The black death, was a plague spread by the bacteria Yersinia Pestis, many people died of the disease the remaining population were immune or resisted the infection so there were no new hosts for the disease. https://youtu.be/aoCDoUpTfTw

Reading and solving problems can increase a person's IQ to a certain degree.

In short: yes.

[deleted]

[removed]

Literally made a headache go away reading that, thanks.

The speed has nothing to do with calculating pressure. You need to know the mass, acceleration, and area. Furthermore, while pressure itself is a scalar, for non-simple geometries you need to know the vectors of the acceleration and area.

Most people will tell you that pressure is force divided by the area. This is true, but is making an important assumption--the force is normal to unit area.

If you had a square of 1 m^2 and exerted a force of 10 N over its entire area, what is the pressure? The answer is we can not determine from the information provided. If the force is normal to the square then the pressure is 10N / 1m^2 = 10 N/m^2. If the force is inclined at a 45 degree angle then the pressure is 10N*cos(pi/4) / 1 m^2 = 10sqrt(2)/2 N/m^2.

Things get even more complicated if the force is not evenly distributed in which case you'll be doing some integration.

This is not the answer. I believe it d9es use that as one metric, but what you don't realize is that when you click that box, it is giving Google consent to scan your history and analyze it for human like patterns. If your history is repeated attempts at sites trying to download this or that, or whatever a bot might be set to do, then it would block. Bur if you browsed reddit, then hopped on Amazon, and google the definition of conalingus l, then watched YouTube, the algo would know you are human.

String theory is an attempt to explain the phenomena of current physics as emergent behavior of some underlying objects. The details are beyond my understanding of physics.

> How does the Higgs boson come into play here? Is it merely hypothetical or has it been widely accepted as something that exists?

The Higgs was hypothetical for a long time, but was observed by the LHC in 2012. It's now generally accepted that it exists.

> What I can remmeber, it was the particle responsible for granting all sorts of matter their mass.

More or less, yes. Specifically, it's (among other things) why the W and Z bosons have mass but the photon doesn't.

Recall that mass and energy are two different expressions of the same thing. Potential energy stored in one of the physical fields underlying the universe is mass, and in fact about 99% of the mass of the objects around you comes from the potential energy of quark-quark attraction, not in the bare mass of the quarks themselves. The Higgs mechanism gives some particles mass by effectively "tangling" the Higgs field (one of the underlying physical fields) with the field underlying the weak interaction (one of the four fundamental physical forces) in such a way that neither of them can settle into the zero-energy state that they "want" to settle into.

Again, the details here are extremely complicated.

> Doing some diving into wikipedia there are tons of things like gravitons and fermions and whatnot that make it seem like it's a massive iceberg out there. My question is, what is the most widely accepted theory for quantum mechanics and what subatomic particles have been proved to actually exist?

The basic accepted theory of particle physics today is the Standard Model, which contains the following particles:

• Six quarks, two of which (the "up" and "down" quark, no relation to everyday directions) make up protons (two up, one down) and neutrons (one up, two down) respectively. The others (the charm, strange, bottom, and top quarks) are unstable under normal conditions and are only observed briefly in particle accelerators.

• Six leptons: the electron and its two heavier cousins, and the three types of neutrino. The muon and tau (the two heavier cousins of the electron) are unstable. The three neutrinos are sort of stable, but they actually oscillate (change from one type of neutrino to another) as they travel. Neutrinos are rarely important to everyday events because they interact very weakly with the matter humans are made of.

• The bosons, particles that carry the underlying physical forces of the Universe. These are the photon (carries electromagnetism), the W+, W-, and Z bosons (which carry the weak interaction), the eight types of gluon (which carry the strong interaction), the Higgs boson (which carries the Higgs field, or more properly one component of it), and the still-unobserved graviton (which carries gravity).

Of these, only the graviton has not been observed.

The Standard Model is, however, known to be incomplete. It can't explain some physical phenomena, and it's incompatible with relativity in conditions where both gravity and quantum mechanics become relevant. Theories like string theory are attempts to expand the standard model in ways that cover these gaps.

