Ask Seattle A Question
Science & Math
20110130-bmg7wipkxyxx7utrg7sua6x5qg

From molecules to imaginary numbers, some freakishly intelligent brainiac will have your answer.

Answers
  • What color is the brain when it is alive and in someone's skull?
    Rex_racer_small

    Pink -- with red and dark parts.

    kind of like General Tso's chicken.

    yum -- http://www.nick-ramsey.eu/pages/bci.html NSFW/NSFnausea

  • While I've been told that there is no such thing as stupid question there are stupid people who ask questions. This may be an example of that.
    11443802614723fe566385e_small

    According to General Relatively, there would be no problem swinging such a pole at extremely slow speeds. by which I mean speeds such that the tip stayed well below relavistic velocities.

    However, there is a huge problem as soon as you start trying to move the pole at anything above this incredibly slow rotational speed. Such a speed would be in the order of one rotation every century.

    Say you start swinging it very slowly and then accelerate linearly. As the tip enters relavistic velocities, it will start increasing in mass. Assuming you can continue to accelerate the pole, the proportion of the pole at relavistic velocities will increase, so more and more of the pole will be increasing in mass. In addition, those portions that were already at relavistic velocities will accelerate towards c linearly, which means their masses will be increasing exponentially. So basically it will quickly take an insanely exponentially increasing amount of energy to keep accelerating the pole, as its mass would be increasing at an insanely exponential rate. Assuming no friction in the system, once you got it to a given speed, it would continue indefinitely (containing that huge amount of energy in the system), but the practical constraints on getting the pole moving at anything beyond that very slow rate mentioned above would be difficult.

    As far as maximum speed, assuming an infinite amount of available energy, of course you couldn't get the tip to move faster than 1.0c, or even to 1.0c, but you could get it asymptoticly close. The reason you couldn't actually get the tip to c is that an object's mass approaches infinity as its velocity approaches c, so even with an infinite amount of energy you could only get asymptotically close to c, not actually to c.

    More practically speaking, as there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum, you'd always have some friction in such a system, but that would only serve to further increase the amount of energy needed.

    Not a stupid question at all.

  • So when is the best hour to watch for the Perseid meteor shower?
    Froggyskull_3_small

    Meteor showers are best viewed between midnight solar time (which is approximately 1:00am when daylight savings is in effect) and twilight. This is because the earth has turned toward the space through which its passing during these hours, so the meteors are, in a sense, hitting the atmosphere the way bugs hit the windshield on the highway.

    This year, you'll have to contend with the full moon, which will wash out a lot of meteors. If you don't get far out from the city, the light pollution coupled with the moon will probably make for poor viewing.

  • -125^(2/3)
    Avatar_default

    Why? Basically, it comes down to convention -- mathematicians set up rules a long time ago to make sure that everyone will get the same answer if they have the same problem, and also to avoid contradictory answers appearing from the same problem.

    Along the same lines, why do we use PEMDAS? Because there needs to be an order of operations, or else we will get different answers for the expression 2 + 3 x 4. If you add first you get 6 x 4 which then equals 24. If you multiply first (following PEMDAS) then you get the correct answer of 2 + 12 which equals 14.

    So back to the negative sign with exponents: you just have to memorize the rule that was established. If there is a negative sign in front of a number with an exponent, you have to apply the exponent first.

    One way that is helpful to people is to think of the parentheses as "glasses" and the exponents as having bad vision. With the parentheses there, the exponent can "see" the negative sign and it will be included in the exponent operation.

  • Which has more hours of daylight?
    12849517g_small

    I think it should be the same: whatever your night-to-day ratio is when you're on one side of the sun, six months later, you're at the opposite side of the sun, the angle of earth's inclination is now the opposite with regard to the sun, so you get the opposite ratio. So all points on the globe end up getting an overall annual ratio of 50:50.

    However: the closer to the poles you are, the more gradual the transition between night and day; depending on your purpose, these twilight hours may or may not count as real daylight. So you could claim that there's more proper daylight closer to the equator.

  • Why does it seem like the best acoustics are in the shower?
    N815394_32920449_260_small

    Because they are.

    Like Cagey said, it's the hard tile surfaces. Other factors that play into it are lower ceilings than the rest of a house generally has, and no pockets or alcoves for sound to get trapped in.
    Some bands (The Supersuckers, Bombs and Beating Hearts, and even I think the early Beatles) have recorded albums in bathrooms. It creates a really nice, home-made sort of sound, with a just a slight slight slight echoy feel that you can't really get in recording studios or vocal booths.

