AndresKiani

Please fully explain your point because your just throwing around obvious facts. What is your point? I understand what you mean by the mathematics however. My main point is this, if you think about the question of whether or not we can reach the state of absolute zero or not? I believe that besides the fact that the elementary particles of matter perhaps experience quantum fluctuations in which their motion never comes to complete halt in which we could measure. Thus perhaps there will always be remaining kinetic energy. Though my initial explanation was much more basic than that. Without the notion of quantum mechanics, absolute zero to me still seems impossible due to basic and pure thermodynamical postulations in which energy always flows from high energetic systems to low energetic systems. Thus, inorder to extract that last bit of energy one must utilize an instance of lower energy than 0K to effectively extract that energy and thus makes it impossible in based upon our current universal laws.

Yes it's subjective but it's subjective with experience and knowledge. I have a lot of biochemist friends. A lot, I don't know what it is, but it seems Biochemistry is a popular major at my university. Most of them will expect a 80 to 90K pay salary at some point and talking to professional biochemist they are well above 100k a year. I was originally a Neuroscience major before I switched to Physics, and so I know pretty familiar with most biology related majors and jobs. Biochemistry is definitely more in demand than Neuroscience, Genetics, Cell Biology, Developmental Biology, Microbiology, and these fields that I mentioned are much higher in depend than Zoology, General Biology, Plant Biology, Ecology, and other Wild Life Biology. Ofcourse you will need a Phd in most cases unless your going straight into the industry you might not need it. Specially for Biochemistry, most of the people I know are not planning on going into graduate school unless is needed. I was just talking to a kid just yesterday he's a Biochem major and he's father is Biochemist with a BS and he's only planning on a BS. He also told me he's father is making 100k a year working for HCMC.

Well what I mean is that inorder to extract that last bit of energy wouldn't you need something with less kinetic energy to absorb it, thus making it nearly impossible to reach 0 K? I referred to entropy because in our universe.. we don't see objects with less energy favorably losing more and more energy around systems of higher energy. I understand 0 K means no kinetic energy, no kinetic energy means the particle has no center of mass motion, trust me. This was actually one of my professors arguments when a student asked him the very same question last summer he said that if we take a look at mass and energy, referring to 0 K kinetic energy, than it would be impossible to reach it because you would essential need eliminate the mass of the object for it to successfully reach 0 K.

Yes I didn't realize you were using a strong base. Strong bases in addition reactions lean towards anti-Markovnikov additions. Strong acids on the other hand follow markovnikov but are susceptible to various undesirable rearrangement. When Hg(OAc) I used however as you know allows us to evade these rearrangements and still follow a markovnikov pattern.

In physics my friend, we make small predictions and establish small footsteps before making large leaps. This seems to have worked best for us in physics. Bluemercury, I'm in Genetics right now, though I'm a physics major by heart lol. There is no favorable comparison between strings in string theory and DNA. It's worse than comparing apples and oranges because apples and oranges are both fruits even though they are not the same type of fruit.

And how accurate is it to describe the strings in string theory as what we describe to be stringy? What if they are more like rubber bands, I've always imagined them as such lol.

The problem is that our human brains do not understand the timescales of macroevolution. The timescale of evolution is dictated by long periods of punctuated equilibrium, which I'm sure to the observe seems to be static state. However biologists need to understand that the entire universe is under influence by the physical principle of entropy, and thus will always be progressive and never static. Also evolution's major driving force was natural selection and the strive for fitness, however just because these concepts don't fit in our human concept of time doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Humans still select mates based on selective preference, which usually means a general strive for fitness.

Well I'm not in competition with who had the idea, I care less. I'm not very egocentric. It amazes me how we humans can have such egos when our lifetime is but a mere nanosecond of a nanosecond of the universe's timeline. My point here was to initiate a discussion, because this has interested me for the past several weeks.

This is much more fundamental. The principle of entropy is completely against 0K, if you think about it.. in order to extract that last bit of energy away from a particle you have to have another particle with less than 0K to absorb that energy. Since there is already no such thing as 0K, this nearly impossible (I say nearly cause our knowledge is dependent on our technology and understanding of this universe). Also remember E = mc^2? In the lamest terms, this means energy and mass are interconvertable. If you lose complete energy, matter will break down, I imagine that you won't have matter in general since the elementary particles of matter are derived from energy.

Lol that dreaded biology, I'm not making a distinction between physics and that dreaded thing . No my point here is much more fundamental than that. I'm not convinced that what I'm projecting here is actually the case (I'm sure it's far from it, though this is a forum and we discuss our most interesting thoughts on a forum). I'm actually much more comfortable with the laws of physics as constant entities or properties of this universe. However, what if they were not? We assume that even at the big bang or before the big bang these laws were just as constant as today, but what if there were more properties that don't exist today or what if the properties have changed along with the formation of the universe? How are we certain that these properties will be static in the future. Just a thought I had, traditionally physcists have strived to fit upcoming models explaining our universe to well established models and to these constant properties. Though if we speak of a instance before the big bang or even close to the big bang neither time nor space make a lot of sense, what if the laws that we are so comfortable with today are not so well established or even different.

Biochemistry.. more money, much more interesting, much higher job availability. However, Biochemistry is a little more intense than most pure biology programs besides perhaps Neuroscience. Also there is a lot more career opportunities. Though, Biochemistry is more competitive, I wouldn't say it's highly competitive like engineering and medical school programs or some professional programs. As far as biological sciences goes (as well as chemical) I would say Biochem is one of the more competitive ones. Biochemistry involves more chemistry than biology which is much more exciting than plain old biology...

