Random fact thread

[Rainbowdash_82 404]

Its gonna rain on sunday. A chance of 90% rain is expected in the Los Angeles area! Finally

[Venomous 18,813]

There is an app called Wakie, where instead of an alarm waking you up, you get a phone call from a random stranger

Edited October 1, 2015 by Venomous

[Overdrive 5,366]

There is an app called Wakie, where instead of an alarm waking you up, you get a phone call from a random stranger

I'll be honest, that sounds like something you would have.

[Venomous 18,813]

I'll be honest, that sounds like something you would have.

I know, right?

But I don't because my sister said it's too weird

[Overdrive 5,366]

I know, right?

But I don't because my sister said it's too weird

Isn't your sister weird, though?

[Venomous 18,813]

Isn't your sister weird, though?

She can be, but she is actually quite proper and serious >_<

[prfan93 123]

She can be, but she is actually quite proper and serious >_<

 

Random fact: Furbies were actually redesigned after a lawsuit from WB.

 

Also, you're the weird one of the family?

[I used to be a stranger 7,988]

I wouldn't really call this random facts, it's basic chemistry

 

According to what I'm making out of the current knowledge we have about quantum mechanics, everything happens randomly.

 

"Quantum" basically means "the smallest thing that can be examined in a system". The quantum measurement of the carrying capacity of freight ships is displacement-tonnes. The millimeters' gauge or 1/16th inch gauge on your elementary school straight-edge is the quantum measurement of that straight-edge.

 

When Quantum measurement is applied to particle physics, then it comes to measuring things on the scales of Angstroms (fractions of the width of a single proton) and the movement of subatomic particles like quarks.

 

I think you're mistaking "randomness" for either the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, or the Observer Effect.

 

The Uncertainty Principle in a nutshell says that the more precision you know about the position of a particle, the less sure you can be sure about its speed, vector, momentum, etc. and vice versa; the more that's known about a particle's vectors, the less you can be certain about its position. This is often bluntly summarized as "you can't know the location and the momentum of a particle at the same time".

 

The Observer Effect is famous through Schrodinger's Cat Paradox. Until a particle is observed, it will vary in a number of different possible locations. When the particle is observed, its position collapses from a number of potential locations into a determined state. The Cat Paradox is an anecdotal description of this phenomena with an illustration like this:

"A cat and some poison is placed in a box, and then the box is closed. The cat may die of the poison, or it may not. However, the cat effectively is both alive and dead until the box is opened and the state of the cat is observed."

 

 

 

The average person only uses about 10% of the oxygen that enters their lungs. Athletes use anywhere between 70-85%. Musicians, however, use 95-100% of the oxygen.

Mainly because if they didnt, they would pass out from lack of oxygen since they spend about maybe 7-8 minutes out of every 10 pushing air out of their lungs.

 

No matter how hard you breathe out, you can never make a vaccum in your lungs. Your lungs have cavernous tissue that keeps an air reserve always inside, to keep the lungs maintaining a proper shape. This is called residual air. When you "get the wind knocked out" of you, a pressure wave has pushed against your chest cavity and forced the residual air out. The horrible gasping feeling is your body trying to restore its residual air, to re-inflate your lungs. However, the human body is unable to actually "pull in" air very well, so the lungs can only re-inflate at the rate at which air can naturally flow back in.

 

Some musicians have the ability to breathe in and out at the same time, through careful control of their diaphragm in conjunction with their trachea.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Blue

[Velcorn 279]

 

 

