Datasets:
P1ayer-1
/
askscience

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
Community
title
list
over_18
list
post_content
stringlengths
0
9.37k
⌀
C1
list
C2
list
C3
list
[ "Why does adding just a single proton to an atom completely change its chemical and physical properties, and change it into a new element?" ]
[ false ]
[deleted]
[ "Nuclei are held together by the strong nuclear force. Not surprisingly, this force is strong, which is why it's so difficult to induce nuclear fission. The electrons have comparatively FAR greater freedom of movement and are comparatively FAR away from the nucleus, so much so that the vast majority of any atom is empty space. Sharing or swapping electrons is how chemical bonds form, and they're the atomic component with the most flexibility.", "This answer may not be particularly satisfying. But, you might as well ask why protons are positively charged at all. We don't know, and the answer remains philosophical at this point. We just know that this is the way the universe behaves. Asking \"why\" too many times will lead any topic to philosophy." ]
[ "There are only four fundamental forces in the Standard Model of physics: the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism, and gravity. (Gluons are particles that carry the strong force, similar to how photons are excitations of the electromagnetic field.)", "The strong and weak forces are extremely short-range, so they don't really have any bearing on how separate atoms interact; they only come into play within the nucleus. Gravity is far too weak to have a measurable effect on individual atoms. So pretty much all of the properties of matter are ultimately explained by electromagnetism. And atomic nuclei are so tiny and dense that they never directly interact under normal circumstances; the electron clouds are much more loosely bound and can interact with each other." ]
[ "But what is it that makes electrons completely change all of a substance's properties?", "At an atomic level, what is so special about the electron that makes it do that?" ]
[ "If the Bohr model is wrong, why is it still used in educational science programs? Also how do electrons actually move around protons?" ]
[ false ]
Sorry for posting two questions although they are kind of related. I was watching on the Science Channel and they were talking about dancing blackholes and how their movement is very similar to that of electrons and protons. The show then proceeded to present a Bohr model of the atom with electrons orbiting a proton. From what i learned from chemistry is that the Bohr model is wrong and electrons do not orbit protons in that sense but can be anywhere within the electron cloud. If this is true why do so many educational programs still use it? Also after thinking about this i was wondering how exactly do electrons move about a proton since the program did say that dancing blackholes moved very similarly.
[ "It's not so much that the Bohr model is useless, it's just that we have a better, more refined model. A good science program teaches not just where we are today in science, but shows the evolution of the concept to put our current knowledge in context. Thus, chemistry usually begins with the Greek origins of the concept of an atom, then go through JJ Thompson and Ernest Rutherford and Niels Bohr before introducing the most current model.", "With physics, most of the older theories aren't completely inaccurate. They are simplifications, they make assumptions, they are approximations, and/or they are only valid for a limited range of phenomena, but they do work. They can't explain everything, but the things they do explain, they tend to explain pretty well. The most obvious example is Newtonian mechanics, which falls apart at high velocities or subatomic scale, but is a pretty good approximation of everything in between. Our current model may explain more than the Bohr model, and refine our knowledge further than the Bohr model, but there are still some phenomena that the Bohr model can adequately predict. It introduces the concept of discrete energy levels to students." ]
[ "I just want to add that the evolution of the models of the atom is an extremely well documented and great model itself for how models are refined." ]
[ "I've always found the philosophy of science to be pretty fascinating. I hate the sensationalist viewpoint of \"Oh, this new discovery will disprove all of our current theories\". Science builds upon itself. New theories arise to reconcile limitations of existing theories. Einstein revolutionized our understanding of mechanics, but F still equaled m*a, momentum is still conserved, and objects at rest remain at rest and objects in motion remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. Our scientific knowledge is an evolution. It's fascinating to see the role that theories played in developing later theories, and to see theoretical \"dead ends\" that were actually wrong (not just more limited) but served a purpose by challenging scientists to find something better. One of my favorite dead ends was luminiferous aether. It never went anywhere. It wasn't refined into a better theory, or improved upon, it was just discarded as being incorrect. But the beauty of incorrect theories is that they drive our search for finding correct theories. It's not just a quest to find evidence that cannot be reconciled with our current understanding, it's a quest to find evidence that cannot be reconciled with our current understanding and to find a way to improve our current understanding so that the new evidence fits within our model. We're just the latest generations of artists, painting the magnificent cosmos. We might go back over a part of the painting to bring our more detail, and we might have to erase part of it to re-draw it correctly, but it's an ever-changing piece of artwork that our ancestors started on, and will not be completed within our lifetimes, only improved for the next generation to work on. Some of our work might be erased, but some of it might be the basis of even greater work. The fact that so often in the history of science, people have thought that they have finished the painting, only to find new details to add and change, serves to caution against the hubris of thinking that our own research is final, or is infallible. We're just an intermediate step in refining and improving mankind's understanding of the universe. " ]
[ "Would it be possible for a spacecraft to communicate with earth from a distance of 3 light years away?" ]
[ false ]
I was reading that the Centauri AB system will reach its maximum approach to us of about 3.26 ly in about 28000 years, so I was wondering if it would be possible for us to send probes towards them and have information actually be sent back to us.