  • Pemco sign on I-5 South at the Denny/Stewart exit that notes carbon in tons: what's that about?
    Bike-scope_small

    "During daylight hours the sign shows kilowatts being generated. At night, it shows reductions in carbon emissions made possible by the solar panels."

    above from http://www.pemco.com/about_us/details/solar_pie.aspx and http://blog.seattlepi.com/transportation/archives/178112.asp

    I guess you can view the specific numbers at http://solarpie.org/pemco/

  • Sciencey Q: garage door openers used to be simply coded - are car key fobs aka remotes, being so commonplace now, susceptible ot the same pranks?
    Labcoat_small

    Older garage doors used a simple 8-bit code to identify the opener to the receiver. This only allows for a total of 256 possible codes and since the codes were set by dip switches that were often not changed or randomized at the factory, there was a lot of overlap. There was really just enough diversity such that your neighbor was unlikely to use the same code.

    The simplest car FOB's use a 40-bit code (which is 2^40 possible codes!). That alone makes it essentially impossible to have any overlap in a parking lot or even on a continent. Furthermore, every time you use one, the car and FOB communicate to agree on a new random code that will be the 'password' for the next time you use the FOB.

    This is to prevent someone from stealing your code with a third party device and cloning your FOB. That said, the code generators aren't really random. If someone figures out the algorithm that a car company uses and reads your code, good bye wheels. However, This is actually freakishly difficult to do and most companies use even more complex encryption these days.

    Bottomline: your FOB will never open another car.

Questions
Recent Comments
  • Comment on RacerX's answer…
    Img_5852_small

    Oh lordy, I'm glad lunch isn't for a few hours! (I'm really rarely squeamish, but that General Tso's reference totally hit upon my gag reflex this morn). Blergh!

  • Comment on Russ Campbell, NWEBS's answer…
    Qlandav2ex_small

    Your question was interesting and I have decided to write some elaboration on my original answer after your recent comments.

    The actual color of the brain is never really observable because if you open the skull to see it, you then deal with a lot of free fluid (blood) from the cutting of the protective layers like the dura mater (basically Latin for "tough mother") that surrounds the brain. So, basically the conundrum is if you look to see it then you have changed its outward appearance.

    Those photos (in the references from RacerX) showing the deep red tinges are basically the color effect of the that free blood that is covering the surface of the brain and are obscuring your real view of the brain tissue itself. Any cerebral spinal fluid would be basically clear and add little color to its appearance.

    You would, of course, see colored arteries and veins that would be present on the exterior surface of the cortex, but by and large the appearance would be that pink that is referenced in most discussions.

    Keep an eye out for the name Frank Netter associated with many of the anatomical drawings you will see of the brain in the reference materials you see in your class. He was one of the most revered and award winning physician artists of modern times. His illustrations will present you with the most life-like images of what these structures would look like in real life.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_H._Netter

  • Comment on Russ Campbell, NWEBS's answer…
    Photo_on_2012-01-03_at_17

    Thanks! And I'm taking an intro to neuroscience class next term in school, so I've been looking at drawings, renderings and photos of the brain, but I really wasn't sure what color the brain actually is. You know, because a lot of the drawings have the brain colored differently for different sections (obviously not real colors) and then the photos of the brain are all that kind of beige-y/grayish color. I didn't know if that was the true color or if it was just the color when it was taken out of someone's head.

  • Comment on Russ Campbell, NWEBS's answer…
    Spaceship_small

    It is a nice photo, Kristin. Very cute.

    Why were you asking about the color of the brain?

  • Comment on Russ Campbell, NWEBS's answer…
    Photo_on_2012-01-03_at_17

    heh, thanks! Yah, that's me as a yougin'! :)

  • Comment on Russ Campbell, NWEBS's answer…
    Qlandav2ex_small

    Cute new avatar - you in happy childhood?

  • Comment on Lilting Missive's answer…
    Rex_racer_small

    (there are plenty of galaxies on opposite sides of the visible universe from us that are moving away from each other at nearly 2.0 c).

    Would this be a situation where cosmological redshift would come into play ?

  • Comment on Lilting Missive's answer…
    11443802614723fe566385e_small

    Light has no mass, so it can travel at c (remember those two things are only correlated, we really can't say that light travels at c because it has no mass, or that the c is c because only things with no mass can travel at that speed). It would be be very easy, even with current technologies, to shine a laser that could reach one light year. We probably do it all the time when adaptive optic telescopes use a laser to "make" a star. There is actually a branch of SETI that looks for laser pulses instead of radio waves.

