Collection of Science Jokes P2

[Ivan Seeking]

Calling that transparent aluminium is a bit like calling (quartz) glass "transparent silicon" or lead glass "transparent lead".

Glass IS transparent silicon dioxide. What is wrong with saying that?

 

[jbriggs444]

Glass IS transparent silicon dioxide. What is wrong with saying that?

Silicon != Silicon Dioxide

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Silicon != Silicon Dioxide

Okay, transparent silicon.

 

[mfb]

It is transparent silicon dioxide, but it is not transparent silicon, because it's not silicon.

If you ask for an oxygen bottle and get a bottle of water, ...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It is transparent silicon dioxide, but it is not transparent silicon, because it's not silicon.

If you ask for an oxygen bottle and get a bottle of water, ...

Is there silicon in glass. Can you see through it. Or are you saying a silicon atom is no longer a silicon atom if it's bound to another atom?

 

[jbriggs444]

Is there silicon in glass. Can you see through it. Or are you saying a silicon atom is no longer a silicon atom if it's bound to another atom?

We normally distinguish between wood, coal, diamond, water, oxygen and carbon-dioxide. We do not normally fill a CO2 fire extinguisher with "transparent carbon".

 

[collinsmark]

Here's a spoiler regarding the recent posts. The movie also involves whales, not shown in this video.

All right, fine. Here's a whale or two for good measure.

 

[Bystander]

normally fill a CO2 fire extinguisher with "transparent carbon".

..., unless we're smuggling diamonds. (Presidio, great movie.)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We normally distinguish between wood, coal, diamond, water, oxygen and carbon-dioxide. We do not normally fill a CO2 fire extinguisher with "transparent carbon".

CO2 is transparent, right?

I can play nitpicking games all day too. :)

 

[mfb]

CO2 is transparent, right?

Yes, but it's not carbon. See above. It contains carbon.

 

[BillTre]

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, but it's not carbon. See above. It contains carbon.

So you can see through the oxygen but not the carbon. So you see little black dots?

 

[ergospherical]

So you can see through the oxygen but not the carbon. So you see little black dots?

is this a serious question or a science joke?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

is this a serious question or a science joke?

I am pointing out the fallacy in his logic.

 

[ergospherical]

I am pointing out the fallacy in his logic.

what fallacy? the optical properties of compounds like carbon dioxide are determined by the vibrational modes of the molecule (e.g. CO₂ has a symmetric stretch, an antisymmetric stretch and a bending mode), and these have frequencies in the infrared (not visible) region so it is transparent. [Although, the symmetric stretch doesn’t change the dipole moment, so actually isn’t even IR active]

It’s not like some types of individual atoms are opaque and others are transparent…

 

[fresh_42]

It is easily possible to explain dark matter and dark energy. I have discovered a truly marvelous theory of this, which this room is too dark to write down.

 

[DaveC426913]

It is easily possible to explain dark matter and dark energy. I have discovered a truly marvelous theory of this, which this room is too dark to write down.

Is this your last theorem, Mr. Freshmat?

 

[collinsmark]

 

[Hamiltonian]

the Schrodinger equation did me bad! I went into it thinking its probably beautiful and elegant as it describes the fundamental nature of reality. I couldn't have been more wrong! solving the eqn for a measly H-atom makes me cri

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It is easily possible to explain dark matter and dark energy. I have discovered a truly marvelous theory of this, which this room is too dark to write down.

Simple!

Where
E = dark energy
m = mass of dark matter

 

[Borg]

Wouldn't you have to replace that with the speed of dark?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Wouldn't you have to replace that with the speed of dark?

That's just - C. The squared value is still a positive.

Easy Peasy

I don't know what all the fuss has been.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

My psychic prediction: Everyone who reads my post will secretly run a few calculations just to be sure what I said doesn't makes sense.

 

[DaveC426913]

Wouldn't you have to replace that with the speed of dark?

Done.

 

[BillTre]

 

[Ivan Seeking]

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Today I was walking through a doorway so slowly that I started to diffract. Scared the heck out of me!

 

[Keith_McClary]

Today I was walking through a doorway so slowly that I started to diffract. Scared the heck out of me!

And the room you were walking into had two tall, narrow windows?

 

[BillTre]

 

[Ivan Seeking]

And the room you were walking into had two tall, narrow windows?

I only saw one. And I only saw one.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...which does beg the brain teaser question, can you pass through a doorway so slowly [de Broglie Wavelength] that you diffract? What happens, or why not?

 

[mfb]

Too many distractions (too much interaction with the environment) to walk through a doorway coherently.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Too many distractions (too much interaction with the environment) to walk through a doorway coherently.

Such as...?

There is one thing that ensures no one can run the experiment and get results even under ideal [Perfect] conditions.

 

[mfb]

Radiation in both directions, electromagnetic fields from the human, collisions with gas molecules even in the best vacuum we could make. Probably even gravitational interactions at that level.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Radiation in both directions, electromagnetic fields from the human, collisions with gas molecules even in the best vacuum we could make. Probably even gravitational interactions at that level.

Motion due to temperature is one problem.

But all that aside, even if we run it at near absolute zero in deep space while heavily shielded by a structure imposing zero net gravity, there is still a reason not mentioned as to why the experiment would not yield useful results...

 

[mfb]

A human at absolute zero is dead, and I don't think you can create a condition where there is no gravitational influence leading to decoherence.

 

[BillTre]

 

[BillTre]

Anti-anti-vax propaganda:

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A human at absolute zero is dead, and I don't think you can create a condition where there is no gravitational influence leading to decoherence.

It still works if you're dead. And if what you say about gravity is true, then how could any deBroglie wavelength experiment work?

But that aside, how long would it take to run the experiment? If the door is about 1 meter wide, then the frozen human body needs to have a wavelength of about 1 meter. Assuming a mass of 100 Kg... given the required velocity, IIRC the universe isn't old enough to have run the experiment.

 

[gmax137]

Anti-anti-vax propaganda:

What's this all about?

 

[BillTre]

What's this all about?
View attachment 289540

Logo of the advertising company that did this.
The funeral home is a fake, website goes to a get a vax site.

 

[fresh_42]

 

[DaveC426913]

The funeral home is a fake...

I wondered about that.
I am extremely skeptical of anything online these days.

 

[mfb]

It still works if you're dead. And if what you say about gravity is true, then how could any deBroglie wavelength experiment work?

The experiments are done with much lighter objects.

But that aside, how long would it take to run the experiment? If the door is about 1 meter wide, then the frozen human body needs to have a wavelength of about 1 meter. Assuming a mass of 100 Kg... given the required velocity, IIRC the universe isn't old enough to have run the experiment.

Compared to the other obstacles I think this is a minor concern.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The experiments are done with much lighter objects.

Cool. Let me see the proof.

Compared to the other obstacles I think this is a minor concern.

Government worker?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Cryonics - proof that cooler heads will prevail

 

[fresh_42]

Cryonics - proof that cooler heads will prevail

 

[Ivan Seeking]

View attachment 289595

Those are all eye closers!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You know the really great thing about not drinking booze?

Not drinking booze.

I quit on my 21st birthday.

 

[DaveC426913]

You know the really great thing about not drinking booze?

Not drinking booze.

I quit on my 21st birthday.

What little I drank, I am reducing even more. Not only does it give me murderous heartburn - which means I don't sleep, but - as the only driver in my fam - it can wreak havoc on evening plans. It's just too much of a hassle.