[ "It would take a strong transmitter and a large receiver, but this is absolutely possible. With current technology, I would speculate yes... but it is definitely possible as far as physics goes. The signals would still take 3.26 years to get back to earth." ]
[ "Generating 58 megawatts or even engineering a space reactor to can do this is definitely NOT possible with our current technology. Ignoring the massive cost of course.", "Its certainly possible is some fashion, but we don't know how. Our closest understanding of nuclear reactors in space is the now cancelled ", "Project Prometheus", " and that still did not resolve the issue of launching a giant heatsink into space for the reactor. I think the project ended with theorizing a way to get 5MW let alone 50mw." ]
[ "I don't think that's correct" ]
[ "How massive can a rocky planet be?" ]
[ false ]
Is there an upper limit to how much mass a rocky planet can have? If so what happens beyond this limit?
[ "In addition to what ", "/u/dukesdj", " mentioned, we believe it ", " possible to have rocky planets quite a bit larger than the gas accretion threshold.", "The trick is that a gas giant ", " form, then migrates inwards towards its parent star to become a hot Jupiter. The resulting very high planetary temperature allows lighter molecules (hydrogen & helium) to attain escape velocity, and these gases subsequently leave the planet completely, forming a so-called \"", "chthonian planet", "\".", "As of yet there are no confirmed chthonian planets, but there are a few good candidates. Bear in mind that as a hot remnant gas giant core, this is likely quite a bit different than how we usually think of rocky planets. The high surface temperatures would likely make the surface molten (think hot lava), with a considerable carbonate-silicate \"rock atmosphere\".", "If this process were to have happened to Jupiter, we might end up with a rocky planet some 20x more massive than Earth." ]
[ "We expect that in the planet formation process that at roughly 5 times the mass of Earth the object should experience run away gas accretion (or at least try to). This is the region of mass we call a super-earth. Kepler-10c is ~7 times the mass of Earth. ", "In principle the limit would be when it collapses into a black hole (I am sure someone else can provide the number for this). But from the regular planetary formation mechanism it is difficult to get a rocky planet much larger than these values without quickly becoming a gas giant. " ]
[ "That does not occur until some time above 10 Jupiter masses. I have seen various estimates for this as low as 10 and as high as ~80. " ]
[ "If the earth's rotation were to slow down, would gravity be affected in any noticeable way if at all?" ]
[ false ]
We are reading a book in my English class in which the earth's rotation slows down to roughly 25 hours a day and the author claims that gravity would be stronger
[ "The force of ", " would remain the same. The ", " pulling us towards the center of the Earth would increase because the apparent centrifugal force is gone." ]
[ "The force of ", " would remain the same. The ", " pulling us towards the center of the Earth would increase because the apparent centrifugal force is gone." ]
[ "It would, but un-noticeably so. That's a general relativistic effect. Classically only \"actual\" mass gravitates, and classical physics can explain the recession of the Moon just fine. " ]
[ "What's the big deal with GMO food?" ]
[ false ]
So, I know that there's a big deal now with Monsanto and their genetically modified crops, but why is everyone raising a fuss as if GMO food is some sort of plague upon the earth? it seems to me that if we can genetically modify food crops or livestock to be better, or to reduce dependence on chemicals or other beneficial things, we have an imperative to do so. So what am I missing from the Anti-GMO people? is there strong scientific evidence that GMO food is bad or harmful in some way, or is it just people blowing hot air?
