Recent comments in /f/askscience
[deleted] t1_j67qz2a wrote
[removed]
Tlaloc_Temporal t1_j67quzu wrote
Reply to comment by jonnyclueless in In the absence of cosmic radiation, would an object placed in space eventually cool to absolute zero? by IHatrMakingUsernames
Laser cooling works by adding exactly enough energy for an electron to emit it all in a single photon. This is one method of cooling things down without needing something colder.
[deleted] t1_j67qoj0 wrote
[removed]
zutnoq t1_j67q8kj wrote
Reply to comment by VainVeinyVane in [Electricity and magnetism] For a half-wavelength dipole antenna, why is the voltage distribution a quarter wavelength out of phase with the current? by VainVeinyVane
A capacitor is essentially two plates of metal separated by a layer of insulator. The antenna is acting like one of those plates of metal, the air is the insulator and (the) ground is acting as the other plate.
Edit: in this specific case the other arm of the antenna is the other plate, if that wasn't obvious.
[deleted] t1_j67p1sg wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in How does the female body adjust after years of birth control? by impettingmycat
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j67ojlo wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j67oagw wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in In the absence of cosmic radiation, would an object placed in space eventually cool to absolute zero? by IHatrMakingUsernames
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j67nb11 wrote
Reply to comment by SerialStateLineXer in What sort of cancer prevention mechanisms are used by plants? by iKeyvier
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j67lb0o wrote
[deleted] t1_j67l8nb wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j67krt0 wrote
[removed]
Naive_Age_566 t1_j67kjnu wrote
you have to start with planet formation.
you have this cloud of dust. some of the dust clumps together and form - well - clumps of matter. those clumps further collect dust and grow.
all the parts of the cloud have more or less random kinetic energy - aka: swirling around in random motion. but as those parts collide, some of that kinetic energy canceles out. but it is highly unlikely, that it canceles out *exactly*. in the end, the cloud as a whole has some little "intrinsic" angular momentum - and that momentum has to be conserved. after all the parts have shed their excess kinetic energy, all that remains is this intrinsic angular momentum. this means, that if you wait for long enough, all parts of the cloud will move in the same direction - aka, rotate around the common center of mass.
in the end, your initial cloud will form a kind of disc, that uniformely rotates. in the center, the stuff will clump together further and will form the planet. stuff, that is far enough away, will stay in orbit and eventually form small moons. but the key is: they still have the initial angular momentum from the cloud - aka, the have the same rotation direction.
it's not exactly clear, how the rings around planets form. the rings of saturn are probably "fed" by water ice, that is squeezed out from some nearby moons. it could also be leftover material from the original cloud (unlikely - that orbit should not be stable enough - aka: the stuff should have fallen down on the planet or moved farther away and dispersed). of it could be small moons, which came too close to the planet and have been shredded by tital forces (see roche limit).
anyway: regardless of the exact physical process: angular momentum has to be conserved. always. if there is no external source of kinetic energy, in the end, everything in this system will move in the same direction. planet, moons, rings.
[deleted] t1_j67k6wt wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j67j1q0 wrote
PM_ME_YOUR__INIT__ t1_j67in6b wrote
Reply to comment by jonnyclueless in In the absence of cosmic radiation, would an object placed in space eventually cool to absolute zero? by IHatrMakingUsernames
Absolute zero would mean that the particle would not be moving. That violates the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which states that the position and momentum of a particle cannot be known below a certain value.
mfb- t1_j67ij36 wrote
Reply to comment by the_fungible_man in In the absence of cosmic radiation, would an object placed in space eventually cool to absolute zero? by IHatrMakingUsernames
In principle yes. This would need absurdly long times for macroscopic objects. Could well be longer than the timescale of proton decays.
We also don't expect the temperature of space to ever reach exactly zero thanks to dark energy.
hans-and t1_j67ifdn wrote
Reply to comment by NoExpertAtAll in Why does road salt accelerate corrosion in a vehicle's underbody? by nebula828
Yes same reason as to why you can use saltwater, copper and zinc to make a simple battery, and the reason you attach zinc sacrificial anodes to ocean going ships
cheses t1_j67hft1 wrote
Reply to comment by the_fungible_man in In the absence of cosmic radiation, would an object placed in space eventually cool to absolute zero? by IHatrMakingUsernames
Yeah should be approximately 0 K. The amount of radiation is a function of the bodies temperature.
[deleted] t1_j67h6iw wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j67h3f8 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j67ghgj wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j67g6rl wrote
[deleted] t1_j67fq3u wrote
Reply to comment by the_fungible_man in In the absence of cosmic radiation, would an object placed in space eventually cool to absolute zero? by IHatrMakingUsernames
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j67fh4a wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j67r64f wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in In the absence of cosmic radiation, would an object placed in space eventually cool to absolute zero? by IHatrMakingUsernames
[removed]