Topic: Science quiz for the American public.

[GE-Raven]

Answers  - Spoiler below













[spoiler]

1.  A right triangle has three sides of equal length. - False - a right triangle by definition can't have equilateral sides

2.  The speed of sound is constant. - False - it changes speed due to medium

3.  The speed of light is constant.  - False - it also changes speed due to medium

4.  All amphibians spend at least part of their life in water. - True

5.  1000 molecules of Iron weighs more than 1000 molecules of Zinc.  - False - Zinc is heavier

6.  Cartesian Geometry is named after the person who invented it - True

7.  The Whale Shark is a mammal. - False - a whale shark is a large shark, not a whale at all

8.  The tomato is indigenous to the North American Continent. - False - It actually originated in Peru, though the first Europeans probably were introduced to the import in Central America.

9.  The Average temperature of the North Pole is Colder than that of the South Pole. - False - It isn't even close... the South Pole averages some -58 F  The North Pole is around 0 F

10.  Yeast is:  Bacteria, Virus, Fungus, Single-celled Animal  (Choose one)  - It is from the Fungus family, which in turn makes it a plant.

11.  Sun spots are hotter then the surrounding areas of the sun. - False - Sun spots  (also called Sunspots) are actually 1000-2000 K colder than surrounding areas of the sun.


[/spoiler]

Should work as a spoiler for answer.

[Nemesis]

Ozone = O₃

Fair enough... however Ozone is not a molecule of Oxygen... it is a Molecule of Ozone...  A Molecule of Iron has a specific structure, as does a Molecule of Zinc.  It happens to be a single Atom of that element.

We need a chemist in here .  A Molecule is a group of Atoms bound together.  An Element is a single Atom.  Don't forget the periodic table is more fully named "The Periodic Table of the Elements".  The data on the periodic table is for individual atoms (aka elements) not for a molecule composed of those atoms. 

You stated:

For instance Oxygen, Nitrogen, Hydrogen, and Cholorine are all Elements that always appear in binary as a molecule of two atoms.

Ozone is a molecule composed solely of 3 Oxygen atoms. You specified the element oxygen not the molecule which shares the same name.    Your statement thtat the element oxygen always appears as an binary molecule is false based on the existance of ozone.

H₁ can also exist in nature (its believed to be the source of the Jovian magnetic fields.

I'm not actually sure but I seem to recall N₆  being synthesized a few years ago.

[GE-Raven]

http://www.nyu.edu/pages/mathmol/textbook/compounds.html

Textbook entry.

Regardless of what was said about Oxygen (molecule or atom).  The functional definition of a molecule is:

A molecule is the smallest particle of a substance that exists independently. 

Which means a single atom of a substance can be a molecule if that is the way it "exists independently".   So I would believe that Oxygen = O₂  and Ozone = O₃ as both substances are made of oxygen atoms, but have different properties.

Regardless, Iron and Zinc can and do exist at an molecular level (That molecule having a single atom).  So the "weight" of 1000 of those atoms would also be the weight of 1000 of the molecules.  In the case of elements that exist independently the term is interchangeable.

GE-Raven

[Centurus]

Here's a question for all youse dimwits!!!

Ginger, Mary-Ann, Marilyn Monroe, or Ingrid Bergman?

[Nemesis]

Here's a question for all youse dimwits!!!

Ginger, Mary-Ann, Marilyn Monroe, or Ingrid Bergman?

Assuming that you mean as the actress (or character) was at a time of my choosing, Mary-Ann. 

[Panzergranate]

Here's one science question that over 90% of University Biology students failed when asked on a TV survey in both the US and UK, back in the late 1980's....

Where does a tree source 99% of all its raw materials for growth??

Another for all those who think they know physics....

If you strip off all the electrons from the atoms in any substance, what are you left with??

And an interesting science fact,,,,

At any women's convention, playing the theme tune for any popular soap opera will see all the women present shut up and listen.,,,, playing any theme tune for a male orientated programe auch as sports, action adventure, etc. will see them just yack louder.