"Quantum" basically means "the smallest thing that can be examined in a system". The quantum measurement of the carrying capacity of freight ships is displacement-tonnes. The millimeters' gauge or 1/16th inch gauge on your elementary school straight-edge is the quantum measurement of that straight-edge.   When Quantum measurement is applied to particle physics, then it comes to measuring things on the scales of Angstroms (fractions of the width of a single proton) and the movement of subatomic particles like quarks.   I think you're mistaking "randomness" for either the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, or the Observer Effect.   The Uncertainty Principle in a nutshell says that the more precision you know about the position of a particle, the less sure you can be sure about its speed, vector, momentum, etc. and vice versa; the more that's known about a particle's vectors, the less you can be certain about its position. This is often bluntly summarized as "you can't know the location and the momentum of a particle at the same time".   The Observer Effect is famous through Schrodinger's Cat Paradox. Until a particle is observed, it will vary in a number of different possible locations. When the particle is observed, its position collapses from a number of potential locations into a determined state. The Cat Paradox is an anecdotal description of this phenomena with an illustration like this: "A cat and some poison is placed in a box, and then the box is closed. The cat may die of the poison, or it may not. However, the cat effectively is both alive and dead until the box is opened and the state of the cat is observed."

I'm familiar with both, the uncertainty principle and Schrödinger's cat thought experiment. Apparently, I have been wrong in my interpretation of the uncertainty principle. I would've guessed that since matter behaves like a wave and a particle at the same time, its movement couldn't be predicted because we can't measure its position and momentum at the same time, making the movement random.

 

This neat article explains pretty understandable what I meant and in how far I was wrong, probably. http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/06/q-if-quantum-mechanics-says-everything-is-random-then-how-can-it-also-be-the-most-accurate-theory-ever/

 

Does this make the assumption correct that everything probably does happen for a reason, even if we might not be aware of why something happens? Or does it still leave the possibility open that everything, in fact, happens randomly. Depending on one's viewpoint, both might be possible. After all, it might come down to one's perspective in general.

 

P.S.: I was about to assume your MBTI type and then looked at your profile where you stated to be somewhere between an INFJ and ISTJ. I would've guessed you to be an NT, possibly INTJ or INTP Seems like I was wrong ^w^ 

[I used to be a stranger 7,988]

This post has been redacted by the author.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Blue

[Star Racer 198]

According to studies of quantum physics (?), gravity affects time.

 

If you were born at the excact same time as someone, then immediately seperated from them, and you lived on the coast your whole life while they lived in, say, the Rocky Mountains, they would be technically younger than you by a few seconds over the course of eighty years.

Imagine how the drastic difference of gravity from Earth to somewhere like Jupiter, or the Sun. Time flies there.

[DJW 142]

Ah, terribly sorry about this old chap, but one is going to have to don his AJ-hat-of-honesty here.

 

There are four fundamental forces which bind normal kinds of material together

While there many be several categories, none of them are fundamental forces. The only fundamental force in chemical bonding is the electromagnetic force (which is really just the electric force combined with the expression of the electric force via special reletivity - what we call magnetism).

 

Ionic bonds are the strongest

Compare Salt (ionic) with Diamond (covalent)

 

The exemplar of this sort of strength is Diamond.

Covalent. Diamond is the epitomy of covalent bonding.

 

Covalent bonds are made between non-metal elements

Aluminium Chloride is a covalent molecule.

 

where ions are shared between atoms of the same kind.

Alcohol contains covalent bonds between carbon and hydrogen, hydrogen and oxygen and carbon and carbon.

In fact the vast majority of organic bonds are between different elements.

 

These bonds are responsible for every kind of organic chemistry

Ionic bonding is found all over organic chemistry. From the haemoglobin molecule to the sodium ions necessary for synapses to operate. In fact, there are several branches of organometallic chemistry involving not just alkali/alkaline metals but transition elements, lanthanides and metalloids.

 

Their characteristics vary wildely, but often have it in common that they have low ignition points (they burn fairly easily) and are often flexible, elastic or ductile in solid form.

Most of the flexibility of 'covalent' materials have nothing to do with covalent bonds at all, but the interaction between the molecules themselves. As for flamability, this is largely to do with the difference in bonding energy between a carbon atom and something like hydrogen and carbon and oxygen.

