Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2017 April 13
Science desk | ||
---|---|---|
< April 12 | << Mar | April | May >> | April 14 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
April 13
editFeynman Lectures. Lecture 52. Ch.52-7
edit...There are a lot of other features that were predicted. For example, it turns out that the spin, the angular momentum, of the cobalt nucleus before disintegration is 5 units of ℏ, and after disintegration it is 4 units. The electron carries spin angular momentum, and there is also a neutrino involved. It is easy to see from this that the electron must carry its spin angular momentum aligned along its direction of motion, the neutrino likewise. So it looks as though the electron is spinning to the left, and that was also checked. In fact, it was checked right here at Caltech by Boehm and Wapstra, that the electrons spin mostly to the left. (There were some other experiments that gave the opposite answer, but they were wrong!)
The next problem, of course, was to find the law of the failure of parity conservation. What is the rule that tells us how strong the failure is going to be? The rule is this: it occurs only in these very slow reactions, called weak decays, and when it occurs, the rule is that the particles which carry spin, like the electron, neutrino, and so on, come out with a spin tending to the left. That is a lopsided rule; it connects a polar vector velocity and an axial vector angular momentum, and says that the angular momentum is more likely to be opposite to the velocity than along it.
— Feynman • Leighton • Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume I
I have a question about the spin and the magnetic field vector. First, according to the description of the experiment the cobalt-60 nuclei were put in upward magnetic field causing the nuclei to line up and orient their spin vector upward also (rotation to the right png) . Nucleus is positive charged object, when it rotates this produces the small circle currents and magnetic field. Before the decay, nucleus spin = 5. After decay, the nucleus spin = 4. Electron spin = 1/2, neutrino spin = 1/2. Total angular momentum must be 5, so electron must rotate to the right also. If it rotates to the right it acquires magnetic field directed downward, because of negative current. What happens next (will electron repel by external field or will it perform the spin flip)? How did Feynman get electrons rotating to the left? Username160611000000 (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Feynman is glossing over a lot of very difficult quantum mechanical physics, because the audience for this lecture had not yet studied it.
- You get the spin of the electron by applying the angular momentum operator to the wave function for the system. This is not an easy task and it is not conducive to a short-form explanation.
- @Nimur: Feynman writes
It is easy to see from this that the electron must carry its spin angular momentum aligned along its direction of motion, the neutrino likewise.
If it is easy, I think it can be explained using classical mechanics (with some warnings). Here [1] is writtenParticles with spin can possess a magnetic dipole moment, just like a rotating electrically charged body in classical electrodynamics.
Username160611000000 (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)There is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.
- H. L. Mencken TigraanClick here to contact me 11:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Nimur: Feynman writes
- Here's a link to Griffiths' Quantum Mechanics text book. If you buy it online, pay special attention to the author's advice about retailers who sell older versions, and to his published errata.
- One typically will use Griffiths' book after completing several years of advanced study of quantum mechanics at and beyond the university level.
