Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I cannot suggest a test. Folks working on string theory will eventually.

String theorists might eventually propose tests showing gravity is a form of magnetism or some means of unifying field theories too, but until they do, I still consider comments like "gravity is a form of magnetism" and "'charge' seems to be an ability of a certain looped standing wave to harmonize or not to harmonize with another wave" to be what I call "brain farts" if the people saying them can't say how those ideas can be tested. Note I didn't say the ideas are wrong, since I can't prove they are wrong, but it's not really helping much to say such things if you can't say how such ideas can be tested in experiments.

"...elementary particles travel as waves in quantum theory". That's from Lee Smolin, looped quantum gravity proponent.

So a neutrino is an elementary particle and it travels as a wave, what does that have to do with charge? Nothing. The neutrino has no charge. Elementary particles called quarks can't even travel by themselves, and they have charge so you're linking an idea to charge which isn't directly relevant to your claim about charge on several levels.

originally posted by: greenreflections
there is question any one to help me to follow (or not to follow)) my line of thinking:

Noob (complete) is here.

This thread is open for anybody who knows physics to answer questions, but based on your self-description here and your answers it's apparent there is more physics you don't know than what you do know, and there are plenty of qualified people to answer the questions so I'd prefer if you'd allow those more qualified to answer. Your answers as "complete noob" may only serve to confuse the person asking the question.

Say, hydrogen atom. When I imagine it I see a sphere. That sphere to my humble knowledge is made of layers. Core layer is positive proton cloud and outter layer is an electron cloud.

You can refer to "electron cloud" but the proton isn't a "cloud", we have some conflicting measurements of its diameter using different methods but none of the measurement methods suggest it's a "cloud" only that the diameter varies somewhat from measurement method to measurement method. The muon measurement method is thought to be perhaps more accurate than the electron measurement method since muons orbitals get closer to the protons due to their larger mass.

Question, is it valid to picture H atom as a sphere?

That would be an over-simplified model which will at some point give you the wrong prediction for an experimental test. Even if you referred specifically to the shape of the electron cloud its shape depends on how much energy it has and what orbital it's occupying. All of these electron orbitals are calculated for the hydrogen atom and as you can see some are spherical,but most aren't.

Wave Function

Second question, why overlap instead of mixing electron cloud with proton cloud?

Who said there's no mixing? The electron (or muon) "cloud" can be described as a description of the probabilities of finding the electron (or muon) at certain locations (which are plotted in the above "wave function" plots), and there is a finite but small probability that the electron will be in the same place as the proton. With a muon the probability is larger it will be in the same place as the proton because the orbital is so much closer, though the probability is still relatively small because of the proton's small size relative to the size of the muon's (and the electron's) wave function.

Third, with how I picture it where electron cloud layered around proton cloud, can and is electron cloud affect an opposite side of it through proton cloud? Does it penetrate it? Can negative connect to another negative directly through positive barrier?

I don't really understand the question, but interactions between atoms get a little complicated, as they obey the rules of quantum mechanics, which explain why two hydrogen atoms bond to form an H2 molecule, and also why three hydrogen atoms don't bond to form an H3 molecule. There is some interaction between the electron of each hydrogen atom and the bonded proton and the rules of QM allows the H2 bond to form but there's not a stable H3 bond according to the same rules, so any attempt to over-simplify an answer to this will not explain this phenomenon of H2 being stable but H3 not being stable.

originally posted by: pfishy
Ok, been a while. But I have a new question. How would a sample of Radium react under neutron bombardment from a 1 Curie AM241/BE source? Assuming the Radium sample is approximately 500 milliCurie.

As the young experimenter who did that found out, not very much, at least not on his first attempt. He bought smoke detectors in bulk to extract the AM241 and bought an antique clock that had a bottle of radium paint inside of it so you could re-paint the clock when it stopped glowing in the dark.

So when it didn't do much, he then pretended to be a high school teacher who was going to perform a classroom demonstration of radioactivity, and phoned a nuclear physicist at a university to ask why nothing was happening, and the very helpful professor replied that his neutrons were "too fast" and he needed to slow them down. So the kid followed the prof's advice and slowed down the neutrons and then the radium started getting "hot" in both the thermal and radioactive sense. We were never in any danger of him blowing anything up, but the experimenter was in danger of ending up like Madame Curie, possibly dying from experiments with radiation without a full understanding of the phenomenon. They had to send it a hazmat team to clean up that kid's mess at some considerable expense to taxpayers. Someone posted a link to that story earlier in the thread, but I have no idea what page it was on.

originally posted by: Jukiodone

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Jukiodone

Puthoff et.al. seem to think there is some sort of time based bleed off from the distorted reference frame.

