15 Nov 11 05:05 User:Hewton58Pratt |
|
15 Nov 11 04:16 User:Lanny99Castro |
|
15 Nov 11 03:54 User:Iordel58lMcbride |
|
15 Nov 11 01:39 User:Jamison567Conrad |
|
15 Nov 11 00:36 User:Joseph32York |
|
15 Nov 11 00:32 User:Michael18Myers |
|
15 Nov 11 00:27 User:Goreen745Guerra |
|
14 Nov 11 21:55 User:Jandida87Walters |
|
14 Nov 11 06:00 User:Xonna52Whitehead |
|
14 Nov 11 05:12 User:Tssac89Foley |
|
14 Nov 11 04:18 User:Frew23Singh |
|
14 Nov 11 02:36 User:David38Viega |
|
14 Nov 11 02:07 User:Ndilia58Woodward |
|
14 Nov 11 01:58 User:Paul14Rogers |
|
14 Nov 11 01:02 User:Ryan88Bryan |
|
14 Nov 11 00:51 User:Uthyl58Dickerson |
|
14 Nov 11 00:08 User:Idgardo58Gill |
|
14 Nov 11 00:08 User:John74Harris |
|
13 Nov 11 23:52 User:Dancie427Farley |
|
13 Nov 11 07:54 User:Donald24Shrupp |
|
13 Nov 11 06:22 User:Aaron28Smith |
|
12 Nov 11 01:04 User:Ooila52Medina |
|
11 Nov 11 23:50 User:Nhia97Nunez |
|
11 Nov 11 22:42 User:Zeith59Richards |
|
11 Nov 11 22:13 User:Earmon25Cannon |
|
11 Nov 11 12:59 User:Jody47Vazquez |
|
11 Nov 11 06:01 User:Jared17Mathis |
|
11 Nov 11 05:17 User:Enrique83Falcon |
|
11 Nov 11 04:29 User:TLesley35Compton |
|
11 Nov 11 04:07 User:Bluminada58Stone |
|
11 Nov 11 03:28 User:Eewton58Pratt |
|
11 Nov 11 02:48 User:Eugene564Morris |
|
11 Nov 11 01:41 User:Felix49Abrams |
|
11 Nov 11 01:29 User:Craig82Straub |
|
11 Nov 11 01:24 User:Nordel58lMcbride |
|
11 Nov 11 01:04 User:Uhia97Nunez |
|
11 Nov 11 00:22 User:Xal58Stein |
|
10 Nov 11 22:46 User:QLavada34Parks |
|
10 Nov 11 22:01 User:XMistie56Meza |
|
10 Nov 11 19:18 Talk:Superconductivity |
improved wording
← Older revision |
Revision as of 00:18, 11 November 2011 |
(One intermediate revision not shown) | Line 2: |
Line 2: |
| The first one to report to this discussion page the experimental confirmation or nonconfirmation of the giant free electron theory will be rewarded with the fact of that first result being recorded here. [[User:Farred|Farred]] 18:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC) | | The first one to report to this discussion page the experimental confirmation or nonconfirmation of the giant free electron theory will be rewarded with the fact of that first result being recorded here. [[User:Farred|Farred]] 18:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC) |
| ==Superposition== | | ==Superposition== |
- | A significant difference between the giant electron theory's interpretation and phantom particle theories' interpretations of the dual slit experiment is in the interpretation of the meaning of the superposition of sine waves that indicate the probability of an electron being detected at a particular spot. In the phantom particle theories there are several phantom electrons that approach the detectors. Only when one of them is actually detected is the number of phantoms reduced to one real electron. In the giant electron theory there is only one quite real electron at all times. The superposition of sine waves indicating probability of detection are a description of the likelihood of the one electron being deflected to one course or another. In the description of electron orbitals of an atom there is not the likelihood of finding an electron in a particular region of an electron cloud making up the orbital, rather the electron is in all parts of the orbital at once and the varying intensity that is calculated indicates the likelihood of the electron participating in one or another reaction. | + | A significant difference between the giant electron theory's interpretation and phantom particle theories' interpretations of the dual slit experiment is in the interpretation of the meaning of the superposition of sine waves that indicate the probability of an electron being detected at a particular spot. In the phantom particle theories there are several phantom electrons that approach the detectors. Only when one of them is actually detected is the number of phantoms reduced to one real electron. In the giant electron theory there is only one quite real electron at all times. The superimposed sine waves indicating probability of detection are a description of the likelihood of the one electron being deflected to one course or another. In the description of electron orbitals of an atom there is not the likelihood of finding an electron in a particular region of an electron cloud making up the orbital, rather the electron is in all parts of the orbital at once. The varying intensity that is calculated for varying positions within the orbital indicates the likelihood of the electron participating in one or another reaction for particular positions. |