The mother passes on the gene that will determine "wedding tackle" size, which in turn, determines if premature baldness will occur. One of natures cases of "swings and roundabouts".

[Corbomite]

3.  The speed of light is constant.  - False - it also changes speed due to medium

I don't agree with this. Since light will go back to it's "natural" speed after leaving the medium, it is time that changed not the speed of the light.

[marstone]

Here's one science question that over 90% of University Biology students failed when asked on a TV survey in both the US and UK, back in the late 1980's....

Where does a tree source 99% of all its raw materials for growth??

Another for all those who think they know physics....

If you strip off all the electrons from the atoms in any substance, what are you left with??

And an interesting science fact,,,,

At any women's convention, playing the theme tune for any popular soap opera will see all the women present shut up and listen.,,,, playing any theme tune for a male orientated programe auch as sports, action adventure, etc. will see them just yack louder.

The mother passes on the gene that will determine "wedding tackle" size, which in turn, determines if premature baldness will occur. One of natures cases of "swings and roundabouts".

tree's get the most of the raw material for growth (mainly carbon) from the air.

you strip the electrons off and you are left with the nucleus made up of neutrons, and protons

[Bonk]

We need a chemist in here . 

I am a chemist. My original response is still correct.

3.  The speed of light is constant.  - False - it also changes speed due to medium

I don't agree with this. Since light will go back to it's "natural" speed after leaving the medium, it is time that changed not the speed of the light.

No relativity is involved in refraction.

[Corbomite]

We need a chemist in here . 

I am a chemist. My original response is still correct.

3.  The speed of light is constant.  - False - it also changes speed due to medium

I don't agree with this. Since light will go back to it's "natural" speed after leaving the medium, it is time that changed not the speed of the light.

No relativity is involved in refraction.

I think there was a physicist a few years ago that said he had proved that light will do whatever it takes to not lose speed, no matter what it was traveling through. Changing light's direction does not imply it slowed down, just that it found the fastest route to your eye (not necessarily a straight line) which may cause an optical illusion. I'll try to find the story.

[Corbomite]

Well I can't find the original story yet (tons of links to "Speed of Light"), but I'll keep looking.


This link at least describes what I'm talking about (of course I have no idea if this guys knows what he's talking about!  )


http://www.wisegeek.com/does-light-always-travel-at-the-same-speed.htm


"...For example, the speed of light through air is very close to the speed of light in a vacuum. Depending on how dense the transparent media is, it can slow light to a greater or lesser degree. Water and glass can slow light to 3/4 and 2/3 of c, respectively. Different wavelengths of light also travel at different speeds through different media. For example, blue light travels a different speed than red light when passing through a prism, causing the two to separate in a process called dispersion.

In reality, the speed of light never actually slows down. It is just delayed as the photons are absorbed and re-emitted by atoms in the intervening space. When a light beam exits a transparent medium into a vacuum, it continues traveling at the same rate as when it originally entered, without any added energy. This shows that slowdown is merely illusory."

[Bonk]

Interesting concept, but it is no illusion:
http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/26/article1/article1.html

The fact of the matter is that we do not really comprehend electromagnetic radiation yet and the same goes for gravity, we can empirically describe either, but when it comes right down to it, it is all still magic to human perception.

edit: additionally, this paragraph is a tautological non-sequitur

In reality, the speed of light never actually slows down. It is just delayed as the photons are absorbed and re-emitted by atoms in the intervening space. When a light beam exits a transparent medium into a vacuum, it continues traveling at the same rate as when it originally entered, without any added energy. This shows that slowdown is merely illusory."

It never slows down, but it is delayed.... um yeah, I'll have to try that on my supervisor next time I'm late. This shows our lack of understanding of electromagnetic radiation, we do not have the language to describe how it actually works.

At least that is my take from what information I have gathered over the years.