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are incredibly inert, as the C-Fl and C-Cl bonds are much more powerful than the C-O bond (you can 'burn' C02 in chlorine and/or flourine). This was part of the reason they were used as refridgerants and aerosol propellants. The interaction of UV light with the C-Cl bond creates the now infamous effect on ozone levels.

 

Metallic bonds are weak but durable........ They are often very strong

Nnnnnffff.....

 

and the best of any kind of bond at being heat or electrical conductors.

Diamond has the highest thermal conductivity of any bulk material.

 

This is because when an electron strikes the side of a metal, it hits the sea of electrons and knocks another electron out on the other side.

Heat transfer is primarily down to phonons, the electrical propagation of vibrations. This is very distinct (though frequently related - but not in the case of diamond and other non-metals) from electrical conductivity.

 

The Probabilistic Model says that you can't "find" where an electron will be-- which makes sense, since they're such infinitesimal things, and they're moving at the speed of light--

Everything so far I can put down to misinformation and generalisation but the last point is complete unicornfeathers. Electrons have a mass. To move at the speed of light requires infinite energy.

 

The main problem with Particle Physics is the fact that it's not about particles at all. Everything is a wave. There is no wave-particle duality.

 

Imagine a sea wave coming towards a section of the shore. In our hyper-macroscopic world the wave hits all along that section. In the quantum world, when the wave 'hits' (by which we mean it interacts with another wave) it is resolved in a single spot as the wavefunction collapses. Where along the shore it will resolve is dependent on the probability of it resolving at any point.

It's the event that we see as a particle, but since the events happen so quickly, they appear to form a continuous line and a 'particle' is formed, and/or many 'particles' are seen across the distribution area and a pseudo-wave appears.

 

With this understanding, you can then imagine what it would be like if, for the briefest of moments, all of the electrons around an atom were located on one side of the nucleus. This would actually push the atom in a direction, like a rocket engine. Granted, it wouldn't push it very much: the force is minuscule and the time it happens is ever-so-brief, but the force is there.

And by the same logic they could equally be on the other side, or scattered in any imagined distribution and the overall effect would be neutral.

 

An electron does not 'orbit' a nucleus. Orbiting would require acceleration and this would produce synchrotron radiation. Instead, it establishes itself as a standing wave 'wrapped' around the nucleus. The location of the charge doesn't vary unless there is an interaction and the frequency of the interactions is so rapid that within the context of a single atom, the charge is distributed across that electron's shell.

 

Back to chemical bonds.

 

Van der Vaal forces are produced by molecular dipoles - where the distribution of charge over a molecule is not equal. A classic example being water - the negative oxygen atom pushing the positive hydrogen atoms away. One end of the molecule has a slight positive charge, the other a slight negative one. This leads to the molecules arranging themselves in order (which we see in things like ice).

A permanent dipole such as the one found in water can also cause the electrons in another molecule to 'move' towards or away from the nearest part of the dipole, creating an electric force to attract them. This is a temporary dipole.

You can also have instantanious dipoles. Two non-polar molecules when in proximity can both act as temporary dipoles. As they become closer, the electrons are redistributed, creating an attractive force.

 

All of this leads to the main point. Notice I used the word 'category' at the beginning?

This is because the whole concept of ionic, covalent and metalic bonding is a categorisation of the same thing. In fact, in modern chemistry it's alost comepletely redundant/out-dated when you get to university level to consider them to be different.

 

Chemical bonding all uses the same mechanism, electron sharing. Which is determined by the relative electronegativity of the atoms involved. This is why when similar atoms join, thy produce 'covalent' bonds as their electronegativity difference is small or even zero. Sodium chloride has a high difference and so produces 'ionic' bonds.

If the difference is above 1.7, it's categorised as ionic, below 0.5 and it's covalent. Anything inbetween is polar covalent.

Sodium does not 'loose' an electron to chlorine to create salt. They share it, but the polarisation of the sharing causes the substance to behave in a different way,

[best poni 1,518]

The tongue is the part of the human body that heals the fastest  

[RattPitt 172]

When nuclear bombs were being made for the first time, the scientists that were making them feared they would ignite the atmosphere. It didn't.

