Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > General off-topic
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1461  
Old 29.05.2013, 21:35
Macchiato's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 729
Groaned at 22 Times in 15 Posts
Thanked 330 Times in 218 Posts
Macchiato is considered knowledgeableMacchiato is considered knowledgeableMacchiato is considered knowledgeable
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
They're plane trees in English.
thanks, but aren't they special type or what? because of strange shape.
many plane trees are just normal upward, but not like these lakeside ones!?
Reply With Quote
  #1462  
Old 29.05.2013, 21:37
Longbyt's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: ZH
Posts: 8,139
Groaned at 64 Times in 60 Posts
Thanked 12,980 Times in 4,732 Posts
Longbyt has a reputation beyond reputeLongbyt has a reputation beyond reputeLongbyt has a reputation beyond reputeLongbyt has a reputation beyond reputeLongbyt has a reputation beyond reputeLongbyt has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
Can someone tell me the name of typical nice looking trees, around the lakes here. Most typical, around Rapperswill lakeside .
Quote:
View Post
They're plane trees in English.
Quote:
View Post
thanks, but aren't they special type or what? because of strange shape.many plane trees are just normal upward, but not like these lakeside ones!?
They are cut back each year.
Reply With Quote
  #1463  
Old 29.05.2013, 21:37
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: At home
Posts: 4,165
Groaned at 210 Times in 135 Posts
Thanked 6,404 Times in 2,719 Posts
Faltrad has a reputation beyond reputeFaltrad has a reputation beyond reputeFaltrad has a reputation beyond reputeFaltrad has a reputation beyond reputeFaltrad has a reputation beyond reputeFaltrad has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
Can someone tell me the name of typical nice looking trees, around the lakes here. Most typical, around Rapperswill lakeside . In English or German.
Thanx
for instance:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-1282...qxuQ7SdjA-1-19
die Platane.
Reply With Quote
  #1464  
Old 29.05.2013, 21:43
Macchiato's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 729
Groaned at 22 Times in 15 Posts
Thanked 330 Times in 218 Posts
Macchiato is considered knowledgeableMacchiato is considered knowledgeableMacchiato is considered knowledgeable
Re: Ask a Scientist

thanx a lot
Reply With Quote
  #1465  
Old 29.05.2013, 22:38
ommthree's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Zürich
Posts: 275
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanked 108 Times in 67 Posts
ommthree has made some interesting contributions
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
thanks, but aren't they special type or what? because of strange shape.
many plane trees are just normal upward, but not like these lakeside ones!?
Yes, as far as I know it's just the way that they are pollarded.
Reply With Quote
  #1466  
Old 28.06.2013, 00:22
PennyMama's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: zurich
Posts: 294
Groaned at 15 Times in 9 Posts
Thanked 274 Times in 157 Posts
PennyMama has earned the respect of manyPennyMama has earned the respect of manyPennyMama has earned the respect of many
Re: Ask a Scientist

What a great thread. I cant beleive i missed it! I always have random science questions. I dont know how I will make it through the whole topic, but i want to read it all.

Two questions ive been wondering about right now are:
1.Suppose the universe is in fact spinning (googling a bit tells me this is very likely), could that be the cause of the gravitational pull on Earth, sort of like a centrifuge?

2. The big question in quantum mechanics as i understand, is how a particle sometimes acts like a particle and sometimes acts like a wave (double slit experiement). So what i wonder is how do we know that particles arent just traveling on a wave of another sort of energy? Maybe shooting them individually simply interrupts this natural pattern.
Reply With Quote
  #1467  
Old 28.06.2013, 00:31
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 8,673
Groaned at 256 Times in 222 Posts
Thanked 11,912 Times in 6,531 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
What a great thread. I cant beleive i missed it! I always have random science questions. I dont know how I will make it through the whole topic, but i want to read it all.

Two questions ive been wondering about right now are:
1.Suppose the universe is in fact spinning (googling a bit tells me this is very likely), could that be the cause of the gravitational pull on Earth, sort of like a centrifuge?

2. The big question in quantum mechanics as i understand, is how a particle sometimes acts like a particle and sometimes acts like a wave (double slit experiement). So what i wonder is how do we know that particles arent just traveling on a wave of another sort of energy? Maybe shooting them individually simply interrupts this natural pattern.
1. Spinning generates centrifugal force; this is the apparent force that draws a rotating body away from the center of rotation; that is usually in the opposite direction to gravity.

