swansont

Do you actually ever know where a photon is, unless it has interacted? Anyway, the HUP deals with momentum, not speed. There will be an uncertainty in the energy, and thus the momentum, of any photon.

I think it creates the particle/antiparticle pair, by supplying the required energy, e.g. in Hawking radiation. Photons will be able to create particle/antiparticle pairs if they have sufficient energy and some other particle around to conserve momentum. You can end up with a net amount of matter after all is said and done because of CP violations, which are seen in e.g. K and B mesons

Usually you have to subscribe to the journal. Many libraries (especially university libraries) subscribe to the more important ones, and can get articles through inter-library loan services. But the author may have copies available, so it's worth checking with them or their web site (if they have one)

[nit]You're carrying way too many significant digits[/nit]

As Martin said, 1/2 mv2 is a purely classical equation, and the photon is not a classical particle. A photon's energy is hf, where f is the frequency and h is Planck's constant.

I wouldn't count virtual particles as matter creation. There is a reason they are called virtual, after all.

Using liquid Nitrogen is more fun than salting the ice, and actually makes better ice cream (colder = smaller ice crystals = better, smoother flavor. or so I'm told. It was tasty)

What do you mean by "irregular unrecorder radiation levels?" Carbon dating is calibrated by comparison with other dating techniques, e.g. dendrochronology and varves (Also note that carbon dating refers to a specific process, and there are lots of other radioactive dating techniques, with various ranges of applicability)

The force the box exerts on the table is not its weight. It will have a magnitude equal to its weight in this case, but the force that the table and box exert on each other is a contact force, and weight is a gravitational force. However, the contact forces in this example are known as action/reaction forces. They are always of the same type. The gravitational force the earth and box exert on each other would likewise be an action/reaction force pair.

Note, however, that zero net force doesn't imply it's sitting still.

Ahem. Post #4

A well-mixed ice/water mixture will stay at the freezing point because of the latent heat. As long as the ice starts out colder than that, a simple measurement of the temperature of the water should suffice. So freeze the solution and then let it melt in a bath of the same concentration.

Perhaps that ties in with the amount of scientific training you've undergone.

Continuity. It's very easy to see if the fluid is incompressible. But I think the argument for a gas is that if it didn't happen, you'd get a higher pressure as the gas built up, which would then exert a larger force and accelerate the gas. So the steady state condition is that the continuity equation holds.

But that's not creating matter, in the sense that all of the nucleons already exist.

Keep in mind that heating a magnet will tend to demagnetize it to some degree. If you go above the Curie point, all you'll have left is the residual magnetism from sitting in the earth's field. Mechanical shock can weaken it, too.

This is just a guess, but you could detect a water absorption feature as the planet transited the star. This was alluded to in the preparation for the transit of Venus last June.

A lot of those laws were passed a long time ago (presumably by Christians), and nobody dared oppose them at the time. They probably wouldn't stand up to constitutional scrutiny today, but you have to actually bring legal action to strike the laws down. Then the religious right would whine about how the courts are "anti-Christian." Things have been skewed in their favor for so long that a level playing field feels tilted.

"only a theory" ? A theory...as opposed to what? Anyway, look up Bernoulli's principle. When a fluid moves faster the pressure decreases. So the pressure is lower above the wing, giving lift.

The relations that are important are that (exterior angle) * (# of sides) = 360, and the sum of the two angles is 180. Since you know the relation between the two angles, you can solve for the interior angle, and thus, the number of sides.

Yes, but Einstein still had to postulate it. It already had to hold in E&M applications in order for Maxwell's equations to work, so it wasn't too much of a stretch. But it has some bizarre implications for the uninitiated.

I suspect much of the drudgery is omitted, and I don't imagine that any crime lab in the country is so well-equipped. Keep in mind that it's a TV show, so real life as a CSI isn't going to be quite like that. But that's not meant to talk you out of it - I might have studied forensic pathology if stuff like that didn't make my knees turn into jell-o.

Easier isn't necessarily the goal. Besides, that problem was about as easy as it gets.

No, it's not. In a circular orbit (whchc is not how an electron really behaves) the acceleration is inward, toward the center.