Meh. Maybe it's a "Johnson noise rectifier" for virtual particles.

Just spent spare time over 3 days reading upon on Stochastic Electro-Dynamics via a rather large detour around lasers.

Got any more amusing imaginary technologies that sound a bit rude (for that other guy)?



"Brownian Motion Inverter" would have Big Bro Darkness in tangles.

I certinally do enjoy some entanglement consentual and of the female sort doesnt matter what shade the light reflects off of it either... but hair does not make good dental floss at all, theres these two fellows parker and stone that say it makes great tampons, well yeah thats understandible and why many ladies trim the area... of course none at all is a bit perverse imho, but maybe not as rediculous as a strip she looks down and theres Hitler.

The best thing ever I think is informing avg Joe that a vagina is actually just very small undeveloped male gentialia due to hormone expression from the ol Y chromosome and that ovaries are just undecended testicles and that nice bulbous spot on the upper anterior that pouch theyd have been in, of course the skenes gland stimulation the same ones we have to prelubricate the uretha will cause that infamous orgasm that empties out the hidden prostate that does fill and refill with a fuild with each clitoral orgasm...

oh no have I said too much? Have I not said enough... the funny thing is the gender inequality that comes from ignorance of such things. Like getting cray cray over bathroom laws people preference of testicles decended or not in their partner yadda yadda yadda and well control of that whole moral nature based on belief is sorta unbelievable. States rights without a fed to say wait you non separating church from state bastards back it up to where it was intended to be... so we can have a peaceful ethical society that moves towards advancment and equality than separatist ignorant discrimination pushed as force and control. My body my right means politics has no business claiming someones womb or body as state or federal property... no sperm ever said hey you know what would be grand lets be born in america no one chose where they were born nor what skin tone, but boy do imaginary lines become all sorts of fun to contend with or be subjected too due to no ones fault of their own. So the ironic thanks is in order I guess... for the privy to be alive within these silly lines and controlled thusly... its like tug o war hey congrats heres your belt that chains you to our line of concepts lil baby dont worry youll grow into it now get to pulling ya lil stinker.

My comedy is a bit cynical at times especially when political in nature. Of course im not saying with a lot of things that they dont exist there is contact and there is an effect of that various contact but describing that contact is a concept and building a conceptual ladder to climb from one concept rung to another is what eventually leads to finding it wrung out... that going back and reinvestigation accepted theories objectively does reopen more avenues and means of discovery... stuck in the terms and dogma as truth just because it is accepted doesnt make it any more truth, if it works it stands on its own it needs no help, of course that doesnt mean it floats in all areas possible so thats why hey it works here... is the actual reality of it with a statistical repeatability change the varibles and poof the limitation becomes very aparent.

Like arguing specifics. Its a blanket no its a duvet, no its a comforter, no its a spread... its just a damn rectangle of material typically used to cover someone while sleeping... but even that utilization can change to table cloth dust cover etc. and thats the key how it is applied varies and correlation is just that, even though many accept simple correlation as truth it is still just a belief a small effect and not the whole end all be all.

opps I left my fingers on automatic tldr dont care works just as well for anyone not interested with any of this hell im even bored with it... but it does have a real effect and one of a positive nature towards growth and advancement and understanding as a side effect so fugg it why not? Cause Ill never see a vagina the same way again? Well toughen up buttercup thats just reality.

Since I didn't see a thread concerning biology questions I'm just going to ask my question here (also because it's related to applied physics).

DNA sequencing is usually done by sequencing the DNA in sections and then assembling them all together using algorithms and templates to determin which sections go where in the genome of a particular organism, how they line up (when assembling a sequence for whole genomes for example). What maximum length (number of nucleobases) can be sequenced in one go for a particular section of DNA without doing any assembly given our current sequencing technology?

And what specific DNA sequencing technology focuses on increasing the length per section being sequenced? Or which technology is most specialized in that aspect? Which would be related to the maximum number of nucleobases per sequenced section that our technology can accomplish that I'm asking for (caveat: I am not interested in explanations of other directions of development that a person may feel is more valuable to the subject of DNA sequencing, I am specificly interested in the length per sequenced section and the technology that uses the longest lengths or biggest chunks of DNA).