This is very simple.. The carbocation would most likely occur on the second carbon, thus the end carbons would be protonated initially, which explains the R-but-3-ene-2-ol and S-but-3-ene-2-ol. Keep in mind that this is an allylic addition which is highly favorable. As far as the superconfiguration, which occurs because it depends on which face the nucleophilic attack takes place Si or Re face. Which makes it just as likely for either of them too occur (however, this only makes sense for the depth of organic chemistry your in right now, further along the line you will learn conjugation, because the double bonds are 1 bond apart, this makes them extremely stabile and the interaction between the two double bonds is similar to any other covalent bond interaction). However, since your not there yet I wouldn't worry about it.. but yes this is what would occur a SI or Re face attack will give you both enantiomers. In the But-2-ene-1-ol occurrence, this is due to carbocation rearrangement which is very likely with these addition reactions.. specially if your using a strong acid instead of Mercury, HOAc as catalyst.

Does the nature of what we call the laws of "physics" have a history? For example in biology we talk about how proteins evolved into a macromolecule, into an organism unit or simple cell, into a complex cell or more complex prokaryote, into a multicellular organism and such.. In chemistry obviously we talk about how matter became massive and how massive particles started evolving out of the initial hydrogen, helium, and the reactions that have generated all that we see before us. But for some reason people think that the laws of physics or the nature of physics have always and will forever be constant.. what if they weren't and are not static?

DNA is a highly complex molecule pertinent to a highly complex system. Usually in physics we don't work or (I'm not a physicist) rather physicists don't work with such highly complex systems or instances, atleast not in particle physics. And as far as if the strings correlate with big bang? Yes that's one of the assumptions and goals in physics in general is to study the beginning or what seems to be the beginning since time is only makes sence at our level of observation and doesn't make sense at other levels. For example in biology we talk about how proteins evolved into a macromolecule, into an organism unit or simple cell, into a complex cell or more complex prokaryote, into a multicellular organism and such.. In chemistry obviously we talk about how matter became massive and how massive particles started evolving out of the initial hydrogen and helium. But for some reason people think that the laws of physics or the nature of physics has always and will forever be constant.. what if they weren't?

Even though natural selection is indeed the driving force behind evolution. I doubt that we have completely stopped evolving, there may not be drastic sprouts of evolution as was before in our biological history. However, I do believe there are still factors in our environment and interaction as well as technological that have an effect on our species. For example, people are living longer generally.

Oh yes, it escaped my mind that some salts are much more stabile hydrated. For example CaCl2.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to ask "what correct particle"? When you already have a sense of the answer.. However I assure you I don't believe in dumb questions lol. Whatever that particle maybe boson, fermion. The correct behavior that was predicted by many particle physicists working on string theory was not observed at the LHC observations. This superymmetric particle was not observed as they had hoped and thus remains a hypothetical particle yet to be discovered.

Inertia, it all depends on how much force is applied, how much inertia a massive object has, ect.

I doubt that they would suck moisture from the air. Since most gases are at a much higher kinetic energy state than liquid bases, such interactions under normal conditions seem to me to be quiet unlikely.. "sucking moisture". However under some conditions experienced in our daily lives, gases do "crash" into liquid phases of matter in which they lose much of their kinetic energy from the collision and may or may not interact with the inter molecular forces of the liquid state dictating whether or not the gas will become soluble in that solution. Though this is few and far between at room temperature.

To be fair, there is nothing wrong with speculating and daydreaming about the possibilities. Infact, one of the greatest pleasures I get from solving a complex problem is imagining and speculating how the problem might be solved or different outcomes of what the answer might be.

One thing we do know is that time is a very "real" property of our universe and existence. However what it exactly is.. is a mystery at least to me. Perhaps there is some people who understand and have a sense for multi-dimensions and their properties. I think for non physicists it's hard to imagine how complicated such a concept gets, specially in quantum gravity.. in which it get's extremely abstract. Even more so time near the big bang or in the early universe or even more so time before the big bang.

I would say.. string theory is more than just a speculation. It's a well establish mathematical model or framework in particle physics, which seems connect many dots in our understanding of elementary particles and understanding concepts in quantum field theory and quantum gravity. However, it is apparent that string theory is in a stand still for the moment, being so that it has not made any experimental predictions. However I do imagine that once the correct particle is found, because as everything with science technology needs to catch up before the framework for string theory can be fully investigated and pushed forward as it is currently stuck.

I'm going to assume your talking about carbon based molecules however this can apply to any covalent electron geometry. If there are 4 electron domains (bonding and non-bonding) - 109.50 , 3 electron domains 1200 , and 2 electron domains 1800 Now the specific experimentally observe data shows that for each molecule there is an error range in these standards of about +- 3 or 4, however this is pretty accurate. So now taking to what we just established.. a double bonded region in a molecule has 3 electron domains in the central atom thus it's 120 degree geometry. As well, we can use this standard guideline to predict triple bonds as well, which have 2 electron domains, and so assume a 180 degree geometry. The only exception is if there are 2 atoms in the molecule than the geometry is always going to be linear

I don't have enough understanding of string theory as of yet to even in devour into these type of conversations. However, please be careful when throwing words such as "theory" around. Science loses a lot of credibility to the non-scientific portion of our society because some of us loosely use the word theory. It's also not fair to well established theories whom have earned their right to be one.

Not into pure radiation, no. Instead you would perhaps witness a collection of weekly associated field of interacting charged particles. Yeah plasmic state you said it yourself.. however I wouldn't say the electrons evaporate. I would think of it rather as the process of ionization learned in general chemistry and condensed matter physics.