> Is it theoretically possible to split a subatomic particle? If so, how much energy would it release?

Subatomic, sure, but not fundamental. The only subatomic particles currently known not to be fundamental are protons and neutrons, and you could in principle split them apart...

...but the properties of the strong interaction make the behavior of such a split a bit weird. Instead of seeing free quarks, you'd see new protons and neutrons!

The reason is that the strong interaction (in its full form, not to be confused with the residual strong force that holds the nuclei of atoms together) doesn't fall off with distance the way that electromagnetism or gravity do. The potential energy of two separated charges in electromagnetism, for example, is -1/r, but the potential energy of two separated strong-interacting particles is, roughly, just r. So once quarks get very far apart, it's actually energetically-favorable to just spontaneously produce new quarks from the void to bind them up into protons and neutrons again.

In any case, protons and neutrons are very tightly bound, so you wouldn't release energy by splitting them (you'd have to input a huge amount of energy). The same is true of nuclei, by the way, it's just that sometimes splitting a nucleus results in more tightly bound nuclei.

> Is it true that many subatomic particles are believed to interact with parallel universes (like basically exist in both simultanoeusly)?

This is speculative and depends on your interpretation of quantum mechanics. Unless you're doing the math, this sort of question is more "whooaa duuuuuude" stoner speculation than science.

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

Top level comments (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions.

Joke only comments, while allowed elsewhere in the thread, may not exist at the top level.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using this form and we will review your submission.

Both. There are quadrillions of tons of atmosphere on Earth and it's composition doesn't change over night. At the same time, most plants and algae will absorb CO2 and release oxygen. They'd also absorb oxygen but most plants need the extra carbon more than they need the spare oxygen. Mind, this only works so long as we aren't destroying plants and algae while simultaneously dumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

In theory, an IQ test is supposed to measure your "potential for learning". The idea is to separate knowledge from the ability to learn something/problem solve, so that ignorance doesn't change the results. In reality this is can't be done perfectly and you can absolutely get better results on an IQ test by practicing. But this means that people who already have gained some of the same skills that would be honed by practicing for the IQ test will score better than someone who has not gained those skills.

So IQ tests are intended to measure something that you shouldn't be able to change, but fail to do so perfectly, and so it is NOT always the same. But the true value of the thing that IQ is a proxy for shouldn't be able to be changed.

If we're nitpicking, I choose this part:

"It's not automatically insider trading for a person involved with a company to trade in its stock"

It is insider trading, just not the illegal kind. In fact the definition of insider trading is basically a person involved with a company trading in its stock. There are additional rules and scrutiny tied to insider trading and illegal insider trading is often just referred to as insider trading but, nonetheless the general concept of insider trading is not illegal.

I'd also like to add that you can raise it by using your brain more, i.e., reading, problem solving (maths,ect ), and learning new things .

Some fuel gauge chips require training on a battery (a few charge cycles) to "learn" what the actual state of the battery is. They'll initially be less accurate and get more accurate. I'd guess that is why your charge time went from 40 minutes to 74 minutes if all else were equal after two weeks of use. That isn't sufficient time for your battery to degrade that much.

Another possibility is temperature. There is a good chance your charger IC will throttle maximum charge current depending upon the temperature it measures.

IQ is neither objective nor static.

You can certainly increase your IQ(which is determined by test results for reasoning and problem solving) by studying and practicing those skills.

Additionally, numerous studies have shown that the modern IQ test heavily skews towards "western" and wealthy individuals with education provided within a Prussian style school system(like most western countries provide).

Your question is asked under a false premise.

My recommendation is that if you want to even begin to understand stuff like string theory, you really need a solid background in the basics of physics and calculus. I took two courses in college with a large quantum physics component (College level physics II and physical chemistry) and I will say none of it made any sense at all until I just put aside my intuition and just followed the math, and that was just the basic stuff. I still can't understand shit like string theory even though I got pretty good at basic quantum physics, but I can at least follow some of the discussion because I have that foundational knowledge.