Just as a sidenote or sidequestion something that I'll probably lookup on wikipedia once I know more about the above:

What do you people know about the total size or length of Mitochondrial DNA in different organisms (so you can for example list your organism followed by the size of its Mitochondrial DNA).

For example:

In humans, the 16,569 base pairs of mitochondrial DNA...

Source: Mitochondrial DNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So that would make:

Humans: 16,569 bp (nucleobases counted as a pair, no need to double that for me, sequencing goes per pair cause you only need to read one strand to know the other)

You can focus on organisms with a small amount of Mitochondrial DNA.

a reply to: whereislogic

google "shortest mtdna" ->

"The smallest mitochondrial genome sequenced to date is the 5967bp mtDNA of the parasite Plasmodium falciparum."

originally posted by: whereislogic
Since I didn't see a thread concerning biology questions I'm just going to ask my question here (also because it's related to applied physics).

If you don't see a thread about DNA you can start one. I started this thread and I have some knowledge of physics but only a rudimentary knowledge of DNA. There are people on ATS with expertise in DNA but they won't know their expertise is needed in a physics thread, and while one can claim any branch of science is "applied physics" it's really a stretch.

You've got plenty of posts to start a thread and I think you'll have better luck if you do that. If you must piggyback on an existing thread, at least piggyback on one with DNA as the topic, such as:

Scientists encode, retrieve 10,000 gigabytes stored on DNA molecules
DNA Self Assembly, Abiogenesis and How Science REALLY Works
Do you have Neanderthal DNA?
DNA Deciphers Roots of Modern Europeans

Or maybe you can find one closer to the topic you're interested in if you do a search, that's just a sample of what came up in my search but I didn't look too hard for your topic. Even if you can't find a thread on your topic, why not start one?

So aside from the fact it's applied physics and so is every other branch of science, it's not the intended topic of this thread and more importantly I can't help you because I would be better suited to ask questions about DNA, not answer them.

a reply to: whereislogic

Here is a story from NIST where they invented protein scanning of DNA. Their thought is to replace protein chunks with graphene.

Researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have simulated a new concept for rapid, accurate gene sequencing by pulling a DNA molecule through a tiny, chemically activated hole in graphene--an ultrathin sheet of carbon atoms--and detecting changes in electrical current.

The NIST study suggests the method could identify about 66 billion bases--the smallest units of genetic information--per second with 90 percent accuracy and no false positives. If demonstrated experimentally, the NIST method might ultimately be faster and cheaper than conventional DNA sequencing, meeting a critical need for applications such as forensics.

Source: SciendeDaily - Fast, accurate DNA sequencing through graphene nanopore

NIST have the theory thought out and show computationally it is a feasible method. Now they need to create a reader so they can pull half a strand of DNA through it. Their plan is stacking the readers four high for complete base pair coverage and error detection. Since they are the ones who devised the protein base pair detection this method/tech looks promising!

a reply to: Arbitrageur
Well, it's also a spectroscopy question, you or other physicists here might have known some more details about what's currently possible in that regards. That's why I asked here.

I'm afraid I won't be able to get a quick answer in any of the threads you suggested. Then again, I wasn't expecting a quick answer. But in 3 of those threads I'd have to revive an old thread.

Oh, and TEO... and anyone else who might propose similar types of groundbreaking news interesting to no doubt many people here on ATS, please keep the ending of my question in mind:

...given our current sequencing technology?

I'm not particularly interested in the latest unrealized exciting and attention drawing idea, just wanna know what's possible now. It doesn't have to be the latest technology, if older technology was more focussed on large chunks of DNA (which might be the case from what I've heard about this subject), then I'd like to know what the capabilities of this older technology are in terms of maximum chunksize (btw, accuracy is also much more vital to me than getting a maximum length, it's not a contest).

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I also didn't and still don't really want to start a whole thread for just satisfying a curiosity. This thread seemed very inviting with the title "Ask any question you want about Physics". And even though my question may be quite different than the usual general physics questions, I do consider spectroscopy as a subfield of physics. A quite interesting and important field of physics for my taste.