    Back to the actual question: if you fired such a laser out into space and then spun it, ignoring time dilation and the issues with information transmission being limited to c, and froze the 2 light-year diameter circle such that you had an omnipotent view of it, it would basically look like a yard sprinkler. There would be an expanding spiral of laser moving out from the origin point, however there only be one arm in the spiral, which would be one laser stretching all the way back to the origin. If you were spinning the laser at the rate of one rotation every several years or slower, the spiral would be quite open, and it would tighten as the rotational speed increased.

    Shooting a laser from an object moving at a large fraction of c is one of the issues Special Relatively solved (and above when I said General, I should have said Special). Intuitively, you would think that shooting a laser from an object moving at 0.5 c would result in a laser moving at 1.5 c, but c is the absolute upper limit for transmission of any kind, massless or otherwise. On the other hand, if you fire a laser from an object moving at 0.5 c, and the absolute speed limit is 1.0 c, then an observer on the object would see the laser only moving at 0.5 c. This becomes ever more of an issue if you imagine a spaceship moving at 0.9999999999999999… c; everyone on board would experience light into their direction of travel moving at an incredibly slow speed, while light moving the opposite direction would be moving at 1.999999999… c. Those figures get reversed if you take an inertia based view, rather than an absolute one. The answer is time dilation and Lorentz contraction, which occurs at relavistic velocities (relavistic just means speeds at which the importance of General Relatively become important, rather than classic Newtonian physics; it can be anywhere from 0.1 c or higher to the rather ponderous 17,000 mph geosynchronous satellites move at, depending on context). Time dilation is essentially a time differential; different observers at difference velocities see time moving at different rates. Lorentzian contraction is basically what happens to matter at relavistic velocities: it squishes.

    To return to the question of a spaceship moving at 0.99999999… c, the people onboard would live completely normal lives, with light doing exactly what they expected it to do on the ship, and this would be because their local time would have slowed way, way down AND their ship and they themselves would have contracted considerably (their Lorentz factor would be very high). An outside observer would see the ship and everyone on board much much shorter in the direction of travel than it would be at non-relavistic velocities go by. If someone onboard the ship fired a laser forward, to an outside observer it would indeed move away from the ship at a very slow speed, while a laser fired backwards would move away at nearly 2.0 c, which is not a problem because the laser is still only moving at 1.0 c from a stationary reference frame (there are plenty of galaxies on opposite sides of the visible universe from us that are moving away from each other at nearly 2.0 c).

    Now it seems odd that in the onboard reference frame light going backwards from the ship would be moving at 1.0 c. If their time is considerably slowed down and the relative velocities between them and the light beam from an outside reference are nearly 2.0 c, you might expect light moving backwards from the ship would appear to be moving at many magnitudes beyond c. But the crucial detail there is that when an onboard observer shoots a beam backwards, all the reflected light from the ship around it would also be moving at the same speed, so all information transmission would be moving at the same speed, thus relative to the ship's light the beam is moving at the same tiny factor of c, but time dilation for the onboard observers makes the laser move at c again.

    There are other weird effects that happen at large factors of c, but if just punch "time dilation" into YouTube you'll find all sorts of great videos on it.

    So my very long answer finally comes to the point: if you fire a beam from an already moving object, no, it won't go faster than c.

  • Comment on Lilting Missive's answer…
    Rex_racer_small

    holyshit - good answer! What if you replace the pole of questionlandium with a beam of light, like a supersized laser with the capacity to go a light year? in other words - Does light have mass? and Can you get light to go FTL itself if you speed up the device emitting the light?

  • Comment on Lilting Missive's answer…
    11443802614723fe566385e_small

    For the curious, the maximum rotational speed would be about 0.1592 rotations per year, or rather 6.2814 years per rotation.

    The would hit c at approximately 0.15915494 rotations per year.

  • Comment on Danger's answer…
    Labcoat_small

    Oh, and I don't in any way condone drug use nor should this information be used in any way to evade drug tests and so forth and etc.

  • Comment on Lilting Missive's answer…
    11443802614723fe566385e_small

    I just checked the specs and it sounds like you might be able to see it with a 12 inch or larger scope, but it's still going to be hard.

    The sky over Greenlake is probably around Class 8: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/resources/darksky/3304011.html

  • Comment on Tom's answer…
    Labcoat_small

    Well, if you must know...

    I attempting to recreate the conditions found in the hydrothermic subsurface rock near the Axial volcano on the Juan de Fuca ridge.

