| Pages:
1
2
3 |
Texium
Administrator
Posts: 4581
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Online
Mood: PhD candidate!
|
|
Well, throughout history, yes, for example Stalin. He called himself a communist even though he was a fascist dictator whose rule didn't resemble
communism at all. It shouldn't be something that taints communism as an ideology, just as there are plenty of examples of countries that call
themselves democratic but are not in any way, such as the DPRK or the DRC.
|
|
|
Praxichys
International Hazard
Posts: 1063
Registered: 31-7-2013
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Coprecipitated
|
|
What if religion was widely accepted to be an obsolete way of thinking?
|
|
|
SirViking
Harmless
Posts: 20
Registered: 1-7-2014
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
What if the light spectrum within which humans can see was greatly expanded?
If you come upon a fork in the road, take it.
|
|
|
Texium
Administrator
Posts: 4581
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Online
Mood: PhD candidate!
|
|
That's something I've always wondered about. It would be weird to see things in infrared and ultraviolet as well as everything we can already see. Or
if you could see the entire spectrum, and just choose what part you want to see whenever you want! Literal x-ray vision!
|
|
|
The Volatile Chemist
International Hazard
Posts: 1981
Registered: 22-3-2014
Location: 'Stil' in the lab...
Member Is Offline
Mood: Copious
|
|
What if your mom was widely accepted to be an obsolete way of thinking? C'mon, this is misc., not whimsey. You're just asking for trouble when you say
things like that.
|
|
|
Brain&Force
Hazard to Lanthanides
Posts: 1302
Registered: 13-11-2013
Location: UW-Madison
Member Is Offline
Mood: Incommensurately modulated
|
|
I really should have put this in Whimsy. Personally, I favor the Nordic model.
What if the strong force was a lot stronger than it is now? Would we have a MASSIVE periodic table? What about technetium and promethium - would they
exist as stable isotopes? Would stars still be the way they are? Would the diproton be stable with respect to electron capture? Would life exist?
At the end of the day, simulating atoms doesn't beat working with the real things...
|
|
|
SirViking
Harmless
Posts: 20
Registered: 1-7-2014
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by zts16  |
That's something I've always wondered about. It would be weird to see things in infrared and ultraviolet as well as everything we can already see. Or
if you could see the entire spectrum, and just choose what part you want to see whenever you want! Literal x-ray vision! |
Some animals can see outside of the visible spectrum, infrared or ultraviolet, but I don't believe that there are any species that can see past those?
If you come upon a fork in the road, take it.
|
|
|
arkoma
Redneck Overlord
Posts: 1762
Registered: 3-2-2014
Location: On a Big Blue Marble hurtling through space
Member Is Offline
Mood: украї́нська
|
|
amazon parrots see in the UV, in fact thats how a boy parrot can tell a female by sight alone. "Tetrachromatic"
"We believe the knowledge and cultural heritage of mankind should be accessible to all people around the world, regardless of their wealth, social
status, nationality, citizenship, etc" z-lib
|
|
|
neptunium
National Hazard
Posts: 990
Registered: 12-12-2011
Location: between Uranium and Plutonium
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Brain&Force |
What if the strong force was a lot stronger than it is now? Would we have a MASSIVE periodic table? What about technetium and promethium - would they
exist as stable isotopes? Would stars still be the way they are? Would the diproton be stable with respect to electron capture? Would life exist?
|
any changes to the fundamental forces of the universe would have a dramatic impact on it.
a stronger nuclear force would increase the energy released by the stars during thermonuclear fusion, creating extremly large and hotter brighter
stars that wouldnt live much longer than a few million years .
making life (as we know it) impossible to evolve.
the periodic table would indeed be much smaller and may not even make it to iron.
radioactive decay is trigger in large part by weak nuclear force . for lighter element a proton decay would be common amongst heavier element (like
sodium in this case)
however i cannot imagine a diproton system stable without a neutron the interactions of these hadron is the source of the strong force ... it seems to
contredict its own meaning.
|
|
|
Zyklon-A
International Hazard
Posts: 1547
Registered: 26-11-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fluorine radical
|
|
What if Dark matter is what the earth is made of?