So I thought I'd just add to the thousands of comments already in this thread, seemed the most appropiate in this case rather than ask in another thread that is actually about a different subject than the details of spectroscopy (even though it may be about DNA).

a reply to: whereislogic

Ive read that all species DNA has the encoding of all other species DNA coding found within it those present as well as those extinct, as a part of life and evolution (adaptation to adversity) so fact at this point not an argument. These sequences will vary and reconstruction as the species requires to whatever adversity, either through mutation, environmental changes, etc. so which chain in particular actually becomes a moot argument except for specific biological engineering, of course sticking our thumbs in the pot and stirring it, has caused hive collapse in Bees by disruption of the nictonic receptors, also found in all mammals... cant wait for that effect on us leeching into all water, DDT used to be a good thing until it threatened birds and had to be banned, not to mention the thumbs in the mosquito population trying to extinct them, with the Zika virus as a result as they too adapt to adversity, and well i say thumbs... because such ignorance is not bliss... want to control pests from crops? Well add more crops alongside them as many other plants are deterents to these pests naturally.

Yet an area of science neglected, or porrly understood or not studied or advanced so one industry can manipulate dominate and well posion us all in the end... they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but when those intentions are greed paving the way? Non existence is that inheritance.

@ 280558854 can you please now invite a chemistry student and or expert now ... please.

thanks.
aaaarc

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I also didn't and still don't really want to start a whole thread for just satisfying a curiosity. This thread seemed very inviting with the title "Ask any question you want about Physics". And even though my question may be quite different than the usual general physics questions, I do consider spectroscopy as a subfield of physics. A quite interesting and important field of physics for my taste.

So I thought I'd just add to the thousands of comments already in this thread, seemed the most appropiate in this case rather than ask in another thread that is actually about a different subject than the details of spectroscopy (even though it may be about DNA).

Here you go - one research article appearing just this week:

Single molecule electronic DNA sequencing advanced
Date:
April 22, 2016
Source:
Columbia University School of Engineering and Applied Science

Researchers from Columbia University, with colleagues at Genia Technologies (Roche), Harvard University and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report achieving real-time single molecule electronic DNA sequencing at single-base resolution using a protein nanopore array.

www.sciencedaily.com...

This one is very interesting - sequencing using graphene nanopores:

Fast, accurate DNA sequencing through graphene nanopore
Date:
January 15, 2016

Researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have simulated a new concept for rapid, accurate gene sequencing by pulling a DNA molecule through a tiny, chemically activated hole in graphene--an ultrathin sheet of carbon atoms--and detecting changes in electrical current.

www.sciencedaily.com...

You can find links to the journal articles at the bottom of the page.

a reply to: whereislogic

To answer your question Sanger sequencing is no longer done. It was complicated and time intensive using this method it took 10 years and 3 billion dollars to sequence the human genome. Now it can be done I'm a weekend costing about 1000.00 with far more acuracy. We can now sequencr 300 kilobases up to 1 terabase in a single run. There no longer is over lap like Sanger method because necleotide markers are added at the end of the runs meaning easier to match and no overlap.

Here is the equipment my university has if interested.
www.illumina.com...

One more thing length of a genome in no way determines the complexities of the organism. There are fish with 3 times the human genome. What determines length is thr number of scars in thr DNA sequence think of it as whole replacements of code. These don't replace the old code just make it useless and it becomes junk DNA. Think of this as a major adaptation of thr species. And there are species out there that had to adapt to their environment far more than humans have.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Wave Function

besides, this is just a calculation from some fancy computer program and not a real picture, those calculations and so this made of picture works for one electron model of an atom only.

please stop posting confusing pictures telling the wrong story, people are getting the wrong impressions of reality...

this picture shows absolutely NOTHING like a real atom looks like.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

String theorists might eventually propose tests showing gravity is a form of magnetism or some means of unifying field theories too, but until they do, I still consider comments like "gravity is a form of magnetism" and "'charge' seems to be an ability of a certain looped standing wave to harmonize or not to harmonize with another wave" to be what I call "brain farts" if the people saying them can't say how those ideas can be tested

I only explore the possibilities since no theory as of right now can claim to figure out cosmology thing.

Up until this question is open people will propose all sort of own explanations and you cannot blame them for that.

Thank you for your exceptionally sharp response!

a reply to: dragonridr
Thanks for answering the question, I learned something. I knew that tech was advancing fast but according to your figures it sounds like the advancement pace exceeds Moore's law in the computer field.

originally posted by: KrzYma
besides, this is just a calculation from some fancy computer program and not a real picture, those calculations and so this made of picture works for one electron model of an atom only.

please stop posting confusing pictures telling the wrong story, people are getting the wrong impressions of reality...

this picture shows absolutely NOTHING like a real atom looks like.