| | | |
- | Personally I consider phantom particles hard to believe in and would require good evidence before acknowledging that such a thing might be. What evidence do the proponents of such theories provide? They say that if you look you will only see the end result never the multiple phantoms. At the point the a detector enters into the experiment there is "decoherence" so the phantoms will never be seen. Is this some sort of joke? You can not prove them wrong because the evidence disappears when you look at it. I may be missing something in my understanding of the theory of phantom particles in the dual slit experiment. Anyone is welcome to set me straight by submitting edits to this talk page. [[User:Farred|Farred]] 19:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC) | + | Personally I consider phantom particles hard to believe in and would require good evidence before acknowledging that such a thing might be. What evidence do the proponents of such theories provide? They say that if you look you will only see the end result never the multiple phantoms. At the point the a detector enters into the experiment there is "decoherence" so the phantoms will never be seen. Is this some sort of joke? You can not prove them wrong because the evidence disappears when you look at it. I may be missing something in my understanding of the theory of phantom particles in the dual slit experiment. Anyone is welcome to set me straight by submitting edits to this talk page. [[User:Farred|Farred]] 00:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
10 Nov 11 14:00 Lunar Temperature |
restoring version by Apsmith
← Older revision |
Revision as of 19:00, 10 November 2011 |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
- | -
| + | The surface temperature of the [[Luna|Moon]] varies considerably with location and the relative position of the Sun. Unlike geologically active bodies, the Moon no longer has an internal heat source, so heating comes almost entirely from the Sun (at night the lunar surface is warmed slightly by Earth). |
- | | + | |
- |
| + | |
- | | + | |
- | +
| + | |
- | -
| + | |
| | | |
| With no atmosphere and a surface made up almost entirely of rocky materials with low thermal conductivity and relatively low heat capacity, during the [[Lunar Day|lunar day]] the surface temperature quickly reaches equilibrium with incoming solar radiation. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_law Stefan-Boltzmann equation] sets the numbers: | | With no atmosphere and a surface made up almost entirely of rocky materials with low thermal conductivity and relatively low heat capacity, during the [[Lunar Day|lunar day]] the surface temperature quickly reaches equilibrium with incoming solar radiation. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_law Stefan-Boltzmann equation] sets the numbers: |
- |
| |
- | +
| |
- | -
| |
- |
| |
- |
| |
- |
| |
- | +
| |
- | -
| |
| | | |
| <div style="text-align: center;"> | | <div style="text-align: center;"> |
- |
| |
- | +
| |
- | -
| |
- |
| |
| <math> I = \epsilon\sigma T^{4}</math> | | <math> I = \epsilon\sigma T^{4}</math> |
- |
| |
- | +
| |
- | -
| |
- |
| |
| </div> | | </div> |
- |
| |
- | +
| |
- | -
| |
- |
| |
- |
| |
- |
| |
- | +
| |
- | -
| |
| | | |
| where ''I'' represents absorbed solar energy per unit area, ''T'' is the absolute surface temperature (kelvins), ''<math>\epsilon</math>'' is the [[Lunar Emissivity|emissivity]], and ''<math>\sigma</math>'' is Stefan's constant, 5.67x10^-8 in metric units. | | where ''I'' represents absorbed solar energy per unit area, ''T'' is the absolute surface temperature (kelvins), ''<math>\epsilon</math>'' is the [[Lunar Emissivity|emissivity]], and ''<math>\sigma</math>'' is Stefan's constant, 5.67x10^-8 in metric units. |
- |
| |
- | +
| |
- | -
| |
- |
| |
- |
| |
- |
| |
- | +
| |
- | -
| |
| | | |