 

The demon core, used in Operation Crossroads, was involved in two separate incidents in the same laboratory (though probably not the same building. I couldn't find that out.) and was responsible for the deaths of scientists Harry Daghlian, Jr. in 1945 and Louis Slotin in 1946. The demon core earned its nickname after the incidents.

 

The largest nuclear bomb ever created and tested was the Tsar Bomba. The bomb itself weighed 27,000 kilograms (60,000 lbs., or two tons). It's blast yield? 50 megatons of TNT. For comparison, the Little Boy (used on Hiroshima) was 15 kilotons. That's about 1000 times weaker if I did my math right.

[Star Racer 198]

The tongue is the part of the human body that heals the fastest

I believe that may actually be the stomach, but as im not an expert, i will leave it at that.

The tongue is also the strongest muscle in the body, but its size reduces its usefullness.

[Venomous 18,813]

Cotton candy was invented by a dentist

[Lisa 5,551]

Every written text (or even possible written text) under 3200 characters, using the roman alphabet and/or basic punctuation such as full stops, commas and spaces exists within a giant library website known as The Library of Babel. The site is based off a novel by Jorge Luis Borges, conceiving of a universe in the form of a vast library containing all possible 410-page books of a certain format and character set. 

 

Go to the site and search up your full name and birthdate. It'll be there.

 

Anyone who has seen Vsauce's latest video knows about this. ;p

Edited October 2, 2015 by Holiday on the Moon

[TerminalObsession 250]

I exist.

 

Isn't that just so shocking?

[I used to be a stranger 7,988]

This post has been redacted by the author.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Blue

[-Octavia- 1,176]

To be fair, though, it's the Random Facts thread, not the Random Misinformation thread.

 

That in and of itself is a random fact.

[Artimis Whooves 1,576]

This is a very, very Ironic picture.. can you guess why?

 

P.s. I took this screenshot, here is the link to the post:http://imgur.com/gallery/G2TssxC

[RattPitt 172]

There's a metal band called Sabaton that teaches war history with their music. Most of it's about the second World War. Here's some of their songs.

 

To Hell And Back (about Audie Murphy)

 

White Death (about Simo Häyhä)

 

Also, Sabaton's lead singer, Joakim Brodén, had to walk somewhere between 520 to 552 kilometers (313-343 miles) to Trondheim Metal Festival (which started today, though Sabaton's playing tomorrow) after losing a drunken bet.

[Artimis Whooves 1,576]

There's a metal band called Sabaton that teaches war history with their music. Most of it's about the second World War. Here's some of their songs.

 

To Hell And Back (about Audie Murphy)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE4BxPwu4zI

 

White Death (about Simo Häyhä)

 

Also, Sabaton's lead singer, Joakim Brodén, had to walk somewhere between 520 to 552 kilometers (313-343 miles) to Trondheim Metal Festival (which started today, though Sabaton's playing tomorrow) after losing a drunken bet.

I love sabaton! my favourite song of there's is carolus rex...

[Sunwalker 981]

@@DJW, @: This thread is supposed do be a laid back exchange of trivia, nobody likes a pedantic Mr. Know-it-all. This is no sign of intelligence, at most it only shows insecurity and inexperience and insecurity, people like that quickly get a bad reputation in academia. The most annoying are those who have just a moderately above average intelligence but think that they are geniuses, in the end of the day this is only vanity.. It is no coincidence that the actual geniuses are very humble...
 

Ah, terribly sorry about this old chap,

No fake piety, please. Nothing that comes before the "but" counts.

You have a knowledge of Chemistry that is just moderately above high school level, yet you talk like you mastered the subject. And you don't explain stuff, you humiliate people, that is not how a competent teacher or scientist should act.