[ "There are five main areas as to why people are still against GM foods.", "1) Business practices- as mentioned below Monsanto have done more to damage the rep of GMOs than all the anti-GMO groups put together. :-/ They are far from ideal, and while not illegal as such, they could be considered immoral. That said, Monsanto are certainly NOT the only biotech company researching/selling GMOs, there are hundreds more of them, but people assume all biotech or pharmaceutical businesses are the same. It is what I term the 'bogeyman' view, that all companies associated with GMOs are devious and out to con the public out of money etc etc. ", "2) The prove a negative argument- this stems from demands that science prove there is no harmful side effects from GMOs. It is impossible to prove a negative, all that science can do is trial the GMOs, test them rigorously and analyse the results for problems, all of which take years. It can take at least 10 years to get a GMO from bench to production, and in all that time it has to go through thousands of tests. The point is, this is how ALL biological science works, everything from new dry skin cream to cancer therapies, they all go through the same level of testing. ", "3) The toxin debate- if toxin was called something other than toxin, we would not have half the problems we do,people associated the word toxin with poison, and understandably so. The toxins now expressed in Bt crops for example, were used, and still are used as organic pesticides, sprayed on organically grown foods so as to negate the need for chemical pesticides, much better for the environment. The toxin is a protein, naturally produced by the Bt bacteria to kill its target, a moth caterpillar for example. The caterpillar dies, and the bacteria sporulate and reproduce on the cadaver, a natural process that has been going on for millions of years. Bt is found pretty much everywhere, it is a naturally occuring organism found in soil, on leaves and occasionally in water. Molecular biologists found they could engineer crops to express the gene that encodes the toxin into the plant itself, thus the pest dies as soon as it starts to eat the crop rather than after it has been sprayed, and takes out the need to spray anything. The toxin is very specific, and will bind only to certain receptors in the insect gut, humans do not have these receptors so we are immune to the effects of any toxin. Aside from which the acidic environment of our stomach, combined with our own natural gut microflora would make it impossible for the toxin to have an effect. Buuuuuuuttt.... if you look on any anti-GMO website they will make a big play on the words toxin and bacteria etc, to scare people, whereas if they went out into their local countryside, or even their back garden they would find the same bacteria that were being used to scare them. One argument that I find amusing is that they want the GMO seeds to be sterile, so no risk of cross pollination with non-GMO strains, but then accuse biotech companies of exploiting farmers by making them buy seeds each year. ", "4) The media- oh how they love a good story :-/ Especially ones that allow them to portray a 'them and us' attitude, the big nasty biotechs and mad scientists against the poor unwitting public. Argh! The media, TV, newspapers and importantly the internet have been wholly instrumental in stirring up public opinion GMOs, writing biased articles that will sell the papers or gain them extra viewers/hits. I am in the UK and we still have problems about growing GMOs here, due to politicians bowing to pressure from the media. ", "5) Misunderstanding of GMOs- ok so scientists thought that if we explained the science of GMOs to the public, they would understand and be fine with it.... errrr no! The science behind it isn't difficult to explain or for an audience of average intelligence to understand, but increasingly people do not seem to want to understand, their preconceived notions, built up over the years has left them mistrustful of anything scientists say, particularly biology or medicine based sciences. Some folk seem happier to stick to what they have read/seen/been told and there is a flat refusal to learn anything about what they are so frightened of. Nothing unites people more than having an all-purpose bogeyman. ", "That is just a brief explanation, I have left it basic and open ended so if anyone wants to ask any more questions I can go into more detail then. :-) " ]