[Edited on 5-8-2014 by Zyklon-A]
|
|
|
Brain&Force
Hazard to Lanthanides
Posts: 1302
Registered: 13-11-2013
Location: UW-Madison
Member Is Offline
Mood: Incommensurately modulated
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by neptunium | any changes to the fundamental forces of the universe would have a dramatic impact on it.
a stronger nuclear force would increase the energy released by the stars during thermonuclear fusion, creating extremly large and hotter brighter
stars that wouldnt live much longer than a few million years .
making life (as we know it) impossible to evolve.
the periodic table would indeed be much smaller and may not even make it to iron.
radioactive decay is trigger in large part by weak nuclear force . for lighter element a proton decay would be common amongst heavier element (like
sodium in this case)
however i cannot imagine a diproton system stable without a neutron the interactions of these hadron is the source of the strong force ... it seems to
contredict its own meaning. |
The periodic table would be larger - not smaller. If anything, the dead zone for nuclear fusion would be farther away because each nucleon would pull
on the other more strongly, thus keeping it bound.
At the end of the day, simulating atoms doesn't beat working with the real things...
|
|
|
arkoma
Redneck Overlord
Posts: 1762
Registered: 3-2-2014
Location: On a Big Blue Marble hurtling through space
Member Is Offline
Mood: украї́нська
|
|
What if.............
There was no such thing as potable ethanol 
"We believe the knowledge and cultural heritage of mankind should be accessible to all people around the world, regardless of their wealth, social
status, nationality, citizenship, etc" z-lib
|
|
|
Zyklon-A
International Hazard
Posts: 1547
Registered: 26-11-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fluorine radical
|
|
Then they'd make potable pot!
|
|
|
Fenir
Hazard to Self
Posts: 68
Registered: 7-5-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
What if humans suddenly gained the ability to see more colours?
|
|
|
neptunium
National Hazard
Posts: 990
Registered: 12-12-2011
Location: between Uranium and Plutonium
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Brain&Force |
The periodic table would be larger - not smaller. If anything, the dead zone for nuclear fusion would be farther away because each nucleon would pull
on the other more strongly, thus keeping it bound. |
all element are born in stars , if the strong force is greater then it would be harder for stars to generate heavy elements.
fission would release more energy but fusion would consume more...
Iron signify the end of a star life and the fusion stops ..
in an hypotical universe where strong nuclear force is greater this would happen sooner , hence a smaller periodic table.
if the rules are changed today.. then yes some trans uranium elements might have stable isotopes.
|
|
|
Texium
Administrator
Posts: 4581
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Online
Mood: PhD candidate!
|
|
So basically the periodic table would have the potential to be larger, but the amount of naturally occurring elements would be much smaller and even
more heavily skewed towards lighter elements, and life as we know it wouldn't exist since some heavy elements are essential to life.
|
|
|
neptunium
National Hazard
Posts: 990
Registered: 12-12-2011
Location: between Uranium and Plutonium
Member Is Offline
|
|
thats exactly right! in physics there is no free ride... you get back what you put in minus some loses.
also life would not have time to develope in this hypothetical universe with giant hot stars and few planets.
the life cycle of these stars would also be very fast too fast for life to have time to start and evolve.
|
|
|
Brain&Force
Hazard to Lanthanides
Posts: 1302
Registered: 13-11-2013
Location: UW-Madison
Member Is Offline
Mood: Incommensurately modulated
|
|
I still have to disagree.
A stronger nuclear force would increase the amount of energy needed to split apart nuclei (binding energy would increase). Thus, fusion would net much
more energy than fission (if fission could net energy at all). The attraction between distant nucleons would be stronger, and larger nuclei would
therefore be more stable. The peak stability would be a higher nuclear mass.
