Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pulkit

  1. Is it even possible to somehow encode a messge then ?
  2. Given current technology, is it possible to determine the direction of spin of a single atom ?
  3. I got the following reccursion :- [MATH]P(n)=\Sigma_{i=1}^{n-1}P(i) + P(n-1)[/MATH] Along with base cases of [MATH]P(1)=1[/MATH] and [MATH]P(2)=2[/MATH]
  4. Neurons do not reproduce.......... they are probably the oldest cells in your body.
  5. Can you atleast tell me if I came close, because I don't wanna miss out just because of an odd +/- 1. I am pretty sure of the method I used, I'll try and put up the solution.......
  6. If [MATH]fib(n)[/MATH] is the [MATH]n^{th}[/MATH] fibonacci number where the recurssion [MATH]fib(n)=fib(n-1)+fib(n-2)[/MATH] holds. Also you take [MATH]fib(1)=fib(2)=1[/MATH]. Next if given [MATH]n[/MATH], the number of times the loop runs is [MATH]P(n)[/MATH].......... Your solution is [MATH]P(n)=fib(2n-1)[/MATH] I can't write the full solution using LaTex due to obvious reasons of it being slightly cumbersome, but still if you want I can try and explain it sometime later....... Nice question though, took me almost half an hour to solve it.
  7. I know this for sure because I once calculated it, water in a spinning U-Tube does rise up. This is due to centrifugal force on the water in the lower horizontal part which pushes up the water along the vertical sections.
  8. Even if you could do this entanglement instantaneously, woud it be possible to encode and decode messages using it ? Even that seems quite a big problem
  9. I know about their reactivity, I was more interested in knowing their physical properties.........
  10. Don't be so sure, gravity is deceptively weak and in many situations easily counteracted............. Though I can't yet come up with a physically correct explanation, I think this might be one such case.
  11. Even if you do not take it to be "perfect" vaccuum, given a quantity of gas that is not too enormous, it WILL still diffuse out and not "sink" down.
  12. Yes, its an exceptional case becasue if you look at the reduction potentials, [MATH]O_2[/MATH] is expected to come out. I believe its due to a phenomenon called over voltage.
  13. A brain transplant no matter what the situation seems a bit too far fetched to even be possible. I don't think such a complicated transplant ever been even tried before.
  14. When you cancel out a term from both sides, you always assume that this term is non-zero. Hence you must consider the case of this term being zero seperately. In the particular question this term is [MATH]\log(x+y)[/MATH] and [MATH]x+y=1[/MATH] comes out of the case when it is zero.
  15. That slippery feeling might be because of some portion of the glass liquifying and forming a very thin skin atop.............I admit that this is a very far fetched and unlikely explanation.
  16. If you take the entire spinal column won't you just complicate things further ? Now you have the entire nervous system's neural network to re-connect into an electric circuit via transducer/interpreter circuits......even harder problem maybe
  17. how hot was it when you touched it ?? I have delt with red hot cast iron, it does tend to soften up but certainly did not look slippery......held up in the tongs pretty well (thank God for that !!) .
  18. I am not sure but I'll hazard an explanation any how : Glass is not really a solid but more of a super cooled liquid (this is why given sufficient time - say a few 100 years - and sometimes window glasses tend to flow downward and increase in thickness toward the bottom). Starting from the observation in the parenthesis I would have to say that heating glass would increase its fluid character and maybe thats why it might seem slippery.
  19. Look at the solution : [MATH]\frac{\log(x+y)}{\log(x)} = \frac{\log(x+y)}{\log(y)}[/MATH] [MATH]\log(x+y) \times (\frac{1}{\log(x)} - \frac{1}{\log(y)}) = 0[/MATH] [MATH]\Rightarrow \log(x+y) = 0 \ldots or \ldots \frac{1}{\log(x)}=\frac{1}{\log(y)}[/MATH] [MATH]\Rightarrow x+y=1 \ldots or \ldots \log(x)=\log(y)[/MATH] [MATH]\Rightarrow x+y=1 \ldots or \ldots x=y [/MATH]
  20. Given that the original post asked that if you could send a message a distance of 1 light year in less than a year. This method is quite useless because you basically need some sort of an arrangement at the destination and you can't just send a message and automatically recieve it.
  21. How could such a transplant be feasible ? 2 main resaons why it should not are : 1) The large number of connections that would need to be first severed to remove the brain and then re-attached in the correct manner. 2) To make such a transplant work we would first need to know exactly what part of the brain means exactly what message via a particular signal sent by it. In essence, the complete functionality(bar no aspects) of the human brain, which is still unknown.
  22. I realise that Ferrocene is resonance stabilised too, what about Grignard's reagents ? Are they as stable too ?
  23. Not too long ago I had the oppurtunity to work with ferrocene in the lab. I proceeded to carry out an acetylation reaction on the compound. What did astound me was the stability of ferrocene, a pale orange powder at room temperature.......can anyone explain why it is so stable ? The reason why I ask is that looking at its molecular structure it seemed to me to be unstable in nature. And if it is indeed so stable how come no one could synthesize it before the mid 20th century. One organo-metallic I have extensicesly studied is the Grignard reagent, unfortunately I never acctualy had a chance to deal with the chemical, can anyone please comment on its stability and physical state at room temperature ?
  24. If you put a gas where there was once vacuum, it would no longer be vacuum. There is nothing such as a gas in vacuum. As soosn as a gas comes into such a volume, unless it is an enormous quantity, it would merely diffuse out. In case of enormous volumes gravity will come into picture too. Atmosphere means air cover, since space has none, wrong to use that term. Particles too small for us to measure, wats all that about ? Not just imaginative but given todays knowledge of physics probably impossible.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.