You have a serious problem with how scientific models work, and is unable to understand general rules. Finding an exception for a rule does invalidate it, and does not make you any smarter. Those rules servers the purpose of identifying general tendencies and understanding things better. When a model fails to explain something, then it is either tweaked or reformulated, but neither of this invalidate what came before. Science is built upon previous knowledge, instead of demolishing what came before and starting from zero.

 

While there many be several categories, none of them are fundamental forces. The only fundamental force in chemical bonding is the electromagnetic force (which is really just the electric force combined with the expression of the electric force via special reletivity - what we call magnetism).

There are more educated ways to correct an incorrect terminology. Being arrogant about it just looks silly after you cannot even spell "reletivity" correctly. It just looks that you are throwing a couple of fancy terms for the sake of looking cool.

And, I speak this as a Chemist, your description of chemical bonding is rather superficial and incomplete. Electrons have a negative charge, and if you only consider it you are unable to explain how atoms can hold themselves together, since negative charges repel each other.

You need to take into account the wave-function of the electrons, when the orbitals overlap there are both constructive and destructive interference of the wave-functions. Those interferences give origin to new orbitals: bonding orbitals, which have a lower energy than the original atomic orbitals; and antibonding, which have a higher energy. When electrons occupy the bonding orbitals, the overall energy will be lower than in the isolated atoms, so the molecule is more stable than the atoms alone.

 

Compare Salt (ionic) with Diamond (covalent)
 
Covalent. Diamond is the epitomy of covalent bonding.

Just the exception that proves the rule. In average, ionic bonds are stronger than ionic bonds.

The case of diamond it is not just its bonds what explains hardness, but also its structure. On the top of that, in diamond carbon forms exclusively sigma-bonds, which is very strong, while other allotropes form also pi-bonds, which are not so strong.

 

Aluminium Chloride is a covalent molecule.

Aluminium chloride is predominantly ionic. Any bonding is a combination of both ionic and covalent bonding, which varies is the degree of contribution of each one in each case. If there were no covalent contribution then it would mean no orbital overlap, and with out this there would be no bonding. Aluminium Chloride has a higher degree of covalent contribution than most of other salts, but it still is mostly ionic.

Anyways, when someone is starting to learn something, he start with the basics. There are no sense in getting at this point at exceptions and particular cases. So you shouldn't be criticizing someone for not knowing it.

 

Alcohol contains covalent bonds between carbon and hydrogen, hydrogen and oxygen and carbon and carbon.
In fact the vast majority of organic bonds are between different elements.

In a general sense, ionic bonds are between metals and non-metals. I am pretty sure that @Blue meant this, but he just mistook the terms, as we got over this subject when I helped him studying it another day.

There are exceptions, but this is the general rule.

 

Ionic bonding is found all over organic chemistry. From the haemoglobin molecule to the sodium ions necessary for synapses to operate. In fact, there are several branches of organometallic chemistry involving not just alkali/alkaline metals but transition elements, lanthanides and metalloids.

What a coincidence, I studied lanthanide compounds in my Masters and I also study now in my Doctorate. And let me tell you that organometallic chemistry is about carbon bonded to a metal, not necessarily organic molecules with a metal. They might have a metal without it being at the carbon.

First, it is not "haemoglobin" but "hemoglobin". Second, it is not a organometallic compound, but rather a coordination one. Coordination bonding is a rather complex subject, and in order to understand it is necessary to know both ligand field and crystal field theory, which is far above general chemistry. But you are demanding an advanced knowledge from people who have just started with the subject.

 

Everything so far I can put down to misinformation and generalisation but the last point is complete unicornfeathers.

This is rather condescending. A good teacher knows how to correct a mistake and to educate, without being arrogant. Science is not only about knowledge, it also require you to have good language skills in order to properly communicate your ideas.

 

The main problem with Particle Physics is the fact that it's not about particles at all. Everything is a wave. There is no wave-particle duality.

