studiot

All there is to know about it is a big ask. Try some more specifically focused questions. But remember the moderators like one topic per thread. But also think before you print as new members are only allowed 5 posts in their first 24 hours. After that it is unrestricted.

It's a book. Remember them ?

Is anyone aware that linking QM and consciousness is embedded in Sean Carroll's version of the "many worlds interpretation" ? Something Deeply Hidden Sean Carroll

Yes this is a discussion forum, not your blog. So instead of coming preaching to real physicists, I respectfully suggest you ask if they already have such units. Have you heard of the barn or the astronomical unit or the light-year ?

Don't worry, no need to quit. Sir Isaac Newton did not know why things stuck together he just had to accept it because he could see that it happened. Here are his words from a very long article in the link at the top of the quote. He was right, there is a force, he knew nothing of, which we will discover is the electric force between positive and negative when we move on to the last 1900 to present day period. I offer the philosophy that you can learn enough of the maths, physics and chemistry to be able to recognise things when you see them (not only here but in books or elsewhere) and accept that ther are people who can work out the detail. Remember that no one person knows enough to work out the detail of everything. So we must cooperate like atoms in a molecule. That is the principle I am trying to build up to. Molecules can only works as the cooperative effort of several (perhaps many) atoms acting as one single unit or entity. So if my detail was too much, just accept you can recognise the sticks as bonds in the stick diagrams.

There is a lot to consider when you investigate the geometry, structure and composition of something using radiation of some sort, including sound or other mechanical waves or pulses. The maths to understand principles of this is not too difficult. It is the extraction of the detailed numbers that requires thye sophisticated stuff, correctly applied. For instance you need to decide whether you are going to use transmitted, refracted or reflected rays. If using direct transmission as with X rays you need access to both sides of the object / material. This can be a major difficulty. Single side access can be accomplished using reflected rays. The wavelength determines the size of feature, void or discontinuity you can determine. We can discuss this further if you wish.

Thank you for responding to my query about frames, even if the reply was short. When I first read this I wondered if you are confusing the relativistic origin of magnetism ..... But We still have no diagram.

Please explain why we should search for this and why you have not included a tasty summary to temp us. As a matter of interest, what does Plato have to say about it ? https://plato.stanford.edu/

This table might help and it will be useful in time period 4 the last in our history. I am showing what happens with one gas that doe not combine with itself (helium) and three gases where two atoms of each of the gases combine with each other to form one molecule conprising two atoms. That is a diatomic molecule. Helium is a monatomic molecule. The valencies are 0, 1, 2 3 - I don't know of any diatomic gas molecules formed from atoms with higher valencies than 3. So the pattern is that you require two atoms , alike or different to form one bond. - my examples are both alike for ease. It is also possible to more than two atoms to combine to form molecule but that will always involve additional bonds. Note the number of hooks is the same as the valency. If you hook two hooks together you get one bond. If you have zero valency there are no hooks which is why two helium atoms will not join together so a helium molecule has only one atom in it and is called monatomic. side note Careful here, you may come across the terms monovalent, divalent and trivalent. There is no term for nil valent. end side note Molecules occur mostly in gases. Solids can be quite different. Do you understand anything about solids, liquids and gases. Have you heard of the kinetic theory ?

Electrolysis preparation is apparantly more common in the US than the UK. I do not know about Europe or other places.

I'm sorry, what did you want to say ? An explanatory diagram would help greatly her. Observed ? Observed by whom, in what frame ? greater charge density ? greater than what ? length contraction again observed by whom in what frame ?

The [0,1] map is probably the standard way of doing this but there are others eg in ternary.

Just a human thought about consciousness. We are now beginning to probe and perhaps understand the interactive relationships between plants, particularly trees, and soil mycelium. Since this is new territory there is no reason to suppose that such relationships can be set in the same terms as ones we understand much better and know far more about. So I must agree with Gees. I suggest we need new terminology, concepts and all the apparatus for these new lines of enquiry. Until these are established we can expect heated discussions set in inappropriate terms.

Solubility constant for calcium carbonate is 1000 time less than for calcium hydroxide, so yes you will remove some calcium carbonate and be left with a sodium carbonate solution, sightly enriched with sodium hydroxide. How are you going to unmix that ?

Who are 'they' ? We try to be more specific in Science. But this story is a good example of how Science works. Science does not work on proof. It works by using the best explanations available for known observations. If new observations become available that show different results then a scientist has choices. He can propose a new explanation that explains both the old and the new. He can propose that the new observations are the result of different circumstance or different mechanisms and thus require a new hypothesis. He can propose new observatins to test his new theory or hypothesis. Either way Science moves on, improving on the original and waiting for the next new set of different observations. In fact this third period yielded thousands of new compounds all obeying the valency rules I outlined. Ethane is a good example of this as it is a member of what is known as a homologous series of gases , called the alkanes. But what they did not know before 1900 was why the valency rules are as they are. The answer to this will come in the fourth period after the structure of the atom was discovered and is a subject for tomorrow. Suffice to say for now that these hooks are now called chemical bonds. Finally my apologies to anyone reading this, in my last post i got the date of quantivalence wrong. It should be 1865, not 1869. The first English use of valence was in 1869.

