Riogho

That's because a photon is it's own anti-particle, just as with gluons Antimatter is Matter with an identical, but opposite wave function, so that when they collide you get destructive interference.

A wave of the electromagnetic field

*cough*electromagnetism*cough*

If the earth was moving only due to gravitational attraction we would be falling INTO the sun. Obviously we are not, we are falling toward the sun. View it as shooting a bullet in a horizontal direction while being on the earths surface, eventually it will plow into the ground due to graviational attraction because the velocity of the bullet is slowing down due to resistant forces. The earth was 'launched' from somewhere and if not for the gravitational attraction from the sun it would be going in a straight line.

NaOH is also very basic, when shown to air, expect it to absorb A LOT of water and take the concentraton down immensly.

I would vote for both McCain and Obama. If it came down between those two it would really matter what the VP was. Especially on Obama's side... because I could see the VP having to take office there. And Hilary took those questions for HOURS because she is a politcal machine, both of the clinton's are. They will say and do exactly what needs to be done to win. You wouldn't get out what they really thought if they were on their deathbed

Use logs and antilog functions And if that fails, there is always titration

I know this isn't very on-topic, but starting a whole thread for this seems stupid, so I'll pop it here as you are talking about mass and rest mass. Mass is defined as the inertia of an object. Does that mean a photon has inertia?

Okay, consider having a gas inside of a piston. Suppose that the piston moves inward, so that the atoms aer slowly compressed into a smaller space. What happpens when an atom hits the moving piston? Evidentily it picks up speed from the collision. You can try it by boucning a ping-pong ball from a forward-movin paddle. An atoms happens to be standing still adn ths piston hits it, it will surely move. So the atoms are 'hotter' when they come away from the piston then they were befroe they struck it. Therefore all the atoms which are in the vessel will have picked up speed. This means that, when we compress a gagas slowly, the temeprature will increase. So under slow compression a gas will increase in tremperature, and under slow expansion it will decrease in temperature.

You could get some shmexy ammonium

I just did something like this today actually I got sodium biocarbonate, and put it into a cute little porcelin pot, and threw a crapload of HCl in there, it of course, reacted, producing water, and carbon dioxide.

It reacts MUCH better with steam, then cold water.

1) Gravity is infinite, as it's strength is the inverse square. Which means it just gets smaller the farther you go, it never goes to '0', it just gets smaller and smaller and smaller. 2) E=mc^2 Energy is Matter, Matter is Energy, you can't have matter without energy. 3) Read up on the theory of Relativity 4) The absolute low would be the absense of all energy. 5) The be simple, Yes.

Photons hit the atom and are absorbed and then re-emmitted, that is what you see. They usualyl hit the elctrons.

To be 'entangled' all something has to do is interact. Once it has interacted in any way shape or form, it is no longer possible to describe it NOT being relative to the other.

It's the Wikipedia Uncertainty Principle. You can't expect it to be accurate all the time because there ARE idiots out there editing it at all time. But you can however take that into account and get your area of probability

Quarks come closer to each other when the energy increases, so the interaction strength decreases with energy. This property, called asymptotic freedom, means that the beta function is negative. On the other hand, the interaction strength increases with increasing distance, which means that a quark cannot be removed from an atomic nucleus.

Methane Combustion FTW

You have a thermometer, however, that thermometer only will take accurate readings after 10 seconds. This thermometer is the best and fastest thermometer in the world. You want to know what temperature your oven is. You throw the thermometer in. It takes 10 seconds for you to get the reply. You have no way of knowing the temperature when you through in the thermometer because To make any measurement time must pass, leaving what WAS uncertain. All time is, is a way we measure change. We cannot take a measurement without and interaction. To have any type of interaction time must pass. Therefore you cannot know what happened during the passed time.

Sorry, I was thinking breaking bonds.

1st) No where in the bible does it say that the universe is only 6000 years old. It mentions the days of creation, but time is only a way to measure change in our universe, and we all KNOW time is relative. So maybe time is relative to god as going really freaking fast. 2nd) The 6000 year theory fails in many regards, the simplest one as being this: How many galaxies do you know of that are within 6000 light years of us? Not many, I am assuming. How many galaxies are there farther then 6000 light years away? A ton. Now tell me, how would the light from those galaxies traveled all the way here, in merely 6k years?