[ "GMO cross-pollinates with non-GMO, and then Monsanto sues farmers who's corn has been contaminated because they own the patent on their corn", "Not if the plant seeds are sterile, which they often are. ", "Non-diverse crops lead to the typical problems associated with having all your eggs in one basket.", "There is not much diversity anyway, crops have been bred specifically for traits such as drought resistance or higher yields. The crops we have nowadays barely resemble the diversity of 100 years ago. ", "Pests are already developing resistance to GMO crops", "Yes that is certainly true, however pests have evolved to become resistant to chemical pesticides too, hence farmers having to spray their crops heavily with a multitude of chemicals. Also work is being carried out to reduce this resistance in several different ways. Farmers who have non-GM crops planted alongside GM crops have benefited from a reduction in the number of pests in ", " crop, not because of contamination but from a lowering of pest population in that area in general. ", "Wikipedia suggests that yields aren't always higher than for normal crops.", "Not always, but that is not always the reason for creating a GMO. " ]
[ "It is sensationalist articles like these that I would hope not to find on ", "/r/askscience", ".", "Monsanto's GMO Corn Linked To Organ Failure, Study Reveals", "This research behind this Huffington Post article showed mostly small variations in things like animal weight, organ size, and urine chemical content when comparing mice fed a non-GM corn diet to mice fed a GM corn diet over approximately 90 days. These observations, while described as potential signs of organ toxicity by the authors, were described as normal fluctuations in mouse biology by expert evaluation panels in Europe and Australian/New Zealand. ", "This", " is a link to the actual article in question and ", "this", " is a review of the debate behind it from wikipedia. \"Organ failure\" is not found in any of these sources.", "Death of the Bees. Genetically Modified Crops and the Decline of Bee Colonies in North America", "To my knowledge, there is no evidence that GMO toxins affect honey bee health. I have not heard of this argument in published scientific articles but I may just be out of the loop. There are only a few papers that I know if like ", "this one", " that show no detectable negative health effects of GMO toxins on honey bees. " ]
[ "How do emotions affect one's physical health, if at all?" ]
[ false ]
Consequences of certain emotions notwithstanding (e.g., feeling hopeless and engaging in self-mutilation).
[ "Emotional stress leads to elevated levels of cortisone, a stress related hormone, which inhibits your immune system to a degree.", "Earlier tonight I mentioned that some studies have shown that sudden severe emotional stress can be the \"straw that broke the camel's back\" in inciting a myocardial infarction. ", "Finally, there are most definate studies that show links between depressive syndroms and chronic pain syndromes, for example fibro-myalgia. It is a real syndrome, that many people suffer from, and many/most are depressed. But what came first, the chicken or the egg? I would likely be depressed if I was in pain all the time." ]
[ "Emotions are caused (in part, I'm not too well versed on neurology) by neurotransmitters and other neurologically active compounds. These compounds don't exist solely for emotions, but have other purposes in the body. For example, serotonin (happiness) has interactions with ", "blood pressure", " and dopamine (reward) has interactions with ", "testosterone levels", ". External stimuli can influence dopamine levels, so its theoretical they can increase test as well.", "There are definite links to health and emotions, although causation is going to be tough to place at times. (Ie. do you feel depressed ", " of an internal problem that causes low serotonin/dopamine, or was there an external event that temporarily reduced these levels which resulted in a feeling of depression for a bit?)" ]
[ "Linked to a degree, although most cases nowadays are known to be caused by ", ". Not all, to be sure." ]
[ "How possible is it for a solar system or systems to exist like depicted in the show 'Firefly'?" ]
[ false ]
As title suggests, in 'Firefly', there is a very complex and crowded solar system(s), with a main star in the middle, with other (I assume smaller) stars orbiting it. Additionally, there are also stars orbiting the secondary stars. All these stars have many planets and those planets have many moons. How likely is it, or is it even possible to have such a thing exist? Link for map/chart of said Firefly system:
[ "We have detected two star systems that have seven stars each - ", "Nu Scorpii", " and ", "AR Cassiopeiae", ", so this kind of thing is quite rare, but not at all impossible.", "The planets' orbits in that image are also fairly realistic, if you assume things aren't shown to scale. Usually, to have a stable orbit you either need your star, planet, or moon to be so far away from all the stars that the whole star system feels like a single point to you, ", " your star, planet, or moon needs to be close enough to a bigger star or planet that it utterly dominates the local gravity.", "So stable star systems tend to have a sort of ", " to them. You have a central massive star around which the other smaller stars orbit. Planets can orbit around the central star, or around the smaller stars if they're close enough to them. Moons can orbit the planets too, if they're close enough to the planet.", "Or you might have two pairs of close binaries forming a quadruple star system. In that case, each of the pairs are orbiting tightly enough that they feel like a single point to the more distant pair. So again, you have the hierarchy of things orbiting things orbiting things." ]