| For a surface with the sun directly overhead, for example a horizontal region near the equator at lunar noon, ''I'' is the solar constant in Earth's neighborhood, about 1366 W/m^2, minus the portion [[Lunar Albedo|reflected]]. Since the emissivity is close to 1 minus the reflectance, those two terms cancel out, and inverting the equation gives the maximum day-time high on the Moon: 394 K or about 120 degrees C. | | For a surface with the sun directly overhead, for example a horizontal region near the equator at lunar noon, ''I'' is the solar constant in Earth's neighborhood, about 1366 W/m^2, minus the portion [[Lunar Albedo|reflected]]. Since the emissivity is close to 1 minus the reflectance, those two terms cancel out, and inverting the equation gives the maximum day-time high on the Moon: 394 K or about 120 degrees C. |
- |
| |
- | +
| |
- | -
| |
- |
| |
- |
| |
- |
| |
- | +
| |
- | -
| |
| | | |
| When the sun's not directly overhead whether you are at the equator during lunar morning or evening, near the poles, or looking at a rock face sharply angled to the horizontal, the surface temperature will be lowered because the same solar energy is spread over a larger area. | | When the sun's not directly overhead whether you are at the equator during lunar morning or evening, near the poles, or looking at a rock face sharply angled to the horizontal, the surface temperature will be lowered because the same solar energy is spread over a larger area. |
- |
| |
- | +
| |
- | -
| |
- |
| |
- |
| |
- |
| |
- | +
| |
- | -
| |
| | | |
| <div style="text-align: center;"> | | <div style="text-align: center;"> |
- |
| |
- | +
| |
- | -
| |
- |
| |
| <math>I = 1366 \cos(\theta) W/m^2</math> | | <math>I = 1366 \cos(\theta) W/m^2</math> |
- |
| |
- | +
| |
- | -
| |
- |
| |
| </div> | | </div> |
- |
| |
- | +
| |
- | -
| |
- |
| |
- |
| |
- |
| |
- | +
| |
- | -
| |
| | | |
| where ''<math>\theta</math>'' is the angle of the Sun's position relative to a line perpendicular to the surface. Because the lunar rotational axis is tilted only 1.5 degrees from the ecliptic, solar angles at noon are always within 1.5 degrees of the lunar latitude value. | | where ''<math>\theta</math>'' is the angle of the Sun's position relative to a line perpendicular to the surface. Because the lunar rotational axis is tilted only 1.5 degrees from the ecliptic, solar angles at noon are always within 1.5 degrees of the lunar latitude value. |
- |
| |
- | +
| |
- | -
| |
- |
| |
- |
| |
- |
| |
- | +
| |
- | -
| |
| | | |
| For an angle of 30 degrees, (maximum temperature for a horizontal surface at latitude 30 degrees N or S, or equatorial temperature at roughly plus or minus two Earth days from lunar "noon"), ''T'' is then 380 K, or 107 degrees C. At 60 degrees, the temperature is still 331 K or 58 degrees C. At 75 degrees we reach about 281 K or 8 degrees C. At 85 degrees the equilibrated temperature drops to 214 K or -59 degrees C. At the lunar poles there are believed to be regions which never receive direct sunlight. If they don't receive significant warming from higher elevation surfaces that are in direct sunlight, they would be equilibrated only with the thermal background radiation of deep space at 2-3 K (-270 degrees C), and would likely form cold traps holding volatile materials. | | For an angle of 30 degrees, (maximum temperature for a horizontal surface at latitude 30 degrees N or S, or equatorial temperature at roughly plus or minus two Earth days from lunar "noon"), ''T'' is then 380 K, or 107 degrees C. At 60 degrees, the temperature is still 331 K or 58 degrees C. At 75 degrees we reach about 281 K or 8 degrees C. At 85 degrees the equilibrated temperature drops to 214 K or -59 degrees C. At the lunar poles there are believed to be regions which never receive direct sunlight. If they don't receive significant warming from higher elevation surfaces that are in direct sunlight, they would be equilibrated only with the thermal background radiation of deep space at 2-3 K (-270 degrees C), and would likely form cold traps holding volatile materials. |
- |
| |
- | +
| |
- | -
| |
- |
| |
- |
| |
- |
| |
- | +
| |
- | -
| |
| | | |
| During the [[Lunar Night|night]] the surface temperature drops further as the rocks radiate away the energy they've absorbed during the day time, with regions near the lunar equator dropping to about 120 K or -150 degrees C by the end of the night. | | During the [[Lunar Night|night]] the surface temperature drops further as the rocks radiate away the energy they've absorbed during the day time, with regions near the lunar equator dropping to about 120 K or -150 degrees C by the end of the night. |
