unclear is what how the heating effect works in detail, the basic ideas are there.

The corona is very, very thin - it cannot absorb and trap heat in the way you are suggesting. It would also not result in higher temperatures that the photosphere if it did.

Swift
2012-Jan-22, 03:59 PM
A very badly written article (IMO). Even when I knew what they were talking about, I sometimes didn't understand them, or it took me a bit to get what they were saying.

The Pioneer Effect has been explained and discussed on BAUT (and it didn't upset any laws of physics). Coronal heating has also been explained and it is not just heat transfer from the surface of the sun, so their idea about why it is weird is wrong.

korjik
2012-Jan-23, 07:14 AM
#6: There are all sorts of plasma/electromagnetic effects that can heat the corona. Not laughing heard. (think about your microwave, does it heat the whole microwave, or just the food...)

#5: All plus and no minus makes gravity a big boy. No laughing here either.

#4 There are a large number of explanations. The problem is checking to see which is right. All I hear is crickets.

#3 Nothing in what they say has anything to do with conservation of energy. Still no laughter.

#2 When you are looking at 1023 atoms, even the very low probablity of a decay can happen fairly often. When you are looking at one particle that takes on average, four and a half billion years to decay, it may be a while. Still not even a snicker.

#1 Unconfirmed with a very possible >60ns error in measurement. Why is this even in this article?

Not a very good article.

fcunnane
2012-Jan-23, 09:18 AM
Still not even a snicker.

Is my favorite!

NEOWatcher
2012-Jan-23, 02:30 PM
Not a very good article.
Not good? I think it's downright wrong the way the science is misrepresented.
It's another reason that the layman doesn't trust science.

korjik
2012-Jan-23, 06:35 PM
Not good? I think it's downright wrong the way the science is misrepresented.
It's another reason that the layman doesn't trust science.

'Not good' is shorthand for an opinion that would get me banned if typed up. It always annoys me when people who never even took high school science classes want to write about science. They could at least run the article past someone who actually knows something about the subject before printing it.

Gsquare
2012-Jan-26, 04:06 AM
Not really scientifically minded at all. But in layman's terms for the Sun article.....



False assumptions in the article is what gets the author in trouble:
From the article he says:
"The heat source (the giant ball of nuclear explosions and plasma) should be the hottest thing, not the empty vacuum of space around it."

For your information....
1. The solar heat source IS the hottest thing; he simply didn't go to the interior of the sun.....It runs at about 8 million to 15 million degrees K , far hotter than the Corona.

2. The Corona is NOT "empty vacuum "; its a plasma, an ionized 'gas' of protons and electrons.

He says:
"This is the only instance in the known universe where the thing doing the heating is actually cooler than the thing it's heating."

Not;
Apparently his universe doesn't extend to my house where there is this curved piece of glass called a lens....which is far 'cooler than the thing it is heating' when radiation passes through it... :)

I also have this thing in my house called a microwave oven; the magnetron in it remains far cooler than the thiing it heats up .

G^2 ;))

caveman1917
2012-Jan-28, 04:36 AM
#2 When you are looking at 1023 atoms, even the very low probablity of a decay can happen fairly often. When you are looking at one particle that takes on average, four and a half billion years to decay, it may be a while. Still not even a snicker

That's not the point though. Basically the transition of a system from one state to another is guided by the evolution of the wave function. Whenever a measurement is performed the wave function collapses to a specific state. Suppose you measure a system as in state A and it has some probability of going to state B, if you wait some time to measure it again it will have some probability of being in state B (proportional to the square of the time you waited), if however you measure it as "still" in A you effectively "reset" the system back to its starting point. Now take the limit where you let the time interval between measurements go to zero (ie continuous measurement) and the probability of the state transition goes to zero. Continuous measurement means the system never transitions (a particle never decays for example).

The article however makes it seem as though this has something to do with "consciously watching" a particle, where a more accurate description of the act of measurement might be to "couple" the system to its environment. And the effect is perfectly normal and expected, just a bit weird-sounding at first.

novaderrik
2012-Jan-28, 06:16 AM
you guys sure know how to suck the fun out of things..

Gsquare
2012-Jan-28, 03:09 PM
you guys sure know how to suck the fun out of things..

Well; I did like the photo comparison at the end of Doc Emmitt Brown vs. Einstein. Even though they look alike you can tell who's really the smartest . I mean... where would we be without a 'flux capacitor' to get us back to the future....? ;))

...

cjameshuff
2012-Jan-28, 03:30 PM
you guys sure know how to suck the fun out of things..

It looks like yet another round of "them fancy scientists don't really know anything, they just pretend to". I don't find that sort of deliberate small-minded ignorance particularly fun.