    I have bacterial samples that I collected from there at the seafloor (~4500m) and I'm attempting to culture them in the lab.

    To do this, I would like to grow them as a biofilm, which is essentially groups of cells that adhere to each other and to a surface. The surface is a coverslip, but I need an adhesive to attach the coverslip to a growth chamber. The microbes will attach to the the inside while allowing me to visualize them microscopically from the outside.

    I need an adhesive that won't break down at the high temps found in these hydrothermic vents, won't allow oxygen because these organisms are poisoned by it, and won't leach something toxic that will screw up my experiment.

  • Comment on Tom's answer…
    Cateyes_small

    Now I'm really curious exactly what it is you're cooking up.

  • Comment on Tom's answer…
    Labcoat_small

    Well it's for a biological application, so it would be good to know what it is.

    Nice chart though, I will take a look at the anaerobic sealer. Thanks.

  • Comment on Matt from Denver's answer…
    Froggyskull_3_small

    Thanks for that, Russ. And thanks to o my captain for the mushroom.

  • Comment on Matt from Denver's answer…
    Qlandav2ex_small

    Very clear and succinct explanation.

  • Comment on stinkbug's answer…
    Spaceship_small

    Great info, except the article was written in the past when the moon was new (thin cresent in the evening sky) and this year, sadly, the moon is going to be full...worst possible time!)

  • Comment on soundslikepuget's answer…
    Froggyskull_3_small

    Since Daylight Savings is in effect, Seattle is actually UTC -7 hours right now. UTC/GMT don't change with DST.

  • Comment on Fnarf's answer…
    Finn3goof_small

    pardon my lack of details.

    I am referring to clean ldpe film post consumer and compacted through a rear loader truck at least or even a bailer at the most. Shrink wrap, bags, packaging, etc all apply. I'm thinking it's at least 300# and maybe as much as 900.

    Thanks

  • Comment on BlueSax's answer…
    Avatar_default

    I could try to explain this myself, but I just found a great resource at http://www.themathpage.com/alg/exponents.htm which I think explains it better. Problems 5 and 6 should help clarify this a bit, especially 5b.

    Also, think about it this way: ab^2 is the same as a * b * b NOT a * a * b * b, right? If a = -1, then it would be -1 * b^2, NOT (-1 * b)^2. The square only applies to the b.

    So yes, the exponent only applies to the closest base (which may be a whole string of numbers in parentheses!), and nothing else.

  • Comment on BlueSax's answer…
    Stuffie_small

    OK. Got it. And thanks this answer makes sense in that I can apply it to future problems. But what is the rule - exactly? Convention states that the base of an exponent will be and only be applied to the ... what? factor nearest the exponent? as in -125^2 = -1*(125)^2 Then why not say that -125^2 = -1*5*5(5)^2 ?

    What I mean is what is the point of factoring off the negative 1 and then saying it isn't part of the number nearest the exponent. I can accept that this is the convention but usually there is some explanation. Do you know what it is?

  • Comment on Sacrelicious's answer…
    Stuffie_small

    Yeah, me to but it turns out there is always math.

  • Comment on emily's answer…
    Stuffie_small

    Thanks emily. Yeah I tried it both ways and that is how I ferreted out the correct answer in the end but ...
    and I guess a simpler question would have been - when I see -125 why / how do I know if it is meant to be -(125) and not (-225)? as in " -125^(2/3) "

  • Comment on Musely's answer…
    Gold-head_small

    Ah. Thanks. I'm terrified of Yahoo Answers because of the large number of people there who haven't got a clue but are quite certain. But it looks like there's good answers there.

  • Comment on Musely's answer…
    12849517g_small

    Grr, seems my A HREF got lost somewhere: answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070914070828AAaZOIb

  • Comment on Musely's answer…
    Gold-head_small

    Psst - there's no link!

  • Comment on internet_jen's answer…
    Gold-head_small

    Yeah, that's the thing -- I'm curious enough to ask on Questionland, but not curious enough to type 365 data points x 4 into a spreadsheet.

  • Comment on Musely's answer…
    12849517g_small

    (...almost. Apparently the elliptical orbit of the earth messes up the actual 50:50 ratio; but mainly contributes to inequalities in daylight received by north vs south hemisphere rather than poles-vs-equator. More discussion on this stuff at this link)

  • Comment on tofu oyako's answer…
    Tofu_oyako_small

    I bet that new art store by the Jimi Hendrix statue (Blick?) would have them too.