Sensei

Kramer, your way to quote posts is making it very hard to read and follow.. Can't you simply use quote tool in toolbox above text area? It's on the left of twitter icon.. There is also important button on the left-top - switching on/off formatting of text during editing. I am using it all the time to copy'n'paste quote tags and adding quote ends..

Fusion process is giving much more energy than fission. See table of fusion processes f.e. here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-T_fusion#Criteria_and_candidates_for_terrestrial_reactions Fission is serious source of energy in Earth's core. But it's completely not comparable to amount of energy produced by stars. For instance decay energy of Tritium to Helium-3 is just 18.6 keV, 5.7 keV in kinetic energy of emitted electron, and the rest in neutrino (lost permanently if neutrino will escape star). But Tritium fusion with Deuterium gives 17.6 MeV decay energy. That's nearly 1000 times more energy. If taking into account just 5.7 keV and 17.6 MeV (neutrino treating as lost) then it's 3000 more energy.

Synthetic Hydrogen-4,5,6,7 are decaying through neutron emission to Hydrogen-3 very quickly, and then Tritium is decaying to Helium-3, but it's long time process with 12.32 years half-life (long in comparison to 1st stage). So why are you adding up these energies together? There can be years delay between decay of 4H-7H and then decay to He-3.

It's simply too big to be true. Mass of electron is 9.11*10^-31 kg. Mass of proton is 1.67*10^-27 kg. Do you remember how electron and positron can be made in pair production? There are needed photons with f >= 1.23559*10^20 Hz (E >= 510999 eV). The rest answered in private message. Our rockets are accelerated by burning Hydrogen with Oxygen, and highly accelerated molecules of water are ejected from engine.

What was first, egg or chicken.. ? If we have rocket with satellite on board and want it to stay fixed above one place of Earth, we have to accelerate rocket to certain speed, which you can pretty much approximate to: v = 2*PI*(r+h) / time r - radius of Earh 6378000 m h - altitude above surface time - one whole day in seconds ~86400 s, but we need to use sidereal day = 86164 s v = 2 * 3.14159265 * ( 6,378,000 + 35,786,000 ) / 86164 = 3074 m/s And that velocity you can find in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit If satellite will lose that velocity it will be attracted to Earth, and suddenly destroyed in atmosphere. As long as it's going with that velocity or higher it's safe. Same is with planet - if it would collide with big enough fast moving object, it could slow down and lose its current orbit. Current orbits and current velocities around Sun are result of few billion years distant collisions and interactions with objects that are now part of planets.

According to website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_glass Uranium glassware is made of Diuranate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diuranate I guess so OP doesn't know which is secondary metal..

You wanted opposite cycle to neutron decay, so I gave it to you.. In the middle of link you should see (if you read it carefully): D+ + T+ -> He-4 + 3.5 MeV + n0 + 14.1 MeV That's how free neutron can be produced. One of dozen possible options.

Sheever, read about nuclear fusion.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

Definitely not. Gamma photons can be result of annihilation of electron and positron, but also can be emitted by decaying nucleus (f.e. isomeric transition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_isomer ), or decaying pion 0 (for example).

MS Paint by default is trying to save to BMP. Photoshop to PSD. JPG can have two file extensions .jpg and .jpeg If website is checking just for one (.jpg), it won't accept second one (.jpeg). It could also be case-sensitive. Just a thought.

It sounds the same either in mine native language and provided by you English version. Nearly literally the same. Any layman (not to mention scientists) who has Crookes tube (which cost 70 usd on ebay) can conduct experiment at home and show that provided by him values are not correct. Thickness of material electron strikes and velocity of electron, have more influence on whether photon will be emitted, or electron will pass through it without collision. When we connect to it 1 A current it means there is 6.25*10^18 electrons emitted per second. If just 1 per 137 electrons has to emit photon as Susskind said, 6.25*10^18 / 137 = 4.56*10^16 photons emitted. It's just a matter of measuring intensity of light emitted by wall that's on electron's path. If you have not seen it at work click here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsjLYLW_3G0

Use PNG or JPG below 2 MB size, if I recall correctly (after going to full editor, by clicking More Reply Options). I even managed to attach movie of electrolysis in other thread, but had to ZIP it first, so it's doable. ps. Instead of "pico cosmos" you should rather say "at quantum scale", if you wanted scale smaller than micro scale.

So it appears that wikipedia has incorrect data. Can someone with wikipedia account fix it? Change row: "11C + e- -> 11B + Ve + 3.17 MeV" to "11C + e- -> 11B + Ve + 1.982 MeV"

I agree with Swansont's statement from #13 post. This paragraph of book is almost certainly wrong.

Okay, I found it on page 74. Thanks for pointers.

in mine version of book (translation from English from 2011) pages 33 to 91 are section "World according to Feynman".

That's not mine speculation! That's whole idea behind multiverse theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Level_II:_Universes_with_different_physical_constants Quote "Different bubbles may experience different spontaneous symmetry breaking resulting in different properties such as different physical constants."

Interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules%E2%80%93Corona_Borealis_Great_Wall I see one problem with interpretation of it as bubble of other universe - we see it! If we see photons coming from it, it means speed of light is same as in our universe.. In other universe in multiverse theory, speed of light c might (should? because of higher probability) be different than in our own universe. Also astrophysics should perform experiments with neutrinos and other accelerated particles coming from this galaxy cluster to see how different (if different) they are.. I see more rational explanation than bubble of other universe - our Universe might be much older than calculated by us currently.

Professional physicists would concentrate on finding the real answer why constant have value such as Compton frequency. Mathematic analysis supported by indispensable experiments. Propagation of idea of multi universes, parallel universes, bubbling universes (different regions of same universe with different physical constants) is not possible to be experimentally confirmed. So it's not even a science, when you can't make an experiment verifying your theory and you just have to believe..

The Cosmic Landscape by Susskind is about multiverses as answer why some constant have value as we know.

Robotic engineer might need anatomy & biology if he would like to reach state of the art level and create f.e. cyber arm connected to body of human/animal, and controlled by thought.

This is not exact description of mine tv model fix, but pretty similar: http://blog.dr-ivan.com/2010/10/12/how-to-fix-your-lcd-monitor-changing-capacitors/ These capacitors have 1000 uF/25 V and 470 uF/25 V.

I had exactly the same issue with mine LCD tv a few years ago. 1 month after end of warranty (not the first time I had such "accident", like in clock). It turned out to be couple capacitors broken. When I entered exact model name of mine TV in google as keyword, hundred threads about mine issue were the first one in search results.. Some people even took photos with arrows with comments "replace this, this and this". I have done so, components cost $2 or less, and TV is working fine for 6 years now. After unscrewing it, capacitors were immediately visible bold.

Funny accident. I just saw old movie from 1960 on MGM about teacher being accused of teaching Darwin evolution in school. The most of movie is in court where lawyer is fighting with prosecutor and judge (he rejected the all lawyer's witnesses scientists to testify). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053946/ "Based on a real-life case in 1925, two great lawyers argue the case for and against a science teacher accused of the crime of teaching evolution." Actually, not a bad movie. Personally I have never met creationist.

Learn physics..