[Dracho]

Enter the heretic

Physicists: Faster-Than-Light Travel Might Be Possible
Thursday, August 14, 2008

By Jeremy Hsu
Space.com

Travel by bubble might seem more appropriate for witches in Oz, but two physicists suggest that a future spaceship could fold a space-time bubble around itself to travel faster than the speed of light.

We're talking about the very distant future, of course.

The idea involves manipulating dark energy — the mysterious force behind the universe's ongoing expansion — to propel a spaceship forward without breaking the laws of physics.

"Think of it like a surfer riding a wave," said Gerald Cleaver, a physicist at Baylor University. "The ship would be pushed by the spatial bubble and the bubble would be traveling faster than the speed of light."

In theory, the universe grew faster than the speed of light for a very short time after the Big Bang, driven by the dark energy that represents about 74 percent of the total mass-energy budget in the universe.

Strange as it sounds, current evidence supports the notion that the fabric of space-time can expand faster than the speed of light, because the reality in which light travels is itself expanding.

Cleaver and Richard Obousy, a Baylor graduate student, tapped the latest idea in string theory to devise how to manipulate dark energy and accelerate a spaceship.

Their notion is based on the Alcubierre drive, which proposes expanding space-time behind the spaceship while also shrinking space-time in front.

String theorists had believed that a total of 10 dimensions exist, including height, width, length and time.

The other six dimensions exist largely as unknowns, but everything is based on hypothetical one-dimensional strings.

A newer theory, called M-theory, suggests that those strings all vibrate in yet another dimension.

Manipulating that additional dimension would alter dark energy in terms of height, width, and length, Cleaver and Obousy theorize.

Such a capability would permit the altering of space-time for a spaceship, taking advantage of dark energy's effect on the universe.

"The dark energy is simultaneously decreased just in front of the ship to decrease (and bring to a stop) the expansion rate of the universe in front of the ship," Cleaver told SPACE.com. "If the dark energy can be made negative directly in front of the ship, then space in front of the ship would locally contract."

This loophole means that the spaceship would not conflict with Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which states that objects accelerating to the speed of light require an infinite amount of energy.

However, the Baylor physicists estimate that manipulating dark energy through the extra dimension requires energy equivalent to the converting the entire mass of Jupiter into pure energy — enough to move a ship measuring roughly 33 feet (10 meters) by 33 feet by 33 feet.

"That is an enormous amount of energy," Cleaver said. "We are still a very long ways off before we could create something to harness that type of energy."

The workaround solution may leave fans of Einstein pleased. But for now, faster-than-light travel remains, like Oz, a pleasant fantasy.

[Dracho]

And more relevant to Bonk's point

Quantum Signals Move at 10,000 Times Speed of Light
Thursday, August 14, 2008

By Charles Q. Choi
Livescience

Strange events that Einstein himself called "spooky" might happen at least 10,000 times the speed of light, according to the latest attempt to understand them.

Atoms, electrons, and the rest of the infinitesimally tiny building blocks of the universe can behave rather bizarrely, going completely against the way life as we normally experience it.

For example, objects can sometimes be said to exist in two or more places at the same time, or spin in opposite directions simultaneously.

One consequence of this murky realm of quantum physics is that objects can get linked together, such that what happens to one instantaneously has an effect on the other, a phenomenon dubbed "quantum entanglement."

This holds true no matter how far apart these objects are from each other.

Einstein rebelled against the notion of quantum entanglement, derisively calling it "spooky action at a distance."

One could instead argue that an entangled object releases an unknown particle or some other signal at high speeds to influence its partner, giving the illusion of a simultaneous reaction.

In the past, experiments have ruled out any suspects for such hidden signals from the realm of classical physics. Still, one exotic possibility remains — that such x-factors instead travel faster than the speed of light.

To investigate this possibility, scientists at Geneva in Switzerland began with entangled pairs of photons, or packets of light.

These pairs were then split up and sent over fiber optic cables provided by Swisscom to stations at two Swiss villages some 11 miles (18 kilometers) apart from each other.

The stations confirmed that each pair of photons had remained entangled — by analyzing one, scientists could predict aspects of its partner.