2. Ummmm....
Reply With Quote
  #1468  
Old 28.06.2013, 00:37
PennyMama's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: zurich
Posts: 294
Groaned at 15 Times in 9 Posts
Thanked 274 Times in 157 Posts
PennyMama has earned the respect of manyPennyMama has earned the respect of manyPennyMama has earned the respect of many
Re: Ask a Scientist

1. sorry. centripetal force.

2. humor me.
Reply With Quote
  #1469  
Old 28.06.2013, 15:06
PennyMama's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: zurich
Posts: 294
Groaned at 15 Times in 9 Posts
Thanked 274 Times in 157 Posts
PennyMama has earned the respect of manyPennyMama has earned the respect of manyPennyMama has earned the respect of many
Re: Ask a Scientist

Just to add to point two.. I realize I am lacking a fundamental part of understanding this topic. That is why I posted it here as a question. If you are unable or unwilling to correct my misconceptions, then there is no need to mock my lack of understanding it.
Reply With Quote
  #1470  
Old 28.06.2013, 15:15
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: At home
Posts: 4,165
Groaned at 210 Times in 135 Posts
Thanked 6,404 Times in 2,719 Posts
Faltrad has a reputation beyond reputeFaltrad has a reputation beyond reputeFaltrad has a reputation beyond reputeFaltrad has a reputation beyond reputeFaltrad has a reputation beyond reputeFaltrad has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
there is no need to mock (...).
It's internet, what do you expect?
Reply With Quote
  #1471  
Old 28.06.2013, 15:25
PennyMama's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: zurich
Posts: 294
Groaned at 15 Times in 9 Posts
Thanked 274 Times in 157 Posts
PennyMama has earned the respect of manyPennyMama has earned the respect of manyPennyMama has earned the respect of many
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
It's internet, what do you expect?

(That would get a thanks if I had the option)
Reply With Quote
  #1472  
Old 28.06.2013, 15:29
mirfield's Avatar
Moddy McModface
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Basel
Posts: 8,549
Groaned at 58 Times in 52 Posts
Thanked 9,039 Times in 3,330 Posts
mirfield has a reputation beyond reputemirfield has a reputation beyond reputemirfield has a reputation beyond reputemirfield has a reputation beyond reputemirfield has a reputation beyond reputemirfield has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
Just to add to point two.. I realize I am lacking a fundamental part of understanding this topic. That is why I posted it here as a question. If you are unable or unwilling to correct my misconceptions, then there is no need to mock my lack of understanding it.
Nearly 15 hours you spent simmering on that.

It's good that you let it out.

But for what it's worth (to my uneducated eyes).

1. Nah - 'cos gravity works towards mass, doesn't it? A spinny universe isn't going to make something gravitate toward a mountain or a moon.

2. Erm. Probably not, but what do I know?
Reply With Quote
  #1473  
Old 28.06.2013, 15:35
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 8,673
Groaned at 256 Times in 222 Posts
Thanked 11,912 Times in 6,531 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
Just to add to point two.. I realize I am lacking a fundamental part of understanding this topic. That is why I posted it here as a question. If you are unable or unwilling to correct my misconceptions, then there is no need to mock my lack of understanding it.
Not sure this helps but anyway;
On the atomic scale, physicists have found that quantum mechanics describes things very well on that scale. And when we use quantum mechanics to describe particles, electrons, protons, neutrons, etc, they are no longer thought of as point like particles whizzing around.

Particle locations in quantum mechanics are not at an exact position, they are described by a probability density function. These probability density function's shapes are often known as "electron clouds". They show where it's likely to find the electron.

If you see a diagram of these "electron clouds" then the darker regions are places of higher probability of finding the electron and the lighter (eventually fading to approximately white) regions are lower probability places of of finding the electron. Usually such diagrams are charted relatively small (less than an A4 page) but you could theoretically make them so large as the universe to show all the (white) lowest probability places.
Reply With Quote
  #1474  
Old 28.06.2013, 16:07
TidakApa's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Top of a Triangle
Posts: 3,009
Groaned at 42 Times in 33 Posts
Thanked 5,673 Times in 2,039 Posts
TidakApa has a reputation beyond reputeTidakApa has a reputation beyond reputeTidakApa has a reputation beyond reputeTidakApa has a reputation beyond reputeTidakApa has a reputation beyond reputeTidakApa has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
Two questions ive been wondering about right now are:
1.Suppose the universe is in fact spinning (googling a bit tells me this is very likely), could that be the cause of the gravitational pull on Earth, sort of like a centrifuge?

