Prometheus

I don't know, but it is kind of fun. Maybe it could be used to induce certain emotions as people play VR games or watch movies (assuming it can reliably stimulate emotions with that precision).

What are the 'brain genes'?

Well i might change the ending in light of koti's suggestion: put a slither of silver in the lining at least. When black holes are very small, they're very hot. But do they actually emit gamma rays? I couldn't find much information about what happens to a black hole in its death throes.

Well then it seems that time is the only thing that eats black holes, and lots of it. Is the CMB temperature falling? If so this could speed up BH evaporation - but still at cosmic timescales i guess. Anyway, i'm writing a sci-fi short so i'm just going to have the scientists create virtual particles at the event horizon to attempt to evaporate it more quickly. It's going to go wrong and end with a gamma ray burst that sterilises life for a wide sweep of the galaxy.

Would hearing be noticeably affected by lower pressures? With a lower density i imagine the intensity any vibrations would be lower.

The only way of increasing the EH surface area would be to increase its mass though, isn't it? Isn't it the case that the more massive BH, and hence larger EH surface area, the more slowly it evaporates, implying something else is at play? So these virtual particles pairs have to obey conservation laws - is it a mass/energy conservation?

So apparently Hawking radiation happens when pairs of virtual particles are created on an event horizon and one of the pair falls into the event horizon while the other flies away, somehow taking mass with it. If there were a way to create more such virtual particles at the event horizon, would the black hole then evaporate faster? Are there any other vaguely realistic ways of destroying black holes?

Had a chance of doing a masters project in this lab. Chose another one as i know nothing about neuroscience.

The closest i know of is a certain flavour of Hinduism in which we are all parts of the Brahman (universal soul) broken off and deliberately made to forget we are actually the whole so that the Brahman can have some fun role-playing. In this view, existence is a drama and we are playing our part. And everyone knows drama contains both tragedy and comedy. I quite like it as an analogy.

The average person is not a dullard but average.

I'm not sure I.Q. is a useful metric, even assuming it measures 'raw' intelligence. I imagine someone around average intelligence with enough drive would finish. In UK hospitals they say getting into med school is the hardest part.

You don't need to be that intelligent to be a doctor, there are many other attributes required that are more important (professionalism, strong work ethic, confidence ). Many of the more intelligent doctors i know become frustrated at the lack of intellectual stimulation in medicine: they often go into research to get their fix. The reason you need such high qualifications to apply for med school is simply that they are massively over-subscribed programmes, and you may as select those with the very best grades. I also suspect it's a method to ensure private school kids have a secure job, but that's just the cynic in me.

I was conflating evaporation with boiling. I got a book from the library, Fundamentals of Aerospace Medicine 3rd ed. Talking about pressures used in past missions it lists an advantage of normal pressure systems is that the 'gas density is adequate for atmospheric cooling of people and electronic equipment'. This implies lower pressure systems could have over-heating problems, but it does not elaborate on how. It also lists it's optimum for the efficient functioning for the human respiratory system, but again does not elaborate on how low pressure systems would be detrimental.

I'm basing this on the fact that water boils at lower temperatures at lower pressures. I imagine this translates to sweat evaporation too: sweat will require a lower amount of energy to evaporate, hence taking away less heat from the body? Why would these be problematic? Just because they take water vapour out of the atmosphere?

Basically what happened to the Apollo 1 disaster? What about when first moving to the low pressure environment: would this not lead to the bends if done suddenly as a person will still have residual nitrogen in their blood? This would perhaps require people to breathe a pure oxygen atmosphere at normal pressure first. I guess the decision would be an economic one? Do the savings made by a low pressure near pure oxygen system (reduced mass, structural integrity, easier gas management) compensate for the increased risk of fire. In the moonbase scenario you wouldn't have the launch and reentry risks, which were what apparently led the Apollo missions to a two-gas system. Might make it viable? What would the effect on thermal equilibrium be? With a lower pressure sweat would evaporate much quicker, taking less thermal energy with it. I assume radiative heat loss wouldn't change though? So over-heating might be a problem the moon colony needs to deal with (or just forces its occupants to endure), especially as they need to exercise to keep their bones healthy. I imagine plants would find this atmosphere toxic, so no greenery either. Might impact the mental health of some people?

Maybe more takers if moved to medical sciences or speculations?

Agriculture was my second choice. Pretty much defines the advent of human civilisation.

Another thread inspired by Artemis by Andy Weir (it's an OK book with some interesting near future sci-fi ideas). In book's Lunar base the atmosphere is 100% oxygen but at 0.2 atms so that the partial pressure of oxygen is about the same as at sea-level Earth. First question: what economic/engineering or other pragmatic factors might be in play to consider a low pressure environment. The ISS maintains a 1 atm pressure. However, my main interest is in speculating upon the long term health implications of living in such a system. For instance, i don't recall that the book mentions water vapour. With the low pressure this would surely lead to quite bad drying out of eyes/nasal cavities etc... it gets uncomfortable enough for some people in dry conditions on Earth. So water vapour would likely be added to the mix (to around 50% relative humidity), raising the overall pressure a bit. I know surfactant is the primary means by which to keep alveoli from collapsing during exhalation, however would the amount of surfactant required change in a low pressure environment? Perhaps this could lead to pulmonary disorders being more likely. I just imagine low pressure would mean easier collapse but i can't find any numbers to corroborate this. Any other long or short term health effects you can imagine?

I did say 'allegedly a bit of a dick'; didn't even occur to me he actually was Dick.

For sure. I'd imagine it would be of interest to historians of science and people interested in Feynman as a person. Not entirely out of place in the lounge section of a science forum.

That was the first defence given by a member of Jimmy Savile's family (a cousin i think) when the first suggestions of inappropriate behaviour were reported (the scale was not known then, more Michael Jackson than Gary Glitter, iirc). Fortunately the police felt otherwise. To be clear i'm not trying to draw an equivalence between the Savile and Feynman situations, only that the 'past is past' is a lame excuse to ignore inappropriate behaviour. So Feynman was a great scientist and allegedly a bit of a dick when it came to his treatment of women. What's wrong with stating these facts, if proven?

Writing, because it gave ideas a new life. And i like writing.

To be fair dreamless sleep might be the closest living 'experience' we have of death.

Call my a cynic, but i doubt a single one of the accusing Tories genuinely believes they are championing women's views, but are rather inflaming the 'incident' to detract attention away from the daily Brexit headlines. And it has worked a treat.

Some people's youth is a terrible time, and i don't mean the usual teenage angst. Less a a case of rushing it, more like just surviving it. If the option to escape it is there, take it. @Raider5678 I don't know the US system so can't offer any practical advice. From what others say it seems the biggest risk is that you won't be gaining a safety net. If you've also lost other safety nets (friends and family) then the risk is even bigger. But your attitude is the most important thing: if you can keep your determination and avoid many of the traps life has to offer i'm sure you can follow your own path. Good luck.