For any hidden signal to travel from one station to the other in just 300 trillionths of a second — the rapidity at which the stations could accurately detect the photons — any such x-factor had to go at least 10,000 times the speed of light.

As much as Einstein might have disliked the notion of quantum entanglement, he also revealed that signals could not get transmitted faster than light.

Any faster-than-light "spooky action at a distance" is therefore implausible, said researcher Nicolas Gisin, a physicist at the University of Geneva.

Instead, "what's fascinating here is that we see that nature is able to produce events that can manifest themselves at several locations," he said.

In a sense, these instantaneous events "seem to happen from outside space-time, in that it's not a story you can tell within space-time," Gisin told LiveScience. "This is something that an entire community of scientists is already studying very intensively."

Gisin and his colleagues detailed their findings in the August 14 issue of the journal Nature.

[marstone]

It never slows down, but it is delayed.... um yeah, I'll have to try that on my supervisor next time I'm late. This shows our lack of understanding of electromagnetic radiation, we do not have the language to describe how it actually works.

I think the point trying to be made that light doesn't slow down is that it instantly goes back up to speed without added energy, if it truly slowed in the sense we think of it should stay at that speed when leaving the medium as it would have lost some energy when it slowed.  But since it goes back to normal without the added energy shows that maybe it didn't truly slow but took many short turns or such so it traveled a longer path then the straight line, thus seeming to slow down.

[Corbomite]

It never slows down, but it is delayed.... um yeah, I'll have to try that on my supervisor next time I'm late. This shows our lack of understanding of electromagnetic radiation, we do not have the language to describe how it actually works.

I think the point trying to be made that light doesn't slow down is that it instantly goes back up to speed without added energy, if it truly slowed in the sense we think of it should stay at that speed when leaving the medium as it would have lost some energy when it slowed.  But since it goes back to normal without the added energy shows that maybe it didn't truly slow but took many short turns or such so it traveled a longer path then the straight line, thus seeming to slow down.

Exactly. I don't agree with the statement that the photon gets absorbed and then re-emitted. I think that photons that actually hit the nucleus of an atom are absorbed and turned into heat. The ones that pass close without hitting have their trajectory altered by the warp of space by the matter in it, however small. Those photons pass around the nucleus and meet up on the other side when space "straightens out" again. This can be seen in practice now as scientists work on this:


http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/07/01/invisible.cloak/index.html?iref=newssearch


and


http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/08/11/invisibility.cloak.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch

[Panzergranate]

Einstein stated that light had finite speed.... however, folks who don't understand what the word "finite" means often quote the science myth that "nothing is faster than light", which is wrong as this is not what "finite" means.

As for the question as to what does one have if one removes all the electrons from an atom, for a bonus point, can anyone five the scientific name given to this fourth state of matter??

[Corbomite]

Einstein stated that light had finite speed.... however, folks who don't understand what the word "finite" means often quote the science myth that "nothing is faster than light", which is wrong as this is not what "finite" means.

As for the question as to what does one have if one removes all the electrons from an atom, for a bonus point, can anyone five the scientific name given to this fourth state of matter??

Generally the fouth state of matter is called Plasma.

[KBF MalaK]

100% tho I wasn't sure about 3 and 6 but my best guess proved correct. Question #7 "The universe began with a huge explosion" I believe is still being debated but generally accepted as true, and #11 "How long does it take for the Earth to go around the sun?" is so freeking generic I can't imagine anyone getting it wrong- I answered it 'Slightly less than 365 days'.

[marstone]

100% tho I wasn't sure about 3 and 6 but my best guess proved correct. Question #7 "The universe began with a huge explosion" I believe is still being debated but generally accepted as true, and #11 "How long does it take for the Earth to go around the sun?" is so freeking generic I can't imagine anyone getting it wrong- I answered it 'Slightly less than 365 days'.

found this looking for the year we skip a leap year.

Currently, the earth circles the sun in 365.242189 days