There are both classical and quantum models for describing the atom. Both can work depending on the circumstance, and good sense says that it is better to use the simplest model capable of explaining the case. Classical physics were successful for a couple of centuries for explaining and predicting a wide range of phenomena, and even today they are still useful for things like safely making an airplane traveling from point A to point B. One just does not discard what came before.

If someone wants to use a classical model to explain atoms, so what? As long it works on that specific case then it is fine. Usually it is when it does not suffice to explain something that people goes to the quantum model. At some time in future, who knows, some even more advanced model might be necessary.

 

Imagine a sea wave coming towards a section of the shore. In our hyper-macroscopic world the wave hits all along that section. In the quantum world, when the wave 'hits' (by which we mean it interacts with another wave) it is resolved in a single spot as the wavefunction collapses. Where along the shore it will resolve is dependent on the probability of it resolving at any point.
It's the event that we see as a particle, but since the events happen so quickly, they appear to form a continuous line and a 'particle' is formed, and/or many 'particles' are seen across the distribution area and a pseudo-wave appears.
 
And by the same logic they could equally be on the other side, or scattered in any imagined distribution and the overall effect would be neutral.

An electron does not 'orbit' a nucleus. Orbiting would require acceleration and this would produce synchrotron radiation. Instead, it establishes itself as a standing wave 'wrapped' around the nucleus. The location of the charge doesn't vary unless there is an interaction and the frequency of the interactions is so rapid that within the context of a single atom, the charge is distributed across that electron's shell.

Back to chemical bonds.

Van der Vaal forces are produced by molecular dipoles - where the distribution of charge over a molecule is not equal. A classic example being water - the negative oxygen atom pushing the positive hydrogen atoms away. One end of the molecule has a slight positive charge, the other a slight negative one. This leads to the molecules arranging themselves in order (which we see in things like ice).
A permanent dipole such as the one found in water can also cause the electrons in another molecule to 'move' towards or away from the nearest part of the dipole, creating an electric force to attract them. This is a temporary dipole.
You can also have instantanious dipoles. Two non-polar molecules when in proximity can both act as temporary dipoles. As they become closer, the electrons are redistributed, creating an attractive force.

His explanation of Van der Vaals forces was correct, he just didn't use a formal language, but rather metaphors. That is a perfectly valid teaching technique: learning by association.

 

All of this leads to the main point. Notice I used the word 'category' at the beginning?
This is because the whole concept of ionic, covalent and metalic bonding is a categorisation of the same thing. In fact, in modern chemistry it's alost comepletely redundant/out-dated when you get to university level to consider them to be different.

Chemical bonding all uses the same mechanism, electron sharing. Which is determined by the relative electronegativity of the atoms involved. This is why when similar atoms join, thy produce 'covalent' bonds as their electronegativity difference is small or even zero. Sodium chloride has a high difference and so produces 'ionic' bonds.
If the difference is above 1.7, it's categorised as ionic, below 0.5 and it's covalent. Anything inbetween is polar covalent.
Sodium does not 'loose' an electron to chlorine to create salt. They share it, but the polarisation of the sharing causes the substance to behave in a different way,

You are talking about the concept of "ionic" being obsolete to someone who studies ionic liquids in his doctorate... Those concepts are not obsolete, but rather understood in a deeper detail when you study Chemistry in college.

You speak of quantum mechanics, you speak in talking of Chemistry in a university level, but in the end you bring Lewis' electronegativity scale... This is high school level of Chemistry and a far more basic model. Nothing of this would be a problem, if you had not criticized people for doing exactly the same thing. In a university level, bonding is more than just electron sharing, it is the overlap of orbitals. If you want to talk of chemical bonding in a university level, you have to talk about things like overlap integrals, quantum harmonic oscillator, secular determinant, total orbital angular momentum, spin-orbit coupling, etc...

 

In short, just be more humble next time

Edited October 2, 2015 by Sunwalker

[StormdustPony 471]

A ducks quack does echo.   Mythbusters.