Jump to content

N S

Members
  • Content Count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About N S

  • Rank
    Quark

Profile Information

  • Location
    Mother Earth
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Applied Physics, Chemistry
  • Occupation
    Student
  1. Simply taken, I think what Science Student asked can be answered and the ongoing discussion can be resolved in this way: Maths is not equivalent to the real world. It is imaginary. It helps our brains think of physical solutions easily. Thus, we can assume a particle of, say, 1 kg as being made of infinite particles of mass dm; while if we consider a physical object of 1 kg, we can assert that it is made up of finite atoms, molecules, which in turn are made up of finite entities. But if we apply calculus on it and its mechanical properties, we would almost be accurate. Since maths
  2. Yes, I see it now. I had studied intensive and extensive properties too, and now I see that my question was needless in case of homogenous and isotropic bodies. When chemists, say, stir a solution, they can calculate the heat induced; but at the same time, some heat would be exiting or entering the container; so I get an idea of the assumptions involved. Thanks for clarifying (and confirming) my doubts.
  3. I was wondering how accurate the measurements of in a typical chemistry lab are of continuous physical quantities like temperature, volume, etc. are in practice. For example, when the temperature of a large body is declared, how does one measure it? Does one calculate the average from all the particles in the body, or what? I hope anyone who is experienced in practice would clarify this doubt. Thank you.
  4. The bot looks pretty helpless here... User: You always accept one dialogue from me. Because you are programmed to do so. Cleverbot: No, you forget that You cannot read because you are a bot. User: You always accept one dialogue from me because you are programmed to do so. Cleverbot: No.; I am you and you are me because we are the same person. User: You always accept one dialogue from me because you are programmed to do so. Cleverbot: What do you think of Stephen Fry?
  5. Thanks to all of you for explaining. I think I get the gist now.
  6. I am getting confused. First of all, if photons do contain particles, then wh don't they have mass? Secondly, if they are particle-waves, then what happens to the particle part of the photon when it transfers its energy? Thank you. That answers half of point 2. But can photons similarly dissect the subatomic components too? Or is that possible only by collision of atoms?
  7. It is not long since I was reading about photoelectric effect, and some interesting questions impressed upon myself, which I will be obliged if you answered in a simple manner: 1. Okay. Photons transfer energy to electrons and they, in turn are ejected following certain rules. But what happens to the photons which gave (all?) of their energy? Do they just lie dormant there? 2. Where I was reading, it was all about electrons. But can photons wrung out protons, neutrons, etc. too? If so, then are they capable of causing subatomic particles to dissect into their components too? 3. Last of all,
  8. N S

    Time

    I have got more and more confused since the question dawned upon me that "Is there anything like what we call time?". Is it relative to mass, tangible? Is there any way it can travel in a different direction? Whoever has some authority in this subject, please answer these questions, or any one of these. Although I do not know if present-day science can do so to a satisfactory degree.
  9. Thanks swansont and Mellinia, I think I get what you are trying to explain. I don't have the apparatus for this experiment, but can you tell me whether different colours of light are seen inside the triangular glass prism and rectangular glass slab?
  10. I know that this might be a little irritating, but could you please explain it in an easier manner? I believe that the colours are obeying Snell's Law all the time. The difference in the deviation of red and violet every time is evident. Since the light has scattered once and red and violet are now apart, in whatever way they further refract, they will have to go in different directions with or without crossing each other. Please explain the logic or force that prevents the light from getting thus scattered after meeting parallel surfaces as in this case.
  11. What I meant was, since we say light scatters into seven (visible) colours when it lands on a glass prism at an angle, it should scatter in a rectangular glass block too. And here is the diagram in which I seem to have made a mistake.
  12. Some time before, after learning about the refraction and scattering of light in prisms takes place, I got moreover confused and could not understand why light does not scatter in rectangular glass slabs. Here is what I think should happen based on what I have learnt so far (attatched). I know it is completely incorrect, but I have tried in vain to get an understandable explanation of why it should not happen this way from my teacher. Only red and violet colours are represented as the light bends in the glass slab. Please help me out by giving a simple account of what is incorrect in this dia
  13. N S

    Animal Vision

    In that case, how about narrowing it down to terrestrial mammals?
  14. N S

    Animal Vision

    Ok thanks; I did not clarify that I was thinking about the eyes of animals more like us, say, all the vertebrates. Then beside the difference in the wavelenghts at which they operate, what distinguishing features can be observed in general in a wide group among them.
  15. N S

    Animal Vision

    I want to know how much animals are like us. Like humans, do animals also have irises of various colours? Do their eyes accomodate and function the same way? It all is always being taught about humans, but to what extent are animals like us in their vision and eyes?
×
×
  • 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.