- |
| |
- | +
| |
- | -
| |
- |
| |
- |
| |
- |
| |
- | +
| |
- | -
| |
| | | |
| The temperature drop is limited by conduction of heat from layers several meters below the surface, which maintain a roughly steady average temperature that can also be determined from the Stefan-Boltzmann law. In this case 'I' represents the incoming solar energy averaged over a full day-night cycle | | The temperature drop is limited by conduction of heat from layers several meters below the surface, which maintain a roughly steady average temperature that can also be determined from the Stefan-Boltzmann law. In this case 'I' represents the incoming solar energy averaged over a full day-night cycle |
- |
| |
- | +
| |
- | -
| |
- |
| |
- |
| |
- |
| |
- | +
| |
- | -
| |
| | | |
| <div style="text-align: center;"> | | <div style="text-align: center;"> |
- |
| |
- | +
| |
- | -
| |
- |
| |
| <math>I_{ave} = 1366 \cos(\theta)/\pi W/m^2 </math> | | <math>I_{ave} = 1366 \cos(\theta)/\pi W/m^2 </math> |
- |
| |
- | +
| |
- | -
| |
- |
| |
| </div> | | </div> |
- |
| |
- | +
| |
- | -
| |
- |
| |
- |
| |
- |
| |
- | +
| |
- | -
| |
| | | |
| so at the equator ''T'' is about 296 K, or a comfortable 23 degrees C if you bury yourself sufficiently. At 60 degrees that drops to 249 K or -24 degrees C. The average subsurface temperature near the poles (85 degrees and higher) would be below 160 K or -110 degrees C. | | so at the equator ''T'' is about 296 K, or a comfortable 23 degrees C if you bury yourself sufficiently. At 60 degrees that drops to 249 K or -24 degrees C. The average subsurface temperature near the poles (85 degrees and higher) would be below 160 K or -110 degrees C. |
- |
| |
- | +
| |
- | -
| |
- |
| |
- |
| |
- |
| |
- | +
| |
- | -
| |
| | | |
| [[Category:Selenology]] | | [[Category:Selenology]] |
- |
| |
- | +
| |
- | -
| |
- |
| |
- |
| |
- |
| |
- | +
| |
- | -
| |
| | | |
| {{Physics Stub}} | | {{Physics Stub}} |
|
10 Nov 11 13:49 Electrical Conductors |
Undo revision 16857 by 188.222.175.64 (talk) removing vandalism
← Older revision |
Revision as of 18:49, 10 November 2011 |
Line 121: |
Line 121: |
| | | |
| == Potassium == | | == Potassium == |
- | The second least dense metal, after lithium. A soft solid that can be easily cut with a knife (So this is then giving us thoughts that the potassium metal, most be compacted with different types of interactive particles allowing it to be democraticly soft and easily seperated using a sharp insulf like a knife.), it has a low-melting point. Freshly cut [[potassium]] is silvery in appearance, but in air a gray tarnish appears almost immediately. | + | The second least dense metal, after lithium. A soft solid that can be easily cut with a knife, it has a low-melting point. Freshly cut [[potassium]] is silvery in appearance, but in air a gray tarnish appears almost immediately. |
| | | |
| Potassium must be protected from air for storage to prevent disintegration of the metal from oxide and hydroxide corrosion. Often samples are maintained under a reducing medium such as kerosene. | | Potassium must be protected from air for storage to prevent disintegration of the metal from oxide and hydroxide corrosion. Often samples are maintained under a reducing medium such as kerosene. |
Line 134: |
Line 134: |
| | | |
| Potassium is available on the Moon. | | Potassium is available on the Moon. |
- |
| |
- | So this is then giving us thoughts that the potassium metal, most be compacted with different types of interactive particles allowing it to be democraticly soft and easily seperated using a sharp insulf like a knife.
| |
| | | |
| == Iron == | | == Iron == |
|
10 Nov 11 13:45 Rhenium |
Reverted edits by 66.188.171.158 (talk) to last revision by Strangelv
← Older revision |
Revision as of 18:45, 10 November 2011 |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
- | {{Element ''' hi people ''':) you guys rock;) | | + | {{Element | |
| name=Rhenium | | | name=Rhenium | |
| symbol=Re | | | symbol=Re | |
|
10 Nov 11 13:44 User:Niki72Schmidt |
|
10 Nov 11 05:27 User:IRuss68Mason |
|
10 Nov 11 04:40 User:AXavier28Barnett |
|
10 Nov 11 03:09 User:Rafael48Griggs |
|
10 Nov 11 02:09 User:Doug65Edwards |
|
09 Nov 11 23:07 User:WCatherina58Ingram |
|