The quarks are bound together in a hadron by what scientists have deemed the 'colour' force. It has absolutely nothing to do with visible color, but then against electricity isn't really positive and negative, it is just how we choose to see it. Anyway, inside the hadron (proton for example), you have 3 quarks. Each one has a different colour, there are 3 different colours, these are Red, Green, Blue. Each one attracts the other for some odd reason. The thing that is strange about it is that the farther away the quarks are the stronger the force between them is. Unlike the other forces we readily accept, it's not the inverse-square of the distance, it actually gets STRONGER. I like to think of it this way: Let's say you and a pretty girl are all attatched, and you love each other a lot, eh? But of course you have a fight, and you decide you 'need your space'. We all know the phrase, 'distance makes the heart grow fonder'. So the longer you are away from her (and farther), the more you miss her, and want her back. It works that way with Quark Love. The farther they get away, the stronger the force is. That is why there is such a thing as 'quark confinement' which simply means we will never observe a lone quark, because they are always paired with another one. Now, we know that the proton is a composite particle because when we fire charged particles at let's say, a hydrogen nuclei, we can shoot the particles one at a time in a straight line, and they will bounce off in different directions, which give the illusion that the proton isn't evnely charged all the way around (it isn't exactly +1 all the way around as previously thought), that is why we came up with the idea of 2 +2/3 quarks and 1 -1/3, to explain the scattering. Of course, this is super-laymans terms and a lot has been left out, so don't kill me if I missed anything

And even if that wasn't the case, it takes energy to bond atoms together, I thought that was understood.

Is our thread maker using proper grammar

Photons are traditionally said to be massless. This is a figure of speech that physicists use to describe something about how a photon's particle-like properties are described by the language of special relativity. The logic can be constructed in many ways, and the following is one such. Take an isolated system (called a "particle") and accelerate it to some velocity v (a vector). Newton defined the "momentum" p of this particle (also a vector), such that p behaves in a simple way when the particle is accelerated, or when it's involved in a collision. For this simple behaviour to hold, it turns out that p must be proportional to v. The proportionality constant is called the particle's "mass" m, so that p = mv. In special relativity, it turns out that we are still able to define a particle's momentum such that it behaves in well-defined ways that are an extension of the newtonian case. The vector p is no longer proportional to the vector v (although they do both grow or shrink together), but these two vectors do still lie in the same direction; so we can define the ratio of the length of p to the length of v to be the particle's "relativistic mass" mrel. Thus p = mrelv . When the particle is at rest, its relativistic mass has a minimum value called the "rest mass" mrest. The rest mass is always the same for the same type of particle. For example, all protons, electrons, and neutrons have the same rest mass; it's something that can be looked up in a table. As the particle is accelerated to ever higher speeds, its relativistic mass increases without limit. It also turns out that in special relativity, we are able to define the concept of "energy" E, such that E has simple and well-defined properties just like those it has in newtonian mechanics. When a particle has been accelerated so that it has some momentum p (the length of the vector p) and relativistic mass mrel, then its energy E turns out to be given by E = mrelc2 , and also E2 = p2c2 + m2restc4 . (1) There are two interesting cases of this last equation: If the particle is at rest, then p = 0, and E = mrestc2. If we set the rest mass equal to zero (regardless of whether or not that's a reasonable thing to do), then E = pc. In classical electromagnetic theory, light turns out to have energy E and momentum p, and these happen to be related by E = pc. Quantum mechanics introduces the idea that light can be viewed as a collection of "particles"--photons. Even though these photons cannot be brought to rest, and so the idea of rest mass doesn't really apply to them, we can certainly bring these "particles" of light into the fold of equation (1) by just considering them to have no rest mass. That way, equation (1) gives the correct expression for light, E = pc, and no harm has been done. Equation (1) is now able to be applied to particles of matter and "particles" of light. It can now be used as a fully general equation, and that makes it very useful. Because the energy of a particle just equals its relativistic mass times c2, physicists have learned to economise the language by only ever referring to a particle's energy. When they use the term "mass", they mean rest mass. This is purely a linguistic convention. When the two sorts of mass are referred to together, relativistic mass is usually written m and rest mass is written m0. But when only rest mass is being used, then the word "mass" is assumed to mean rest mass, and it tends to be written simply as m.