swansont

No, I meant the mass of (Be-9 + alpha). That mass is 0.01143 amu larger than C-13, so there is an excess of 10.65 MeV that the C-13 would need to shed, and that's ignoring any KE the alpha has to have to overcome the Coulomb repulsion and cause the interaction. That's a lot of energy to get rid of. By emitting a neutron, the C-13 sheds about 5MeV of that excitation.

No, it's real. Moving clocks run slower than stationary clocks. This has been confirmed by a number of experiments and is continually tested by GPS satellite atomic clocks. (There are also effects of general relativity to consider, but the special relativity effects are well-established)

The nucleus can still be unstable after IT. In your example, the Tc-99 ground state undergoes beta-minus decay.

You know if you're in an accelerating frame of reference. (This is a bit of a non-sequitur, since my previous answer was context-dependent.)

By this description you are necessarily invoking a third observer. That observer would see both clocks as the same, if the speed and accelerations are the same.

Gammas are emitted when the nucleus is in an excited state. The nucleus de-excites by emmitting a gamma. Neutron emission can happen with an excited nucleus that has an excess of neutrons - this typically happens after a beta-minus decay that leaves the daughter in an excited state. (This is an important neutron source in nuclear reactors that use thermal neutrons) Proton emission isn't something with which I am familiar, but I imagine it could happen in a way that mirrors the neutron emission - excited nucleus after a beta-plus decay. Neutron and proton emission can also occur in induced reactions.

Different shielding application. Lead is for high energy; mu metal is for much lower frequencies.

Protons repel due to the electrostatic force. Neutrons only attract.

The charge is going to be relative, since you are moving charges from one to the other. With the device by itself, you couldn't get them both to have + charges, or both have - charges. One plate or shell is going to be +, while the other will be - .

Sure. You would have to do work to do the separation.

Well, if you believe that we are descended from Adam and Eve, with a genetic bottleneck at Noah and his family, I would offer the HLA gene as an example. Humans have 59 alleles of this gene. The maximum you can get from two people is 4, so some mutatin' must have happened!

Don't even have to go that far. The results of chemistry aren't random. Take two parts H and one part O, add a spark, and you don't get a random distribution of molecules. You get H2O. Second, it is impossible to prove anything of this sort by statistics. The probability of a past event occurring is 1. If it were otherwise, it would be trivial to prove that any given person was never born, because of all the unlikely events that occur in their ancestors' lives. --- I wonder if the original poster is one of the people who lie about science and know it's a lie, or one of the people who perpetuate the lie because they didn't have the intellectual honesty to check if the information was correct.

Deleted. I've forgotten too much Chemistry.

There are an infinite number of energy levels. But only one would be occupied at any given time, by a neutral atom.

It's quite easy to say that. As pulkit said, we had already defined the meter. There is a tremendous amount of politics involved in defining standards, in part because there is a tremendous amount of commerce involved in standards. Changing a standard involves retooling machinery and recertifying traceable standards. To suggest a change for a trivial reason such as making c a round number would get you laughed out of the room of whatever BIPM committee is involved. When the meter definition was changed, the length didn't. New odometers weren't required in cars. The cm3 still represented a gram of water at a given T and P. Just the official (and best) way of defining the length was changed. Same thing with the second's definition. We didn't all have to go out and buy new clocks (unless you worked in a national standards lab, perhaps) when the definition was changed to an atomic standard.

Because c is constant. It all follows from that, and the concept of simultanaeity.

To be more precise' date=' it's N[sub']2[/sub] that's more or less inert, due to the triple bond - there are few reactions that would release energy. Nitrogen compounds are important for many reactions, but AFAIK N2 is the product, not a reactant.