Gen1GT

Well, I am trying to find some research on Leptin and how it correlates with weight-loss/weight-gain. Specifically, and I doubt this research exists, I am curious how much leptin drops during caloric deficit, and how much leptin increases during caloric surplus in those same patients. Some of the studies showed relationships between leptin and omentin-1, but I don't know what omentin-1 is. Dislayers, thanks for the references. It appears from your links that it's a signalling protein.

Hi everyone. I was reading some research, and noticed Omentin-1, but upon consulting the internet, I only arrived at more research papers, but no explanation of what it is. Does anyone know what Omentin-1 is? Thanks,

Not rubbish at all. I'm reading the cartoon book of chemistry, and it's the best so far! LOL

Studiot, you're exactly correct; my interest in learning chemistry stems from my current interest in nutrition. I want to learn about biological chemistry, which is obviously mostly organic chemistry. Unfortunately, none of the books mentioned by you or Empress are available at my local library, so I'm going to have to bite the bullet and purchase them. Thanks for the recommendation!

Most of the links in the original post are dead. Perhaps an edit is in order?

What you all fail to recognize, is that sodium chloride currently in the seas is healthier than sodium chloride that used to be in the seas and is now mined. So much in fact, that sea salt costs $8 for a tiny shaker, and table salt costs $0.06 for nine pounds.

Hi everyone. I'm looking for a good book for beginners to help me get my head around chemistry. I've read "What is Chemistry," by Atkins, which I found too elementary (although I did learn about the different types of chemical reactions). I attempted to read "Organic Chemistry Demystified," but it was too advanced. I need something that's going to cover electron shells, stoichiometry and all the basics in detail (perhaps with exercises) to I can eventually move on to learn organic chemistry. Does anyone have any recommendations? Thanks in advance,

Sorry, when I said, “…The idea that energy in a system can only increase…,” I actually meant “The idea that ENTROPY in a closed system can only increase…” Although I thought of this idea myself, upon further research, I found out I’m not the only one. Timothy Gutowski, a professor at MIT published a paper in the journal Environmental Science & Technology about the subject. One example they found was in tires. The tires containing post-consumer recycled rubber had higher rolling resistance, which increased the fuel consumption of the car they rode on, cancelling the energy saved by recycling. Also, some new products are produced on such massive scales that micro-managed and locally manufactured products cannot compete in production volume and the resulting savings in energy. Most products made from petroleum require more energy to recycle than to produce new. The scale of new plastic production is so massive and efficient compared to recycling it. A recycled plastic has to be collected by fleets of trucks getting 2.8 miles per gallon (84 litres/100km!!). The product then has to be sorted (entropy created by the machines, the building and the people). At this point, the recycled plastic will start being processed equidistance from final product as newly produced plastic. The first two stages of recycling create WAY more entropy than petroleum processing. Is it not true that the more you try to organize nature the more entropy is created as a result? -edited to remove an error

I'm posting this idea in the quantum theory section because I know entropy is a quantum physics based concept. I was listening to some Brian Greene, and he was speaking about black holes and entropy. The idea that energy in a system can only increase got me thinking about recycling and other environmental concerns. When we manufacture consumer products, we're decreasing entropy of the object itself (car, toy or whatever), but with entropy of the manufacturing taking a beating. Now, when we recycle something that's already required a net increase in entropy, aren't we compounding the entropy by wasting resources in recycling it? Isn't it better to let consumer goods rot in a land fill than recycle them? I would think the process of recycling, in an attempt to reduce entropy, would just end up speed up the increase in entropy. Thoughts?

Whatis the difference between heat and pressure on an atomic level? It is my understanding that heat is the manifestation of the movement of atoms. It is also my understanding that pressure is at least partially a manifestation of atomic movement. You can increase both heat and pressure of a gas, for example, by reducing volume. You can then remove the heat, but the pressure will remain. Why does pressure remain? Is it from atoms hitting the walls of the container?

1) Okay, so if a device can use an electron to pop out two photons, they will each have 1/2 opposing spin? That type of thing? 2) I can't explain this further...in the books I've read, Clauser tried to disprove Bell's Theorem by using a machine to fire particles in opposite directions with one detector set to measure momentum and the other to measure position. Because the particles were fired at the same time, we could deduce position and momentum at the same time by measuring each particle separately. 3) I think you're dancing around my idea...LOL

Response to swansont: 1) I don't understand your answer. You're going to have to be analogy heavy. I would submit six more questions to understand your response, and more than likely, each of those six responses would require yet another six questions to understand. You can see how this could get out of control. I'm sure there is an analogeous explanation to how particles become entangled. 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clauser_and_Horne%27s_1974_Bell_test Why weren't they able to measure both position and momentum? What does spin have to do with either position or momentum? 3) Okay, let's forget about momentum. If we fire a photon (which we know is travelling at c) at a wall of strings, does this not give us exact position and velocity? 4) One down, three to go! LOL

I am still learning as quickly as I can (thank Bob for audiobooks and long drives), but I have some problems with quantum theory. I might as well put them all in one thread, as I'm sure I'm not the only rookie who needs clarification on these concerns. 1) Quantum entanglement - how to two particles get entangled to begin with? 2) Quantum entaglement experiments - I know about the machine (by Clauser?) that fires two particles in opposite directions. One detector is supposed to measure velocity, and one detector is supposed to measure position. Why was this experiment a failure? 3) Uncertainty - it doesn't make sense my head that we'll never be able to measure both position and velocity accurately. How about this thought experiment: In a vacuum chamber, you fire a photon at a wall of strings. Isn't the resolution of the string wall high enough that we know exactly where the photon hit? We already know it was going the speed of light, so doesn't this give us an exact position and momentum? 4) Uncertainty - If we can't exactly calculate position and momentum of a particle, how does the LHC exist? Don't we need to move a particle at an exact velocity to a known position where it could be measured? If not, how can we can any result at all from the LHC experiments? Please avoid jargon in your explanations ... thanks in advance!