2. The big question in quantum mechanics as i understand, is how a particle sometimes acts like a particle and sometimes acts like a wave (double slit experiement). So what i wonder is how do we know that particles arent just traveling on a wave of another sort of energy? Maybe shooting them individually simply interrupts this natural pattern.
This is way outside my field but as I recall:

1. Gravitational pull is relative to the weight and density of the planet moreso than the speed it rotates (counter to centrifugal force).
eg. Earth is a bigger planet than Mars, so the gravitational pull here is stronger (I assume similar densities) here, than on Mars.... Hence why John Carter can jump so high in the movie.
A "Black Hole" for example is relatively tiny, except the density is so massive it has an incredible gravitational pull.
(I have heard that a teaspoon of matter from a black hole is about the equivilant weight of the moon - haven't got time to google that shit).
Everything that has mass, therefore has some sort of gravity.
How the empty universe spins should not affect this.

2. Are you sure you are not talking about the "Light" theory?
The light theory has both a particle and wave theory. Light behaves both like a particle and a wave.
What light is exactly, I thought was otherwise unknown.


3. As previously mentioned - this is the internet, and the laws of 'mocking' are equally open to interpretation.
The internet isn't real, so don't let it bother you.
Reply With Quote
  #1475  
Old 28.06.2013, 17:21
PennyMama's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: zurich
Posts: 294
Groaned at 15 Times in 9 Posts
Thanked 274 Times in 157 Posts
PennyMama has earned the respect of manyPennyMama has earned the respect of manyPennyMama has earned the respect of many
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
Not sure this helps but anyway;
On the atomic scale, physicists have found that quantum mechanics describes things very well on that scale. And when we use quantum mechanics to describe particles, electrons, protons, neutrons, etc, they are no longer thought of as point like particles whizzing around.

Particle locations in quantum mechanics are not at an exact position, they are described by a probability density function. These probability density function's shapes are often known as "electron clouds". They show where it's likely to find the electron.

If you see a diagram of these "electron clouds" then the darker regions are places of higher probability of finding the electron and the lighter (eventually fading to approximately white) regions are lower probability places of of finding the electron. Usually such diagrams are charted relatively small (less than an A4 page) but you could theoretically make them so large as the universe to show all the (white) lowest probability places.
Thank you for taking the time to reply.
Do we know for a fact that particles are not in an exact location? I really am interested in the studies that lead to this conclusion and maybe someone can direct me? I follow how the quantum rules of probability allow us to predict their behaviour, but what I get stuck on is how we can conclude from that that they ARE probability. Knowing their probability doesn't mean that is all they are. For a random example that I hope can help me express what I am getting at, if I were travelling down a water slide which splits at multiple points, you might be able to predict with accuracy what are the chances I will land in the pool in the left and what are the chances the guy behind me will land in the pool on the right, but that fact doesn't prove that we weren't really in a specific location beforehand.
Reply With Quote
  #1476  
Old 29.06.2013, 17:43
FrankZappa's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: France, near Geneva
Posts: 795
Groaned at 7 Times in 6 Posts
Thanked 2,503 Times in 621 Posts
FrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
What a great thread. I cant beleive i missed it! I always have random science questions. I dont know how I will make it through the whole topic, but i want to read it all.

Two questions ive been wondering about right now are:
1.Suppose the universe is in fact spinning (googling a bit tells me this is very likely), could that be the cause of the gravitational pull on Earth, sort of like a centrifuge?

2. The big question in quantum mechanics as i understand, is how a particle sometimes acts like a particle and sometimes acts like a wave (double slit experiement). So what i wonder is how do we know that particles arent just traveling on a wave of another sort of energy? Maybe shooting them individually simply interrupts this natural pattern.
1. No, gravitational attraction is completely separate. As Newton showed, its strength is simply calculated by multiplying the masses of the two bodies together and dividing that by the square of the distance between their centres. To get the exact answer, you then multiply this by "the universal constant of gravitational".
2. This is not a big question in quantum mechanics. It is a big problem for humans to get a grip on. In the quantum world objects like photons (light) and electrons are particles and waves at the same time. Sometimes we can understand their behavior by assuming that they are waves. Sometimes we can understand their behavior by assuming they are particles.