Those are computer calculated probability plots, but the real pictures look very much like the computer predictions:

New Microscope Reveals the Shape of Atoms

Originally posted by VitalOverdose
reply to post by Nathwa

 

Well it proves that the maths we have been using to simulate atoms and the theories we have come up with about the way they work are correct. It means we are on the right track to understanding how the universe works.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/48da3d162815.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/68cbe40a92ea.gif[/atsimg]
We are indeed clever little monkeys

originally posted by: greenreflections
I only explore the possibilities since no theory as of right now can claim to figure out cosmology thing.

Up until this question is open people will propose all sort of own explanations and you cannot blame them for that.

If scientific explanations are proposed, I have no problem with that, but your comment was not not that.

Thank you for your exceptionally sharp response!

I guess you've never been to the physicsforums if you think that was a sharp response. They are flooded with nonsense speculations of that nature and therefore don't allow such comments. There, you can only discuss things of a scientific nature, that is regarding research published in respectable journals. This board is much less strict, however it does have special forums for posting such personal speculations which are not supported by any science, so you are allowed to post non-scientific speculations here but in a forum like skunk works, not the science forum.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

String theorists might eventually propose tests showing gravity is a form of magnetism or some means of unifying field theories

I don't think they will in a sense to tie all at once using one of the theories. I think some sort of set of formulas will describe dependencies of GR and QM that will make it a physical law and self sufficient.

So, given your diagram, should I visualize H atom is a sphere?

Wave function. Tell me more about it. Your pics tell me there is a sphere caught up at different instances of its existence.
Meaning, there is still a spherical pattern in all pictures in you diagram.

Can negative charge wrap around positive to form a layer?

If no, how far negative extends, and if 'yes' how much of negative it takes before wrapping around it to connect itself around it forming the core and the layer?

How 'positive' acquire necessary 'negative' portion off to equalize? Say, new set of proton cloud is formed, how and from where it is getting necessary negative to cancel out to ensure solid and stable bond? Does it borrow negative values as needed?

thanks)

to Arbi (if I may)

Why do you think all object inside gravity well fall at the same speed?

thanks)

originally posted by: greenreflections
So, given your diagram, should I visualize H atom is a sphere?

It depends on the purpose of the visualization. If the electron is not in one of the spherically symmetrical orbitals it won't look like a sphere.

Wave function. Tell me more about it. Your pics tell me there is a sphere caught up at different instances of its existence.
Meaning, there is still a spherical pattern in all pictures in you diagram.

I see a spherically symmetrical probability density plot in exactly 3 out of the 19 orbitals. If you see "a spherical pattern in all pictures" I suggest a visit to an eye doctor. 16 of them are not spherically symmetrical.

Can negative charge wrap around positive to form a layer?

I don't know if "layer" is a good descriptor, anyway you can see the shapes of the electron probability density plots, where the positively charged nucleus of the hydrogen atom would be at the center. I think your prior description of "electron cloud" might fit better than "layer". You see the probabilities fade out as the electron gets further from the nucleus but the diagrams don't show 100% of the probability density plot. Some of the more distant possible positions are not shown as they would be off the scale of these diagrams.

How 'positive' acquire necessary 'negative' portion off to equalize? Say, new set of proton cloud is formed..

I already explained proton is not a cloud. You're not encouraging me to answer your questions if you're not reading my previous answers, such as this one:

You can refer to "electron cloud" but the proton isn't a "cloud"

How many times are you going to make me say it's not a "proton cloud"?

originally posted by: greenreflections
to Arbi (if I may)

Why do you think all object inside gravity well fall at the same speed?

They don't. The Earth's gravity well follows the inverse square law so the astronauts on the ISS experience only about 90% of the gravity we experience here near the surface, so they won't fall as fast as we will since we are in a "deeper" part of the gravity well.

If the question is changed to ask why two different mass objects dropped from the leaning tower of Pisa fall at the same rate, it's because the larger mass has a proportionately larger acceleration "force" applied to it such that it falls at the same rate as the less massive object.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I already explained proton is not a cloud.

It is. It is made of stuff. It is made of quark cloud.


thanks)

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Why do you think all object inside gravity well fall at the same speed?

They don't.

they do.