[deleted]

Most vegetables actually have beta carotene instead of actual Vitamin A. It's a safe version that your body only converts to Vitamin A as it needs it. Anything excess is excreted naturally. This is why vegetable sources of Vitamin A are preferred over meat sources like liver since those store the actual Vitamin A form.

Interesting side fact: This is also why polar bear liver is toxic to eat because of it's massive quantities of Vitamin A. A single liver can have as much as 9 million IU of Vitamin A and human toxicity is generally reached at 300,000 IU.

Your intelligence quotient (iq) does not directly measure how smart you are. It measures the plasticity of your brain and how capable you are of learning. Thus indirectly how smart you CAN be.

One of my friends told me how much it cost Dunkin Donuts to change over all the signage from Dunkin to DD. It was insane. There are several types/sizes of lighted signs, for instance, and it was crazy money for each one. And each location might have several.

So is it safe to say that if algae is present in a body of water, then you can expect the overall effect to be a net decrease in oxygen?

Some strains of the bacteria aren't as deadly, and some aren't as good at infecting new people. Some are too deadly and kill people very quickly before they can infect a bunch of other people. The Plague bacteria actually still exists today and there are minor outbreaks every now and then even now, although they are extremely rare in countries with widespread access to antibiotics.

Nuclear bombs were invented due to a series of advancements in physics that occurred in the late 1800s and early 1900s that revolutionized our understanding of the world. I will treat this as a list of the most important ones

1. Electromagnetism. In the 1800s, a great deal of research was done on electricity and magnetism that ended up realizing that these two forces are the same force in different forms. The main result of this for our purposes is that this work led to the discovery that the speed of light is constant and dependent on the laws of physics, which implies that if the laws of physics stay the same regardless of where you are, the speed of light is constant. This led to a major problem in physics since this is kind of impossible in classical physics.

2. Atomic theory. In the 1890s and 1900s the structure of the atom began to be understood. Scientists discovered that atoms are made of a nucleus comprised of positively charged protons and uncharged neutrons, and negatively charged electrons surrounding it.

3. Radioactivity. Around the same time as modern atomic theory was getting going, scientists such as Marie Curie began studying radioactivity and the properties of radioactive substances and the fact that radioactive elements can turn into other elements

4. Relativity. Albert Einstein revolutionized physics by solving the problem that arose in step 1 where light has a constant speed regardless of where you are, by developing his Theory of Relativity. Essentially Einstein used math to determine what the laws of physics would be like if we just accepted that the speed of light in a vacuum was just constant regardless of any other effects. This resulted in drastically different physical laws than what we may expect based on Isaac Newton's formulation of physics, but importantly the differences are only apparent in circumstances we don't see very often in our everyday lives. Most important to our nuclear bomb discussion is that a weird result of Relativity is that mass and energy are equivalent to each other, via the famous equation E=mc^2. This means that matter can be converted into energy and vice versa. This also explained why radioactive substances can turn into different elements only by emitting energy.

5. Nuclear science. In the following decades, scientists used the previous discoveries to develop a broader theory of nuclear science, gaining a better and better understanding of how radiation works, how to control it, and how to produce it.

After all of that, we finally had the theoretical background for a nuclear bomb. Nuclear bombs work by converting a relatively large (i.e. more than a couple micrograms) amount of matter into energy very rapidly. In practice, this means putting a lot of material that can trigger a chain reaction of radioactive decay events all in one place. Nuclear bombs are designed very carefully to use explosives to very rapidly push together nuclear material, which creates the chain reaction that leads to nuclear explosion. The reason the amount of energy is so great is that same E=mc^2 equation. E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light. Since the speed of light is a very big number, you can see that even a fairly small amount of mass is equivalent to a quite large amount of energy. If you can convert a significant amount of mass into energy very quickly, it leads to a giant explosion because of the sheer amount of energy released.

So our graphical representation of atoms is to a certain extent wrong? Now, since I am reading the Hyperspace book, I guess it would help to understand if dimensions are created from the subatomic particle's interference/reinforcement, or they just are? Naturally, time I know is created by the expansion of the universe.

Asking this, it came to mind what is dark matter? Is it literally matter with just opposite charge? If so, do subatomic particles also form it like normal matter's electrons and protons?