That's a great formula for "Force makes it go." Pressure is merely force over a defined area. Thanks alpha, I'll just this formula in my examples.

caKas, that's great, thanks. Also a resistance to volumetric flow does not create pressure, but only results in pressure; and that is the mistake persons in my industry tend to make. The increase in pressure is an example of Newton's Third Law. I always that if the resistance created the pressure then the resistance creates its own energy, which clearly defies the second law of thermodynamics. Energy comes from the pump, not the resistance (be it a restriction or load).

Well, I was looking for help in creating a hydraulic law that does not currently exist (although the principles of the law exist, just in different forms), and which needs to replace a commonly used, and utterly false, jingle. The jingle is, as I mentioned, “Flow makes it go.” A correlated jingle is, “Pressure is resistance to flow,” and is just as ridiculous. You’d be dumbfounded to hear how many highly educated and highly experienced gentlemen in the fluid power industry belief these two terms. I wish to create Cosford’s Law, which states, “Force makes it go, and flow is the rate in which you can create pressure.” I’m not sure how one creates a scientific law, but I’m hoping persons here will help me ensure I’m not missing something. I’m not a scientist, but just a person in the hydraulic industry that knows a little about physics. The two components of hydraulic power are pressure and flow, just like the components of mechanical power are force and velocity, and just like the components of electrical power are volts and amperes. If you apply force to a hydraulic cylinder via pressure, the rate in which you are able to apply the force is dictated by the rate of flow into that cylinder. You can have force in a cylinder with no movement, such as when the work pressure is equalized with the load induced pressure. My theory is that until you start packing in more oil molecules, there is no net force differential to be able to create movement. My analogy is that hydraulic oil can be, for intents and purposes, be considered a fluid rod. The larger the fluid rod or the faster you push it on, the faster you can create a force differential to create movement. What are your thoughts?

I'm sure this is a rarely spoken about subject here on the forums, but is anyone familiar with hydrostatic fluid theory, essentially the theory of hydraulics? An electrical engineer will understand the principles, as hydraulics are similar to electrics. There is a myth in the hydraulic business that "flow makes it go." The idea of this fallacy is that flow (i.e., gallons per minute, or litres per minute) is what makes things move, and pressure is only created when there is resistance to this flow. I have a question: Is there any way to create motion other than application of force?

Isn't this very topic the essense of internet messageboards? The whole point is that I don't understand and am happy for the many here whom are willing to explain it for me. Just because you were apparently born with this knowledge ingrained in your brain, it doesn't mean I'm ashamed of my ignorance.

elfmotat, are you able to explain that in simpler terms? What is spin down? Also, I was under the impression that quantum entanglement was a mystery because it defies the theory of interactions occuring faster than the speed of light...my assumption must be incorrect, however, I guess I don't understand the vehicle for the instantaneous interaction through infinite distances. QM may seem logical to those of you whom understand it deeply, however, I and MW define logic as "interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable." I'm, not trying to be offensive to anyone, because I'm also a fan of QM and logic, but I'm sorry, the subject is entirely illogical. How many pioneering scientists have studied the topic and gotten results that have caused them to respond, "this just can't be, it doesn't make sense." But then would run the calculations and experiments again only to come up with the same result. I'll wager that QM is a field containing reluctant observers. From Wiki: "Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment, sometimes described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects, resulting in a contradiction with common sense." Schrodinger believed quauntum entanglement to be a "reduction to absurdity" but you guys are telling me it's logical. I'm sorry gents, but it is definitely not.

How it can happen instantly across any distance. The best argument that quantum physics is not logical is in the reaction you get when you first explain the basics to a layperson. "That is fucked up" is a typical reaction.

That's my point. I'm not saying the science is incorrect, but if quantum physics was logical, the principles would have been discovered long ago. If quantum entanglement is so logical, why can't we figure it out?

Although cosmology and astrophysics are different, there is nothing holistically logical about quantum physics. :s

Wha What choice do I have? I'm a man in my late 30's with three children under five ... dropping my current career to pursue a PhD in physics is not in the cards right now. It makes much more sense to trust the word of one of the most brilliant minds physics has ever seen; a person who is also a professor on the subject. Should all of his students take his teachings with a grain of salt? Besides, we’re talking about theoretical physics, most of which is currently out of practical possibility to confirm with experimentation. There is absolutely no way for me, personally, to confirm that a photon can be in two places at once, but as crazy as it sounds, I believe it. I also cannot test quantum entanglement. Others have, so I take them for their word also. t choice do I have? I'm a man in my lates 30's with three children under five ... dropping my current career to persue a PhD in particle physics is not in the cards right now. The structural foundation of science is the experimentation and results from those preceeding you. Their work cannot be disregarded because I'm expected to be skeptical to all new theories unless and until I can confirm with my own experimentation.

He 1up's me!

And maybe the multi-verse was created by the eternal flying spaghetti monster. Call me a sellout bandwagon rider, but I generally like to conform to the accepted theories of thousands of hyper-geniuses. If Stephen Hawking feels there was neither time nor space before the big bang, who am I to argue or presume otherwise? Although he was wrong about black holes, everyone is going to be wrong once in their lives, right?