[ "You can have something at L4 or L5, but there are some criteria. The \"central\" star must be at least 25 times more massive than its main companion. This is a bit of a problem, because the age of a star is proportional to its mass to the power of -2.5. So a star that's 25 times more massive will have a life-time 3000 times shorter than its companion. Our sun has a 10 billion year life-time, so something 25 times the mass of our Sun will live for only a few million years before going supernova, which is going to cause issues. However, it's ", " possible. If you have the lowest mass red dwarf you can get before it stops doing fusion (0.075 solar masses), then the central star can be about 2 solar masses. Then it will live for a couple of billion years, and it won't be massive enough to go supernova when it dies. So having a binary star system with a stable L4 and L5 point is possible, but you're very constrained on what kinds of stars it works for, so it's going to be rare.", "But the next issue is the object that's at L4 or L5 needs to be much smaller than the companion star too. So if our companion is a red dwarf, then anything smaller than it is not going to be a star at all. I'm not sure what the exact cut-off is.", "In our solar system, we have objects in the L4 and L5 points for various planets - Jupiter most notably - but they are just little asteroids. " ]
[ "While the potential orbits may be possible the habitability of the planets is not. Virtually every terrestrial world on the map is habitable, even if its well outside the habitable zone and should be nothing more than a ball of ice or a scorched rock. ", "Georgia and Red Sun sharing the same orbit for any substantial length of astronomical time is not really on the table, or at least not with the orbits depicted. The interactions of the other system are going to cause them eventually not to be directly opposite each other in their orbit around White Sun. IRL Janus and Ephimetheus are co orbital but its much more complicated than a basic orbit around the primary." ]
[ "What is information in a cosmological sense?" ]
[ false ]
I see this mentioned in descriptions of physics how we don't say that "Nothing can move faster than light" we say that "Information can't travel faster than light" Isn't information a human construct? How does natural law define information?
[ "You are right, we do indeed say \"Information cannot travel faster than light\". ", "That usually comes up in connection to entanglement, where a measurement on one particle of an entangled pair has an instant (non-local) influence on the outcome of the measurement on the second particle.", "Sometimes, you will also see this in connection with phenomena where phase velocity of an electromagnetic wave exceeds ", ".", "Information is not a human construct, on the contrary, it is physical. Think of anything you identify with information and you will see that it is connected with a physical information carrier. Sound, for example, is encoded in density variations in a medium, usually air. Information on your hard drive is stored in bits and bytes which are again encoded in transistor switch settings on the lowest level.", "Information is today considered as such an essential concept in physics that there is a large effort to rephrase, for example quantum mechanics, in terms of information, which might give us a more physical interpretation than the current one which is based on postulates.", "On the quantum level, the amount of information contained in a system is a function of its dimension. A quantum bit, for example, has two levels, similar to a classical bit. It can be in any superposition of the two levels, but it can still only carry one classical bit of information." ]
[ "Yeah, nobody really says \"information can't travel blah blah whatever.\" At least, nobody who's being serious about it. That's lazy thinking, is what that is.", "I saw it not 10 minutes ago in the discussion of what science cannot ever discover, and it's happened enough I wanted to ask. I don't understand how you say on one hand, nobody says it, on the other, it's an actual thing.", "Anyway, thanks for the answer." ]
[ "Yeah, nobody really says \"information can't travel blah blah whatever.\" At least, nobody who's being serious about it. That's lazy thinking, is what that is.", "In physics, \"information\" means conserved quantum numbers." ]