- Nimur (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for the suggestion, but I have neither money nor time for other textbooks. Feynman Lectures contain quantum mechanics. I like Lectures and I will continue to read them.Username160611000000 (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- As for what happens next, unless you have a large apparatus or very strong field, the electron exits the external field essentially unchanged because it is moving at near-relativistic speeds. Cobalt-60 decay liberates 0.3 MeV in its most common beta mode, and a significant chunk of that goes into accelerating the electron. To the extent that it does interact with the field, the electric charge and high velocity is more important than the magnetic moment in determining the change in the motion of the electron in the magnetic field. The spin flip timescale will depend on details of the magnetic fields but anything from roughly < 1 ns to 10s of microseconds could occur depending on the nature of the apparatus (strength of field, shape of field, static/pulsed/oscillating, etc.). Dragons flight (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Krane, Introductory Nuclear Physics, works this example problem for the cobalt beta decay and studies the apparent parity violation. Just as Feynman says, this is an easy problem - it's in an introductory textbook. The worked math is several pages long and is preceded by three hundred pages of preparatory material. Nimur (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Somebody ripped off somebody here: the Feyman lectures go through the exact same examples - including the Wu experiment that Krane cites precisely (Phys. Rev. 105, 1413, 1957), and the Martian handshake analogy that Krane cites precisely (The Ambidextrous Universe, 1964), and attributes to Martin Gardner. So - the "Feynman lecture" appears to be the contents of Krane, Chapter 9, only presented in a sloppier and less physically-accurate fashion and without citing sources. Have I mentioned before that the "Feynman Lectures" were not actually written by Feynman, but were in fact "published essentially because an international publisher issued an ultimatum intending to republish those copyrighted works without permission"? Oh, I did mention that, and I even cited sources! Nimur (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Krane, Introductory Nuclear Physics, works this example problem for the cobalt beta decay and studies the apparent parity violation. Just as Feynman says, this is an easy problem - it's in an introductory textbook. The worked math is several pages long and is preceded by three hundred pages of preparatory material. Nimur (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- I was curious... how sure are people that the parity violation is part of physics itself? I mean, the Earth sits in the middle of a galaxy of fast-moving dark matter - can physicists rule out that some kind of interaction with a chiral dark matter particle could create the left-right asymmetry in these weak interactions? For example, have people been able to look at clouds of gas around rogue stars far from any galaxy and tell for sure that the radioactive decay rate (and ideally, ratio, e.g. around a rogue magnetar) is the same as on Earth? Wnt (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Cats and dogs
editWhich breeds of dogs are the most cat-friendly (or maybe I should say "cat-tolerant" -- I don't think any of them are actually cat-friendly in the strict sense) and which are the most cat-unfriendly? And on this scale, where do bulldogs fit in? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:4C74:BE2F:701E:8F7E (talk) 06:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Anecdotally, my golden retriever thinks cats essentially are dogs. She is interested in them and does her normal "play with me" motions that she uses when approaching a new dog. Cats generally respond with a range of indifference, fear, or aggression, and mostly just want her to leave them alone. At least in her case, I would say she is quite friendly towards cats, though we've yet to meet a cat that is interested in being friendly with her. [And I keep worrying that she is going to approach the wrong cat some day and get her face scratched up]. So, depending on what you are looking for, it may depend not only on the type and personality of the dog but also how dog-friendly (or dog-tolerant) the cat happens to be. I doubt there are any absolutes when it comes to this, as it will depend both the personalities of the particular animals and their life experiences. A dog/cat that has had negative experiences with other cat/dog is unlikely to be friendly to a new one, so if possible it is probably better to introduce a new animal when it is young and do so gradually under controlled conditions. For example, start by having them in separate areas where they can see each other but not interact. After a while, when they are calm with that situation, gradually increase the contact in ways that aim to be as unthreatening and calm as possible. Dragons flight (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Google "cat friendly dogs" and you'll find lots of info. Richerman (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- You might choose a small breed of dog, that way they will have a "balance of power", so the dog won't attack, partially out of fear of reprisals. Raising them together since puppies/kittens is a good way to establish a bond. Of course, they need to be the same age to do this. StuRat (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- You want to take the breed's purpose into account as well. Dogs bred for hunting or ratting (or otherwise harassing small animals), like terriers, are better avoided, all other things being equal. - Nunh-huh 05:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Dog breeds that have neotenic traits such as floppy ears, curly tails, piebald coloration, shortened vertebra, large eyes, rounded forehead, large ears, and shortened muzzle, as exemplified by Cavalier King Charles Spaniel may be perceived by a cat as unaggressive. Terriers, sighthounds and herding breeds are most likely to initiate a confrontation. Click for advice on introducing dogs to cats. Cats operate with triple choice fight-or-flee-or-pointedly ignore agendas that are incrutable. Scratches to the face are the deterrance to any dog from a wary mother cat with kittens; a serious attack by a cat will be from ambush (usually unsuccesful and often aborted) to grasp and hold the dog by the neck. Blooteuth (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Another thought is that you may want to get a dog with a similar activity level as a cat. Something like a basset hound may sleep as much as a cat. A cat may find a more active dog to be annoying. StuRat (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Laser pointer reflected light harmful to eyes in close proximity?