For reference, the Yukawa potential is defined as follows:
\[V_{Yukawa}=-g^{2}\tfrac{e^{-kmr}}{r}\]
where g is a scaling constant, k is another scaling constant, m is the mass of the mediating field, and r is the distance from the particle.
The electric potential is defined as follows:
\[V_{E}=k\tfrac{q}{r}\]
where k is Coulomb's constant, q is the electric charge, and r is the distance from the particle.
Of note, hydrogen would probably have been consumed too fast for organic chemistry as we know it to develop sufficiently. The main problem would be
the lack of light isotopes. Stars, of course, would not last through their hydrogen-fusing stage very long, and stars would most likely fuse their
heavier elements. Alpha decay would be a really weird process which would spit out relatively heavy nuclei.
Also, the r-process and s-process would produce larger amounts of heavy elements if nuclear fusion couldn't.
At the end of the day, simulating atoms doesn't beat working with the real things...
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
it's obvious.
if the nuclear force were stronger, everything would *appear* to be the same.
Just that i'd be even more Dense than i am now.
|
|
|
arkoma
Redneck Overlord
Posts: 1762
Registered: 3-2-2014
Location: On a Big Blue Marble hurtling through space
Member Is Offline
Mood: украї́нська
|
|
What if......
Aga and I simultaneously sobered up?
"We believe the knowledge and cultural heritage of mankind should be accessible to all people around the world, regardless of their wealth, social
status, nationality, citizenship, etc" z-lib
|
|
|
neptunium
National Hazard
Posts: 990
Registered: 12-12-2011
Location: between Uranium and Plutonium
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by aga | it's obvious.
if the nuclear force were stronger, everything would *appear* to be the same.
Just that i'd be even more Dense than i am now. |
why ? no you wouldn't
|
|
|
neptunium
National Hazard
Posts: 990
Registered: 12-12-2011
Location: between Uranium and Plutonium
Member Is Offline
|
|
A stronger nuclear force would increase the amount of energy needed to split apart nuclei (binding energy would increase). Thus, fusion would net
much more energy than fission (if fission could net energy at all).
again there is no free ride in physics, if fission free more energy this energy has to come frome somewhere.
where ? the massive stars that gave it birth by spending massive amount of energy to fuse it together
The attraction between distant nucleons would be stronger, and larger nuclei would therefore be more stable..[/rquote]
the strong nuclear force ONLY kicks in when nucleons are increadibly close to one another.... the stronger the bond does not mean a longer action at a
distance.
The peak stability would be a higher nuclear mass
why ? it would be reach much sooner than now! thats just common sense! right ?
|
|
|
neptunium
National Hazard
Posts: 990
Registered: 12-12-2011
Location: between Uranium and Plutonium
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Brain&Force |
For reference, the Yukawa potential is defined as follows:
\[V_{Yukawa}=-g^{2}\tfrac{e^{-kmr}}{r}\]
where g is a scaling constant, k is another scaling constant, m is the mass of the mediating field, and r is the distance from the particle.
|
looking at g in our scenario, it is a multiplying factor that has no interactions with m or k the result is a stronger bond (V)
the field of action does not change neither does the mass
increasing G increases V but is fully indepandent from m and k
[Edited on 8-8-2014 by neptunium]
|
|
|
Velzee
Hazard to Others
Posts: 381
Registered: 19-8-2015
Location: New York
Member Is Offline
Mood: Taking it easy
|
|
What if elements >118 were stable and non-toxic to life?
Check out the ScienceMadness Wiki: http://www.sciencemadness.org/smwiki/index.php/Main_Page
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
—Arthur Schopenhauer
"¡Vivá Cristo Rey!"
—Saint José Sánchez del Río |
|
|
j_sum1
Administrator
Posts: 6324
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: At home
Member Is Offline
Mood: Most of the ducks are in a row
|
|
We'd have very effective fishing sinkers.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