Hopefully your continued exposure to chemical selected names and terms is beginning to bear fruit. So let us carry on with unravelling the history of the subject. The ancient Greeks thought there were four elements, Earth, Water Air and Fire and that all substances were made up from these. In fact they used a different word and the word element came into English from the Latin elementum. Furthermore the concept was very vague in detail and one Greek in particular (Democritus) asked the important question. "What happens if you cut a substance in half, then in half again and in half again and so on ?" He proposed that you would eventually reach a stage where the substance became indivisible and called this piece atomos from where we get the English word atom. This situation continued until the late 17 hundreds when Dalton revived the twin concepts and included the new question "If you can cut substances apart, how can you put them together ?" In his words he described atoms as "All atoms of the same element are alike, globular and all of the same magnitude, but atoms of different elements have different weights." Thus moving atoms from substances to elements and making the distinction. It should be noted that 'weights' were not measured in pounds and ounces or kilogrammes. Hydrogen was give the weight exactly 1 unit and other elements were measured as multiples (including decimal fractions) of this. These weights were called atomic weights. This was a great step forward but it did not explain how or why atoms could be combined in 'fixed proportions' to form substances they could split up. Atoms could not be split up i.e. were indivisible. These insights plus the growing list of elements enabled the first versions of the periodic table to be drawn up. But they were wrong because they placed elements in order of increasing atomic weight, which led to inconsistencies in the chemical properties compared to their placement in 'the table'. The table is called periodic because these properties occur at regular spacing when the elements are placed in the proper order. They had not yet addressed the second question "How can you put them togerther?" Then in 1869 Hofmann, then working in england, coined the English word 'quantivalence'. He introduced the concept of Valency or the combining power of atoms and your next equation from chemical mathematics. Atomic weight = Equivalent weight x Valency. This ushered in the third era in the History of Chemistry and led to a new idea - that of the molecule. At that stage, they still though atoms were 'indivisible' they did not know about electrons, protons and neutrons - that comes in the fourth period up to the present day and was largely invetigated by Physicists. So they quickly determined that oxygen has 2 'hooks' , carbon has 4 'hooks' and nitrogen has '3 hooks' and hydrogen has 1 hook. These hooks were also quickly translated into the ubiquitous chemical stick diagrams we still use today. Here is the diagram for 'ethane' where you can quickly see that each carbon is linked by 4 sticks or hooks and each hydrogen is linked by 1 stickk or hook. This is the 'molecule' of pure ethane.

I am unclear exactly what the question is here. However try comparing with other similar compounds, that are better known because they are not so harmful. Key thoughts synthetic (poly) saccharide Non-absorbable interacts with colonic bacteria

Well that is an excellent article. +1 And therein goes the material I was going to use for my next post, so I will just pick out the important points that lead to the conclusion I was going to offer. How we got to our modern view of chemistry can be divided into four broad periods. The ancients began to notice that there were many different substances in the world around them. The substances were different because they had different properties. They were hard or soft, some interacted visibly with other substances. Some did not appear to interact at all and some offered protective qualities for other substances. In particular sometimes winemaking went wrong and an unpleasant sour tasting drink was produced instead of acceptable wine. They did not know that wine had turned to acetic acid but their word for vinegar (which is dilute acetic acid) passed down into the Latin word 'acidus' and from there into English as acid. They would also have noticed other properties of acids such as the sting of formic acid in ant bites and the corrosive effect on the skin. It is not known which hero cook spilled animal fat on the fire and roasted it along with wood ash and then found a soapy blob when the result had cooled. But we think this is how middle eastern civilisations discovered soapmaking this way. The ashes provided an alkaline substance which is breaks down fat, something most acids are unable to do. So their for ashes passed into Arabic, Al-Kali and then into English as alkali. Wood (and other plant ) ashes contain what gardeners and farmers call 'potash' which makes a strong alkali with water that we now call potassium hydroxide. So we have the origins of acids and alkalis. The second historical period when humans were able to refine and classify substances, many of which occurred naturally or as with potash by heating or burning and perhaps then adding water. The addition of water was known as slaking; probably the most known and important product was slaked lime or calcium hydroxide, which formed the basis of Roman cement. To obtain this rocks containing calcium carbonate were heated to obtain what was known a quicklime (which we know as calcium oxide). The was the slaked to produce the hydroxide. Calcium carbonate introduces another acid we call carbonic acid, which is important in environmental chemistry. So during this period many names were introduced that were carried forward to the third period which is for next time. Interestingly these time periods have have been 'telescoping'. The first was measured in thousands of years, the second in hundreds of years, and so on.

