/sci/ - Science and Mathematics

Keep an advertising thread bumped on /boards/
mention this place on relevant threads in other boards
tea party is not a bad idea

Post the board link on #8chan channel @ irc.rizon.net

You're like several hours late anon.

>>2029
some pictures

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US8796023B2/US08796023-20140805-D00022.png

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US8796023B2/US08796023-20140805-D00023.png

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US8796023B2/US08796023-20140805-D00024.png

>>2029
Basically peptides that have the ability to self-assemble. According to the patent you can use it to create nanowires or deliver drugs.

The clinical applications would be immense if this shit works. For instance, if you combine this with silicon chips, you have the ability to utilise electro-stimuli to enhance human ability. A nice, improved pacemaker would be one potential invention derived from this.

But yeah, mainly the paper details how their peptides self-assemble to form matrices and wires. Pretty neat stuff.

Correct me if I'm wrong though. Biofag here with some phy/chem background.

>>2031
the reality of this is that they are going to use it as a nanovirus on the goyim due to the ability to inject dna with it, I have a few relevant patents if you believe me and want to go further

>>2032
I might be extremely naive here but how is that not awesome? Having a robot that constantly repairs you and takes care of your disease. One drawback I could think of atm is people becoming more reckless as a result.

>>2033
everyone you have ever known and loved have this in their bodies already, and it could kill them in less than a year

>>2027

I derped and neglected to include the URL: http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gadda001/goodtheorist/index.html

>>2020
Also, since I forgot to mention it in the OP - a positive test for the theory would require producing a black hole.

>thought I was on /wx/
Spoiler that shit, faggot.

Without a place to passively store stem cells like bones, I would imagine the blood cells simply divide to multiply. Remember that mammalian blood cells that are anucleated are more like an exception to the rule. Other vertebrates have nuclei but they're deactivated. Perhaps annelids simply have fully activated nuclei in their erythrocytes and thus no need to regenerate them from stem cells.

>>2007
> Remember that mammalian blood cells that are anucleated are more like an exception to the rule. Other vertebrates have nuclei but they're deactivated.
did not know.

I suggest with something like an earthworm we might want to ask a broader question: "How is oxygen delivered to the internal tissues?"

>>2009

uhh… a circulatory system?

>>2011
Of some sort sure, but we cant assume it's RBCs as we know them.

>>2017

Finally made me look this up. It turns out they don't have red blood cells at all; they have free hemoglobin complexes that just go about.

http://cronodon.com/BioTech/Earthworm_circulation.html

Also it turns out they have only one dorsal blood vessel. Somehow I always thought I saw two when examining an earthworm in person.

>Is it that the location and momentum of particles is intrinsically random or is that any possible measurement of the location and momentum of particles is random?
Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't sound like your question has anything to do with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

It seems that you're just asking about how measurements of quantum states randomly select eigenvalues. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle merely builds on top of that and gives a limit to, you could say, "how random" two (non-commuting) observables are after measurement.

If that's the case, then I think the answer to your question is merely that we don't really know. What you've said sounds sort of similar to "quantum decoherence" though, which says that if you could build the full quantum state of your system + environment, then the "wavefunction collapse" as we know it, would merely be a predictable part of the evolution of the global state.

I'm not an expert or anything, so I don't know how seriously physicists take the above idea. But as far as I know the real answer is still that we just don't know exactly how the universe selects eigenvalues.
It's a very important question though, you can find tons of different ideas people have postulated over the years, but be careful what you read, beacuse this is one area of physics where a whole lot of shit is stated as fact on the internet when really it's just pure speculation or flat out crackpotery

>And why is everything limited to such a small subset of the elements?
Well for one thing because chemical bonding is a bit more complicated than the ideal of elements simply following their valence numbers.

Fuck yes.

>Surely energy is an absolute?
nope, it's relative. But it's not due to any weird relativistic effects, it's merely due to how we define reference frames. Once you say any observer is justified in saying they are at rest and things are moving around them then you automatically see that energy is relative. Just imagine sitting in a bullet train, to you it is at rest, but to people outside the train it has tremendous energy.

Also, it doesn't break any conservation laws. Conservation of energy and momentum still apply in every frame of reference. All this means is you can't mix energy and momentum values from different reference frames and expect to see conservation.
(also kinetic energy isn't always conserved anyway, inelastic collisions for example)

>>1994
So if I take something with kinetic energy and convert that energy to another form, what's happening there? Is GPE relative? Is mass relative? If so, where is the reference frame for mass?

>>1995
>So if I take something with kinetic energy and convert that energy to another form, what's happening there?
I'm not really sure what sort of answer you are looking for. Energy changing forms is something everyone is familiar with in everyday experience. Fire causing heat is energy changing form. Ever touch a wire that has gotten hot, that's also energy changing form.
Total energy is conserved (or in relativity you have conservation of mass and energy), kinetic energy is just one form of energy.

>Is GPE relative? Is mass relative? If so, where is the reference frame for mass?
Yes. Although the existence of relativistic mass is somewhat debatable, since it appears in the equation for relativistic momentum, some people want to think of it as the mass that is relative, others just want to say the momentum is relative.
It doesn't really matter anyway since usually we just use "rest mass" which is the mass the object has in its rest frame.

>>1995
(Rest) mass is absolute:

m^2 c^4 = E^2 - p^2 c^2

m is (rest) mass, c is the speed of light, E is energy, p is momentum.

If you want to convert kinetic energy into another form, you need to preserve momentum too. This means you have to cancel it out using an opposite momentum. If you switch reference frames, that other particle changes kinetic energy too, so that it all works out.

>>1992
>>1994
Actually, general relativity doesn't preserve energy. The cosmological constant, a.k.a. energy of the vacuum, can create energy out of the wholecloth in a way that enforces itself exponentially^1 . Also, radiation (and fast-moving particles) lose energy as the underlying spacetime expands.

[1] However, this energy is always at maximum entropy and thus you can't do work. Unless inflation is correct, but that's another story.

It could be done but would take a huge amount of R&D and even then it would have a very limited battery life. Honestly I think the amount of testing required for the sensors that actuate the motors would be prohibitive.
Keep in mind I haven't researched this topic and it may turn out to have a simple solution if you read some papers by people working on it.

Discrete Packets

Wavefunction

Indeterminacy

The basic idea behind quantum physics is that it just fucking works.
ultimately everything in physics needs to tie into observations in some way. We were just always lucky in the past (before quantum physics) in that those observations made intuitive sense and so the theories could be made to make sense too.
But quantum physics is now the result of us becoming more and more aware of very unintuitive behavior the universe has under certain conditions. So our mathematical descriptions and theories for those observations are also unintuitive.

It's like you're playing a game in which you try to guess under which cup you're going to find a ball. Every time you play it's in a different spot, so you start recording data and figure out a pattern to help you predict where it's going to be. Your algorithm always works and that's all you know, you still have no idea why or how (or who?) is deciding to follow that pattern.

That's basically what QM is as far as I know. Of course if I've said anything inaccurate I welcome all corrections

trusting the buddha, good and bad, I bid farewell to the departing year.

>>1924
Same as this anon ^ but I can read half of the next line, "Everything a …..". hmmmmm…

>EXeXyXhXnX X XoXcX
Everything I touch
>XiXhXtXnXeXnXsX,XaXaX,X
_____
>XrXcXsXlXkX X XrXmXlX.
_ Like a ____