swansont

Going into nuclear physics will really happen more at the graduate level than undergraduate. What you should look for is a school that has active undergraduate participation in research. I wouldn't be quite so hung up on going to an Ivy league school — you should probably look at a wider spectrum of schools, but that's up to you. And if you are considering GI bill benefits for your education you might want to learn about the navy's nuclear propulsion program (I used to be an instructor in that program) which at least will have you learning a little bit of nuclear physics should you join it.

Hve you established that there is any net angular momentum?

Actually I had posted it in poltics because I expected ignorant lay ranting. Apologies to Pangloss, but there are no real experts on politics. To quote Richard Feynman, "....it's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!" If people understood politics, there would be nothing to discuss. It's not the test so much as the notion that politics, like religion, is not so much concerned with logic. The reason I occasionally venture over to the politics boards is because I like to remind myself how much of the discussion is based on ideology and not on objectivity (logic and facts).

And "Duh" is an equally valid response to someone who works for the "agree or else" administration, who is acting as a public spokesperson, trying to sway public opinion. But back when the program was secret, the attorney general did not share that opinion. John Ashcroft had doubs about it, and he was only consulted (he was in the hospital at the time) because the assistant attorney general wouldn't sign off on the program. It's all a matter of spin. One doesn't want to call attention to the fact that American citizens were spied on in possible violation of their fourth amendment rights, using a mechanism acting outside of its legal parameters (FISA law dictates wartime procedures, which do not appear to have been followed). One wants to point at the terrorist threat, though probably not to the plot they uncovered, which was to bring down the Brooklyn bridge with acetylene torches. Not really. But not because you've uncovered any bias or shown any new facts — you've only shown yet another government official spouting the party line, and telling us why they can't give us any more facts. The problem with that is that they can tell facts to some members of congress, and some of them are also crying, "foul!" Perhaps part of the reason it has taken this "airwave offensive" is that the story keeps changing. First it was that the spying was legal, then it was that getting approval wasn't fast enough, and when it was pointed out you could get it retroactively, the story was that the paperwork was too hard. (General Hayden: "FISA involves the process -- FISA involves marshaling arguments; FISA involves looping paperwork around") And of course, there were the unprecedented number of warrants turned down by FISA before the administration stopped consulting the court. And while Gonzales is still claiming legality, when he was asked about why they didn't just change the FISA law to make it explicitly legal (why they used a backdoor approach), he replied that "We have had discussions with Congress in the past -- certain members of Congress -- as to whether or not FISA could be amended to allow us to adequately deal with this kind of threat, and we were advised that that would be difficult, if not impossible." So it's legal, but getting congress to agree wouln't fly? This isn't media bias, by the way, these quotes are from the whitehouse.gov press briefing transcripts. Perhaps the saying should be changed to: When the facts are on your side, you pound on the facts. When the law is on your side, you pound on the law. When neither are on your side, call the media biased.

No, not generally. Only true if you recognize that laws don't always apply universally. This is a common misconception often held by the same people that think that a law is superior to a theory. A law often times has limited application and is not universal, failing to hold under some set(s) of circumstances. One gets into trouble in trying to apply laws under circumstances where they do not apply. A law can never be broken under circumstances where it was valid, and laws are only valid under circumstances where they aren't broken. But tautologies like that aren't especially helpful.

But this is moot for hydrogen (H-1).

Democrats and Republicans Both Adept at Ignoring Facts, Study Finds "The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making. ... 'The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data,' Westen said." No real surprises, I think.

Or it could just be that one bond is stronger than the other, so the reaction is exothermic, completely in accord with standard physics. Sorry, no. Physics and chemistry are already there. Rather than being a no-man's land, there is in fact considerable overlap. There are chemists who do physics and physicists who do chemistry.

You have to have unpaired electrons and the ability to make a structure where the atoms can line up properly — you need the long-range order, i.e. above the atomic level. It does you no good if you have an atom with a magnetic moment if it always pairs up with other atoms in a way that cancels the field.

And falling behind does not mean that throwing more money at the problem will necessarily speed you up. There's a research adage: It takes a woman nine months to produce a baby, but that does not mean that nine women can produce a baby in a month.

There's no "friction" involved, so it doesn't have to "use up" any energy to move. Unless it collides with something, it has whatever energy with which it started.

Unpaired electron spins, combined with molecular structure. That's why relatively few materials are - electron spins tend to pair up, spin up + spin down, leaving no net magnetic field for the atoms.

And no kinetic force, unless you make physical contact. (Nick Goings vs Lofa Tututpu, Carolina vs Seattle, is a great example, for anyone who watched the US gridiron football playoffs this past weekend)

Actually it's exactly what you'd expect to be labeled as a law - a simple mathematical relationship that's been observed to hold true under some set of circumstances. That's what a law is.

That's the Curie temperature — the thermal energy is sufficient to break up the long-range ordering of a ferromagnetic material. Gadolinium's Curie temp is right around room temperature (293 K), so the magnetism is easily disrupted, but apparently has a very large magnetic moment, so it will become magnetic even with a weak external field.

...and when first introduced, 7-UP contained Lithium. Ah, the good old days...

Moore's law states that the number or transistors on a computer chip (or processing power or speed) will double every 18 months or so. It has been observed to hold. So, what do you mean by "used in real life"? It applies to computers and only computers.

Even a slight rephrasing of the question (e.g. "I don't understand why..."), and posting them one at a time, would allow for benefit of the doubt and probably elicit an answer. Except maybe #4, which just prompts the response of "What does conservation of energy tell you it has to do? Look at it in the pre-collision electron's rest frame"

I don't think the magnetic force is doing what you think it's doing in an atom. I also think you are focusing only on charge and not charge distribution. i.e. on the scale of the atom, or smaller, the system may not "look" neutral. Does a dipole look neutral at all r, even though the net Q is zero?

The wavelength properties are what matter, but the notion that red is somehow a "neutral" wavelength depends on what you mean by neutral. But there may be a way of defining it such that your sentence made some sense. Since cfso seems to be a one-post-wonder at this point... Red has lower energy, and if the issue is whether an electron is ionized or a molecule is disassociated by a photon, then red has a chance of being below that threshold where other, more energetic photons (with other colors) might not be.

I thought that was the cosmological constant.

No, that wasn't one of the failings of the Bohr model. Angular momentum was quantized, which made energy quantized. But the model couldn't account for different values of angular momentum, and had planetary orbits.

Quite. If the questions had been worded to actually ask conceptual questions about QM, people would be interested. But these quack like textbook questions.