Anyone like astronomy or physics?

Post Reply New Topic

Anyone like astronomy or physics? Try to explain something in those fields that is interesting and see if you can stump me.

You first.  Present a valid equation that accurately explains the transfer characteristics of a typical lambda diode in relation to the Vco and Idss of both of its active components.

I do like it.
I just suck at the terminologies and technobabble to memorize that comes with it.

And, I don't have enough math vocabulary and grammar skills for advanced stuff yet and also still suck at memorizing formulas along with countless stuff that relates to string of numbers involving the elements.

Otherwise, I can picture a lot of things out.

Gained Number Post Count (1).
Lose Time (n).

Lose more time here - Updates at least once a week.

Here are a few to ponder over.

1.). In atoms, electrons move around the nucleus in spaces of high probability areas that we call orbits. While they appear to move randomly in these areas, that is simply not the case. Explain exactly what is causing them to travel those strange paths within orbit shells.

2.). Matter and anti-matter particles form in exactly equal amounts during pair production. Yet in the known universe, matter is predominantly found while anti-matter is considered very rare. Why is it not 50% matter and 50 % anti-matter?

3.). Neutrinos and anti-neutrinos can both pass through large amounts of matter without interacting with it. They will undergo annihilation with each other to yield two photons of blue light. What exactly allows neutrinos to travel through matter uninhibited this way?

4.). What specifically causes the Z boson to be its own anti-particle? Draw the substructure of it.

@QuantumChemist: Did we break the OP?

Hokieman is probably seriously studying the questions.

I used to think that I liked it; in fact, I earned my Bachelor's degree in Astrophysics.

I found, however, that contemporary physics is unnecessarily abstract, more concerned with unrealistically neat and tidy models and their metaphorical details than with describing concrete physical reality (which is what interests me and motivated me to major in physics).

I think what I'm interested in is called natural philosophy.

Here is a question for you: why promote conservation of energy as a fact given that not all the energy transferred within a system is measurable (some is dissipated), thus rendering conservation of energy empirically unverifiable?

Ha,ha you guys probably broke me the OP.I think I like trying to understand this stuff.I break myself trying to create stuff at times too.Anyways this has been pretty fun!

I only consider myself to be very interested in astronomy particularly, not as much with physics, usally my mind gets warped before I get very far.I probably don't really understand astronomy or physics as much as I might think I do.

Yes, the fun part of physics is using it to make neat widgets. But not so much talking to people about how someone is wrong about something.

In my own case...
The abstract stuff for me is meta -- basically finding a way to make sense of what already exists yet cannot be explained.
Thus 'models' and theory -- the models are just a bunch of make up rules to make sense of the fundamental systems that supposed to make sense of why reality is reality.
I'd like to bet, there are systems that may already exists just outside the current languages or base numbers we have today.

In which, in my point of view is paralleled in terms of humanities with psychology and culture.
Culture is already there, psychology is new has it's own models of humanity that are easily updated due to culture's change...
Basically, psychology is why the human is being human, or why a being is being.
Not to mention there are already barely words for most emotions with all the languages out here.


Again, with any verbal terminologies, I'd suck recalling them.

I won't study either of it formally because it wouldn't be worth it to only capture a fraction of intangible snapshots of my thoughts while spending years confining to terms that may not entirely fit.
So I'd formally study something practical for livelihood's sake.

Yet the point of me finding, listening or reading to verbal terms in the first place is to capture a picture of something more abstract.
Which is something I continuously do, in a deep and naturally aspie way of attempting to make systems of making sense of everything, be it the physical existence or existentialisms.

So I do get far and deep myself. Just in undescribable terms.
Unless I found such terms, which would quickly make sense as soon as I'd get past the verbal dialogues barrier.
And on top of having to recall said terms in later dates, which is something I'd still struggle in general.

Gained Number Post Count (1).
Lose Time (n).

Lose more time here - Updates at least once a week.