editAt a community workshop I sometimes use is a laser cutter and it has what appears to be a red laser pointer used to indicate the location of cuts (the cutting laser is infra-red and can't be seen). I was staring intently at the red dot produced by the laser pointer and a fellow workshop member told me to avoid damaging my eyes by limiting my time spent looking closely at this red dot. In my opinion he misunderstands one of the warning labels talking about scattered radiation which I think is a reference to the 40 W IR laser and does not apply to the red indicator. Obviously a laser pointer used in a presentation presents less harm because the meters of distance mean large dissipation. I'd say that if the manufacturer used a laser pointer harmful to eyes in close proximity they designed a stupid indicator system. --129.215.47.59 (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm aware that archives should not be edited. However, I am strongly concerned that some of the commentary below may be taken at face value without due diligence being done. To that end, I'm boldly hatting the discussion below with this comment. I will leave the original question unhatted. Please drop by on my talk page if you have questions. In the interests of health and safety, I would really appreciate the hatting be left as is. Blackmane (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Adhara (second brightest star of Canis Major)
edit1. Why's it so obscure in the US and presumably Europe for something magnitude 1.50 and only -28°58'?
2. What's the millennium when it straddles the 1st magnitude/2nd magnitude border? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- -28°58' is still very low for a significant part of the Northern Hemisphere. For instance, at 55° North latitude it will be near the horizon. Ruslik_Zero 20:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- US star charts are often 40°N since it's close to average. I live north of that and have no problem seeing it in polluted New York City but I didn't know it's name. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Star names are generally obscure (with the exception of the very brightest stars), I wouldn't be surprised at that. As to the second part of the question, with a current apparent magnitude of mV=1.5, it would have to decrease in brightness by 0.5 magnitudes. This corresponds to an increase in distance by a factor of . Starting with a current distance of 130 pc (as derived from the parallax; the absolute magnitude in the table is an old value and doesn't fit with the parallax), it would have to be at a distance of 164 pc to appear with magnitude 2. With a radial speed of 27.3 km/s, this will be reached in about 1.2 million years. --Wrongfilter (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- When was it exactly 1.5000 though? That's when it stops being one of the only ~16 visible first magnitude stars (the non-visible ones being mostly deep in Centaurus or in the Southern Cross) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- That level of precision is meaningless, in particular if you're talking about visibility with the naked eye. To start with, you'd need to be able to measure its current brightness to the same precision, and that is hard to impossible even with a well-defined and well characterised filter and electronic detector at a large telescope. Take a look at this abstract: They establish a V magnitude for Vega of 0.026±0.008 — Vega is pretty much the photometric standard star, and the error on its apparent magnitude sets the bar for all other stars. In fact, the uncertainty on Vega's apparent magnitude is one of the main uncertainties in the measurement of cosmological parameters from observations of high-redshift supernovae! Incidentally, Stellarium tells me that the atmosphere right now extincts Adhara down to 2.09 mag, just past culmination in my location (48°12′N) — 1.5 is the apparent brightness outside the atmosphere. --Wrongfilter (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- I believe Vega was zero by definition at one point but like the metre being 1/40,000,000th of Earth's polar circumference that didn't work out. How'd the zero point evolve from Pogson to today anyway? I never learned. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- That level of precision is meaningless, in particular if you're talking about visibility with the naked eye. To start with, you'd need to be able to measure its current brightness to the same precision, and that is hard to impossible even with a well-defined and well characterised filter and electronic detector at a large telescope. Take a look at this abstract: They establish a V magnitude for Vega of 0.026±0.008 — Vega is pretty much the photometric standard star, and the error on its apparent magnitude sets the bar for all other stars. In fact, the uncertainty on Vega's apparent magnitude is one of the main uncertainties in the measurement of cosmological parameters from observations of high-redshift supernovae! Incidentally, Stellarium tells me that the atmosphere right now extincts Adhara down to 2.09 mag, just past culmination in my location (48°12′N) — 1.5 is the apparent brightness outside the atmosphere. --Wrongfilter (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- When was it exactly 1.5000 though? That's when it stops being one of the only ~16 visible first magnitude stars (the non-visible ones being mostly deep in Centaurus or in the Southern Cross) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- 2. "millennium"?? —Tamfang (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)