| Blogs > micronesia |
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
On February 12 2010 01:31 micronesia wrote: Yeah I should be clear about whether I mean ionizing radiation or electromagnetic radiation. whenever you talk about nuclear physics/chemistry in general, radiation always refers to the products of radioactive decay (other than the big atoms that decay themselves)... isn't that standard? | ||
|
LarJarsE
United States1378 Posts
But informative and good read. | ||
|
ArmChairCritic
Sweden36 Posts
On February 12 2010 01:31 micronesia wrote: Yeah I should be clear about whether I mean ionizing radiation or electromagnetic radiation. ... | ||
|
Biochemist
United States1008 Posts
| ||
micronesia
United States24740 Posts
On February 12 2010 01:41 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: whenever you talk about nuclear physics/chemistry in general, radiation always refers to the products of radioactive decay (other than the big atoms that decay themselves)... isn't that standard? Perhaps, but isn't it clear if I say 'radiation as opposed to beta particles' that I meant electromagnetic radiation? I almost never talk about nuclear physics/chem and it's my weakest area actually :p Quit a fitting username you have lol | ||
|
ArmChairCritic
Sweden36 Posts
On February 12 2010 02:04 micronesia wrote: Perhaps, but isn't it clear if I say 'radiation as opposed to beta particles' that I meant electromagnetic radiation? I almost never talk about nuclear physics/chem and it's my weakest area actually :p Quit a fitting username you have lol I just thougth it was wrong to say "ionizing radiation or electromagnetic radiation" when ionizing radiation can be electromagnetic radiation. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24740 Posts
On February 12 2010 02:34 ArmChairCritic wrote: I just thougth it was wrong to say "ionizing radiation or electromagnetic radiation" when ionizing radiation can be electromagnetic radiation. It's not really wrong since there is a distinction... even if one includes the other. I ate an orange earlier... or some other fruit. | ||
|
Freezard
Sweden1012 Posts
Pretty arrogant coming from someone writing a terrible explanation of what a positron is. You make it sound like a proton. Just sayin'. | ||
|
15vs1
64 Posts
On February 11 2010 23:35 ]343[ wrote: hmm I have a question that I was too lazy to ask in physics class yesterday so consider something like (e-) + p -> n + ν (that's a nu I swear!) vs. p -> n + (e+) + ν so the "net effect" of this reaction is the same but can we call it the "same reaction"? because emitting a positron, if we just randomly decided to add an e-/e+ pair production, would be equivalent to absorbing an electron... plus we can think of absorbing an electron as "emitting an electron through negative time"? I hope I'm coherent here... "emitting an electron through negative time" It is very convenient way of thinking  . As far as i know electron capture and positron decay are 2 different reactions. Of course it is impossible to detect positron because it is annihilating immediately. But it is possible to detect the pair of photons appearing after annihilation. And it is very usefull tool in medicine. Obviously such photons will not be emitting in the process of electron capture. | ||
|
IceCube
Croatia1403 Posts
All tho Im not so disappointed in this stuff | ||
|
micronesia
United States24740 Posts
On February 12 2010 02:56 Freezard wrote: Who doesn't know what it is besides people who are in middle school or who are in third world countries? Obviously not nobody, but very few of those people are in the tl demographic.Was the electron comment really necessary? Far from everyone knows what an electron is. Pretty arrogant coming from someone writing a terrible explanation of what a positron is. You make it sound like a proton. Just sayin'. I didn't make it sound like a proton. What additional distinctions do you think should be made? Or do you generally make a habit of criticizing something without providing any evidence that you can do it better? | ||
|
Lovin
Denmark812 Posts
Edit: By the way, aren't you supposed to know this after 10 years of school (Which is obligatoric in Denmark)? | ||
|
rererebanned
67 Posts
Can electrons be treated as a "field" around an atom; and photons as a moving "field" around a whole atom? I trief few physics boards and noone ever had enough knowledge to tell me what exactly happens if "1 radiation" gets emited (or 1 photon for that matter). Does this radiation move in all directions (like a "force-field"), or just in 1 direction (like a "brick" [particle]). | ||
|
littlechava
United States7221 Posts
| ||
|
rei
United States3594 Posts
E=mc^2 how do you have E be constant if m changes????? are you saying C changed under that situation?? or are you saying E=mc^2 is BS????? Explain!!!! | ||
|
Hammy
France828 Posts
On February 11 2010 23:17 micronesia wrote: if you don't know what an electron is then I hope you are in middle school or a third world country or something Too bad this comment isn't as insightful as the rest of your blog  One additional interesting thing about Beta particles: not only can they damage biological tissue, but, if they strike DNA, they can actually cause a spontaneous mutation! Even if that does not occur, a severe cancer can result. How exactly do they cause severe cancer while not causing any mutations? Also, on a side note, but I'm just nitpicking: The beta particles don't actually cause the mutations. They very slightly alter the DNAs structure (by creating thymine dimers, or perhaps pyrimidin dimers in general) but that's not exactly a mutation (it's not a change of the nucleotid sequence). The mutation results from the reparation mechanisms that mismatch nucleotids while exercing their function. Good blog though, it made me look up beta decay since I couldn't remember the details | ||
|
samachking
Bahrain4949 Posts
On February 12 2010 04:27 rei wrote: "Throughout this reaction, the total energy of the particles is conserved even though the mass changes." E=mc^2 how do you have E be constant if m changes????? are you saying C changed under that situation?? or are you saying E=mc^2 is BS????? Explain!!!! c is the constant of the speed of light it does not change(except in maybe really rare situations that I probably have no idea about). The mass is not conserved, however the energy is conserved, E=mc^2 applies to the left over mass or split particles, and the rest of the energy is liberated in the decay process whether through electromagnetic waves or particles that can act as waves or through kinetic energy. I am not 100% sure of this, a guy who knows what he is talking needs to check this though. Conservation of energy always occurs, energy just changes forms thats all. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24740 Posts
On February 12 2010 04:27 rei wrote: "Throughout this reaction, the total energy of the particles is conserved even though the mass changes." E=mc^2 how do you have E be constant if m changes????? are you saying C changed under that situation?? or are you saying E=mc^2 is BS????? Explain!!!! If some of the mass is converted into energy or vice versa, then the total mass changes whereas the total energy stays the same. On February 12 2010 04:38 Hammy wrote: Too bad this comment isn't as insightful as the rest of your blog I'm still waiting for someone to substantiate this criticism as I'm curious... How exactly do they cause severe cancer while not causing any mutations? Also, on a side note, but I'm just nitpicking: The beta particles don't actually cause the mutations. They very slightly alter the DNAs structure (by creating thymine dimers, or perhaps pyrimidin dimers in general) but that's not exactly a mutation (it's not a change of the nucleotid sequence). The mutation results from the reparation mechanisms that mismatch nucleotids while exercing their function. Good blog though, it made me look up beta decay since I couldn't remember the details For the scope of this guide I think what I said about that is ok. | ||
|
Saturnize
United States2473 Posts
| ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
On February 12 2010 01:48 larjarse wrote: This is a cruel joke... But informative and good read. lol good one micro | ||
| ||
|
|
WardiTV Korean Royale
OSC
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Kung Fu Cup
Classic vs Solar
herO vs Cure
Reynor vs GuMiho
ByuN vs ShoWTimE
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
RSL Revival
Solar vs Zoun
MaxPax vs Bunny
Kung Fu Cup
WardiTV Korean Royale
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