In our world of large objects this duality exists too, but we never need to worry about the wave properties of a golf ball, because it spends all its time behaving in away that can be understood by assuming that it is a particle. We are used to things being either black or white. They cannot be both at the same time. In the quantum world of tiny objects that is no longer true.

It took scientists a very long time to understand this point. Newton was convinced light was particles. Thomas Young, who partly decoded hieroglyphics, was convinced it was waves, so they and lots of other scientists all had a lovely time being rude to each other about how wrong the other lot were.
Reply With Quote
  #1477  
Old 29.06.2013, 17:58
Pancakes's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Zurich
Posts: 2,899
Groaned at 96 Times in 64 Posts
Thanked 4,524 Times in 1,799 Posts
Pancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Light is indeed enigmatic. It is everywhere, yet we cannot see it. A physicist I know at the ETH has a theory that the Universe is actually one giant photon.

PennyMama, there are some great books on the nature of light. Here are two that I suggest:

1. Catching the Light: The Entwined Nature of Light and Mind, by Arthur Zajonc (this book is very easy to understand and is a really fascinating read).

2. QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, by the late, great Richard Feynman (this one is a bit more complex and at times difficult to understand).

What I find most interesting about light (photons) is that it acts intelligently, almost as if it is a conscious entity (e.g. quantum entanglement). I once asked an astrophysicist friend of mine (who happens to be an atheist), "If there is one thing in the Universe that you would consider to be both omniscient and omnipotent, what would it be?" He answered: "A photon, because it has the ability to experience infinity in one single instance."

All is connected.

Last edited by Pancakes; 29.06.2013 at 20:40.
Reply With Quote
  #1478  
Old 30.06.2013, 01:18
PennyMama's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: zurich
Posts: 294
Groaned at 15 Times in 9 Posts
Thanked 274 Times in 157 Posts
PennyMama has earned the respect of manyPennyMama has earned the respect of manyPennyMama has earned the respect of many
Re: Ask a Scientist

Thanks for all the helpful answers! Im going to do a bit more reading.
Reply With Quote
  #1479  
Old 02.07.2013, 11:24
mirfield's Avatar
Moddy McModface
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Basel
Posts: 8,549
Groaned at 58 Times in 52 Posts
Thanked 9,039 Times in 3,330 Posts
mirfield has a reputation beyond reputemirfield has a reputation beyond reputemirfield has a reputation beyond reputemirfield has a reputation beyond reputemirfield has a reputation beyond reputemirfield has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

They always talk about cooking food properly to kill bacteria and stuff, but how far can that work?

If you were in an eat or die situation and the only thing you could find on your desert island was a putrifying chicken casserole, would boiling it and simmering for a couple of hours render it safe to eat?
Reply With Quote
  #1480  
Old 02.07.2013, 11:33
Caviarchips's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Basel Stadt
Posts: 4,004
Groaned at 110 Times in 83 Posts
Thanked 6,677 Times in 2,388 Posts
Caviarchips has a reputation beyond reputeCaviarchips has a reputation beyond reputeCaviarchips has a reputation beyond reputeCaviarchips has a reputation beyond reputeCaviarchips has a reputation beyond reputeCaviarchips has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Ask a Scientist

Quote:
View Post
They always talk about cooking food properly to kill bacteria and stuff, but how far can that work?

If you were in an eat or die situation and the only thing you could find on your desert island was a putrifying chicken casserole, would boiling it and simmering for a couple of hours render it safe to eat?
I THINK that cooking kills bacteria which therefore cannot get into your body live and cause havoc, but cooking won't render any toxins which have formed during rotting any less poisonous
Reply With Quote
Reply




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Average salary for post-doctoral scientist barish Employment 87 01.10.2008 14:27
Wanted: Drug Metabolism Scientist to work in major Pharma, Basel Caroline Jobs wanted 0 20.09.2007 19:00
Surfing Scientist!!! Sarge Jobs wanted 2 24.05.2007 03:38


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:38.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0