Good morning Ken. Sorry to hear of your woes. I too had less than good experiences with linux in the early days so I dropped it as I did not want to learn yet another op system / language. To your issue. What version of Windows are you trying to install with ? I wonder if the hidden boot partition introduced in W10 is causing this ?

I thought they were brothers ! 🤑

That i8s the difference between the active voice and the passive voice, not the difference between nominative (subject) and accusative (direct object. For example In December, Fred buried me. Active case Subject - Fred object - me (accusative case of the 1st person singular) In December I was buried by Fred. Passive case Subject - I "Fred buried I" is wrong unless you are in a West Country pub where they do say pharases like "Fred buried I" . But then they also say "Dorset be beautiful" 😀

I would also add that English I follows Latin in that it is always in the nominative case. The accusative case, which is used by some languages is me in English. So It is I is correct It is me is incorrect. Finally the Oxford English does not even offer a word i in the lower case, only the upper case. So I am inclined to agree with genady.

Yes I agree with exchemist that is a very good question. +1 The use of I in capitals goes back a long way, the earliest reference I (😀) can find is Preface to Eneydos 1490 William Caxton Where the English is recognizable. Notes Caxton was a writer as well as a printer. The spellung is original, not my usual typing dislexia. Secondly English followed Latin in many ways for instance using Latin numerals. Think what would happen if we wrote 7 Vii or worse VIi ? Chaucer was to far back and too different to be any help.

That's really good We used to call this activity 'reading around the subject' though nowadays you could call it viewing investigating or whatever. And you are using the chemical vocabulary you are acquiring. 😀 Let's look at the first chemical equation I wrote for you again, but in more detail. Acid + Base = Salt + Water. I didn't mention before that there are many different acids; there are many different bases. The substance that is produced by the acid + base reaction is called a salt. Sodium chloride is also called common salt, but it is just one of many salts that can be produced. Each salt is specific to both the acid and base that react with each other to form the salt. Some salts are water soluble, some are not. The 'or not' is important because it is often useful to find out and eliminate what a sample is not. Silver nitrate is a salt which is water soluble white salt. Silver chloride is a white salt that is not soluble in water. Now you are asking about identification. So an easy first check is to see what it is not i.e. does it dissolve in water ? Well we have seen the result of that experiment so we can se that if the white powder that purports to be silver nitrate dissolves in water it could be correct. But if it does not dissolve the it definitely could not. This kind of thinking is not only important in chemical analysis, but also in geology since it helps determine what substance could or could not be in a given bunch of minerals. It is also important in chemical synthesis - that is finding ways to make a particular chemical substance. Remember our way of making sodium chloride is the Acid + Base = Salt + Water equation or reaction. Hydrochloric acid + Sodium hydroxide = Sodium chloride + Water. But this will not work well for silver to make silver chloride because silver hydroxide is almost insoluble in water. So to make silver nitrate we need a different reaction and obviously with the right acid, this time nitric acid. Here is a short video of how to make silver nitrate by dissolving pure silver in nitric acid (This is an exmaple of an oxidation- reduction or redox reaction already mentioned). I am not suggesting you actually carry it out for safety reasons. After this I think it is time we started putting some flesh on the idea of stuff or matter. As someone with good knowledge of flight and aviation I hope you understand the difference between weight and mass ? If not let us know and we will incorporate that.

H2O is a chemical shorthand formula. It is not an equation. Equations have and equals sign, so some formulae but not all, are also equations. Equations do not need to use shorthand symbols, they can be much easier without when you first start using them. This is why I haven't yet got to symbols, atoms, molecules etc. You need some basic stuff to work with for those symbols to have any meaning. So don't worry there is method in my madness and we will get there. Also I have carfully selected my examples to follow from each other so here goes with some more. There are two videos and one picture this time. Many substances occur naturally in the world around us. You asked where their names came from. As humans began to explore their world they named materials they found around them, particularly those they found to be useful. This naming started thousands of years ago and is still going on today. The result of this is that some chemicals with modern names can be simply refined or extracted from our natural world. Some folks actually make a business of this. However of the 4000 or so minerals that we know of only about 10 are very very common (over 90% of the earth's surface). The rest are uncommon. Even carbon (which is not mentioned in the next video) is only 0.02% of the Earth's crust. So I hope the video will show why I am not launching straight into more advanced chemistry including the periodic table, formulae and so on. These will come, but you need to have a reason to look at them. As I said I am following on from previous posts. The discovery of Hydrogen and oxygen and other gases is fascinating, but they made many mistakes in those days so it is better to wait for these. Finally sliver nitrate. I mentioned that this is the basis of photography so here is a nice short video about this. I live near the Fox-Talbot museum, which is a fascinating place to visit.