Strange question (1 Viewer)

[Evilmice]

i know this is a bit off topic, but it combines chemistry and physics and i have no idea of the answer.

If you fire a large atom such as uranium into a neutron is it a collision?

If so does the equation m1u1 + m2u2 = m1v1 + m2v2 still work?

Lastly if by chance this produced an alpha emission would it still be able to be worked into the equation? (eg have the m2 = 4)


No one i've asked has known, so maybe some one here does

Thanks in advance

 

[Riviet]

i know this is a bit off topic, but it combines chemistry and physics and i have no idea of the answer.

If you fire a large atom such as uranium into a neutron is it a collision?

If so does the equation m1u1 + m2u2 = m1v1 + m2v2 still work?

Lastly if by chance this produced an alpha emission would it still be able to be worked into the equation? (eg have the m2 = 4)


No one i've asked has known, so maybe some one here does

Thanks in advance

I don't think the equation can be applied to objects in flight and being under the influence of gravity. Need someone who knows their phys and chem to help.

 

[Evilmice]

the equation usually works with larger objects such as cars hitting one another, but thats newtonian physics and not sure if it works with particles, i'd ask a teacher if i wasn't on holidays. They'd probably laugh at me anyway

 

[mitsui]

hm i dont think the equation works when the veolcity of the partricle is so much closer to light, coz then u have to consider the relativity theory

for cars and everythin, it works i reckon

 

[insert-username]

Once you get down to the atomic and subatomic level, Einstein's relativity stops working right, and in the last century physicists have developed quantum mechanics to try and explain how it all works. It just goes to show how little we really know when one of the pioneering documents of quantum mechanics is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which states that the more precisely you define the position of a subatomic particle at a given instant, the less precisely you can define its momentum at that same instant.

Since then we've moved onto discovering the constituents of subatomic particles: leptons, hadrons, gluons, mesons, bosons, and the Higg's boson (which hasn't actually been found yet but it "should" be there so that everything has mass) to name a few. We've also discovered that most of these are made of "quarks", and that they have "flavours": up, down, charm, strange, top, and bottom, and these are further divided into "colours": red, green, and blue (no, I'm not joking). From there we add string theory and hypothesised gravitons (to make sure gravity exists) and tachyons (which can exceed the speed of light, hypothetically) and it all gets far too complicated. As if it wasn't already.

So basically, at the atomic level, we have quantum mechanics, and bigger than that we have relativity which in itself is head spinning anyway.

Hope that helped.


I_F

 

[Evilmice]

Once you get down to the atomic and subatomic level, Einstein's relativity stops working right, and in the last century physicists have developed quantum mechanics to try and explain how it all works. It just goes to show how little we really know when one of the pioneering documents of quantum mechanics is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which states that the more precisely you define the position of a subatomic particle at a given instant, the less precisely you can define its momentum at that same instant.

Since then we've moved onto discovering the constituents of subatomic particles: leptons, hadrons, gluons, mesons, bosons, and the Higg's boson (which hasn't actually been found yet but it "should" be there so that everything has mass) to name a few. We've also discovered that most of these are made of "quarks", and that they have "flavours": up, down, charm, strange, top, and bottom, and these are further divided into "colours": red, green, and blue (no, I'm not joking). From there we add string theory and hypothesised gravitons (to make sure gravity exists) and tachyons (which can exceed the speed of light, hypothetically) and it all gets far too complicated. As if it wasn't already.

So basically, at the atomic level, we have quantum mechanics, and bigger than that we have relativity which in itself is head spinning anyway.

Hope that helped.


I_F

hahaha, so no?

From the looks of things you know a lot, i wonder, might you do "quanta to quarks" as the physics elective this year? (if you do physics), sounds interesting but as someone said (not sure who) the problem with subatomic particles is even they have to be made up of something, so what makes up a quark?

the mind boggles

anyway thanks for you help...i think

 

[insert-username]

Heh. Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything taught me everything I know. I do physics and I'm looking at doing Quanta to Quarks for my elective, yes. And at the moment, I'm pretty sure that quarks are believed to be the fundamental particle... the very smallest you can get. Although, with the nature of physics as it is, you never know what they'll find or propose next.


I_F

 

[Riviet]

Insert-username, you posed some very interesting points in your previous post, you seem to have a deep knowledge of particles and physics. I'm impressed.

By the way go quantum physics!! Also doing it as my elective. :]

 

[insert-username]

Insert-username, you posed some very interesting points in your previous post, you seem to have a deep knowledge of particles and physics. I'm impressed.

By the way go quantum physics!! Also doing it as my elective. :]

Thanks a bunch, Riviet. Woo for the life-gripping confusion and generally deluded-ness of quarks!


I_F

 

[Evilmice]

Heh. Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything taught me everything I know. I do physics and I'm looking at doing Quanta to Quarks for my elective, yes. And at the moment, I'm pretty sure that quarks are believed to be the fundamental particle... the very smallest you can get. Although, with the nature of physics as it is, you never know what they'll find or propose next.


I_F

thats a great book, they have it with pictures now! A must have for christmas.

Your last point is ture, you never know.

Anyway i think this topic has moved away from chemistry and into physics, seems i picked the wrong forum

 

[insert-username]

No worries. There's always overlap between Chem and Physics, and Bio and Chem. When you get down to the very small bits of Chemistry, it morphs into Physics, even though it's still about atoms.


I_F

 

[Evilmice]

true, from i see physics as a study of energy/forces and chemistry as a study of matter.

Thanks to e=mc^2 we can say that matter is condensed energy i guess, which makes the two subjects basiclly the same, from my perspective anyway.

 

[Ennaybur]

woohoo im doin quanta to quarks 2 ... *sigh* though we'll prolly spend most of the time having ruler fights or swinging pendulums at each other .. hmm i wonder wat the pracs will do for us in that topic..

An invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe, starting with a mountain, trees and a "midgit" (sic)​

 

[Ioup]

Just another strange question..
Is it possible to make a dirty bomb with smoke detectors?
Lots of smoke detectors?
Its a pretty silly question but I'm interested in knowing if its possible or not.

 

[insert-username]

Just another strange question..
Is it possible to make a dirty bomb with smoke detectors?
Lots of smoke detectors?
Its a pretty silly question but I'm interested in knowing if its possible or not.

You want to buy about a billion smoke detectors? Go ahead - they only contain a tiny, tiny amount of americium-241 (we're talking small portions of a gram, I believe). But if you get enough of them, americium is a strong gamma emitter in gram quantities, so you'd have some power.


I_F