|
United States24701 Posts
We all have different levels of experience with what Beta Particles are. However, I am sure many readers have either forgotten or never actually learned what they are or where they come from. Here is a quick explanation to start off your day.
Beta particles are generally considered to be electrons, however they can also be positrons, depending on where they come from. What's a positron, you ask (if you don't know what an electron is then I hope you are in middle school or a third world country or something)? A positron is a particle the same size as an electron except with a positive charge. It is considered the anti-particle of the electron. Essentially it is a negated electron.
Unlike, say, Alpha particles (helium nuclei), Beta particles can penetrate a sheet of paper. However, unlike say, Gamma Radiation, Beta particles can be stopped with a simple conductive barrier such as a sheet of metal.
Alpha particles cannot penetrate solid matter whereas Beta particles can. Radiation (electromagnetic waves) can penetrate in even more cases than Beta particles.
At this point you may be wondering when you get the positive or negative version of the Beta particle. This is a good question. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure it out.
But seriously, it depends on what type of particle an electron has in excess. β− decay (electron) occurs when there is a surplus of Neutrons. Do you remember in chemistry/physics class how the neutron was slightly more massive than the proton? That might help you understand what I'm about to say. An excess neutron can actually be broken down into its constituent components: a proton, an electron, and an electron-type antineutrino (don't ask about this last one lol). Throughout this reaction, the total energy of the particles is conserved even though the mass changes.*
β+ decay occurs when an atom has a surplus of protons. Similar to β− decay, the excess particle is broken down into other particles. This one will make a bit less sense since the proton is broken down into a neutron (something bigger!), a positron, and an electron-type neutrino. Notice that two of those particles are the anti-particle of the ones emitted in β− decay. In this reaction, total energy is not conserved unless you take into account for external factors... namely the difference in binding energy of the atom both before and after the reaction. For those who are very knowledgeable on this topic please feel free to think of a better way of explaining it or provide more details.
Henri Becquerel and then Ernest Rutherford discovered this when conducting research in the 19th Century, with results identifying alpha and beta particles being published in 1897.
Ernest Rutherford
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.
*For those unaware, matter and energy are essentially the same thing. Another way of looking at it is that matter is a type of energy. The total mass of a reaction doesn't have to stay the same as long as the equivalent total energy is conserved. The relation between mass and energy is approximately E = m * c^2.
Stay tuned for my forthcoming report on the Beta function.
Rick James
 
|
I'm glad I came here and left bathed in your first world's reserved knowledge.
|
*stares confused, with swollen red eyes at the monitor, then at the mass of garbage accumulated in room the past day and night, then at the unfinished cold soup in the bowl in front on the desk, at the other food crumbles and at his own sweaty, unwashed self*
THIS NO STARCRAFT BETA THREAD
ME ANGRY
|
Taking nuclear physics in university was liberating after high school chemistry, I dont know how to explain it, but you are humbled on how much is really there and you are dumbfounded by your arrogance and ignorance to make many assumptions and not ask these questions. There is a lot out there to learn and it is a joy to learn about all these mind blowing things everyday. This is a pretty good write up micronesia. On this topic I am currently reading "The making of the atomic bomb" and it is a terrific book that everyone should read on the history of the atomic bomb, and it's scientists, and their discoveries written in lucid prose.
|
On February 11 2010 23:26 Cloud wrote:
I'm glad I came here and left bathed in your first world's reserved knowledge.
|
United States10328 Posts
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...
|
when i saw the words beta ... i thought it was starcraft 2 beta =.=
|
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...
Yes, I would love to know the answer to this too ^.^. This question came up to me before but the physics prof is a douche towards me and I dont like asking him questions, are B+ decay and electron capture the same thing? The thing is I am assuming they probably arent considering that the weights on those reactions are not equal.
|
Good blog 
|
5/5 i like the random addition of rick james at the end lol.
|
How should we understand gamma radiation?
Let's assume "1 decay" happens.
Is "one radiation wave" generated? Or many? In the picture we see a wave, as if many decays happened. Or maybe this is one decay, which generates say "6 waves".
Is the "radiation" pointing towards some direction (as if this was a particle), or does it go in every direction?
|
United States24701 Posts
On February 12 2010 00:31 rererebanned wrote:
How should we understand gamma radiation?
Let's assume "1 decay" happens.
Is "one radiation wave" generated? Or many? In the picture we see a wave, as if many decays happened. Or maybe this is one decay, which generates say "6 waves".
Is the "radiation" pointing towards some direction (as if this was a particle), or does it go in every direction?
Actually the reactions I included don't release radiation... just particles. The way in which radiation gets released from other reactions is an interesting topic though.
|
Did seriously learn something interesting here, looking forward towards the next report on the beta function!
|
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...
Protons don't decay, at least as far as we know.
Should the Beta particle be drawn as a wave as well? Because of DeBroglie wavelength and what not?
Overall Pretty awesome though! =D
|
On February 12 2010 00:46 frozenkatkiller wrote:Show nested quote +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... Protons don't decay, at least as far as we know. Should the Beta particle be drawn as a wave as well? Because of DeBroglie wavelength and what not? Overall Pretty awesome though! =D
Well as far as I know you should not state what "we" as in everyone knows when you didnt do much research or probably never dealt with this subject in the slightest depth. What 343 wrote is correct, the proton converting to the neutron and releasing a positron is called Beta+ decay
|
you really need to describe the weak force and quantum tunneling of the electron probability wave to describe why radiation happens
|
On February 12 2010 00:33 micronesia wrote:
Actually the reactions I included don't release radiation... just particles. The way in which radiation gets released from other reactions is an interesting topic though.
Photons (gamma radiation) are particles too, so I don't really see the difference here...?
|
United States24701 Posts
On February 12 2010 01:27 crate wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2010 00:33 micronesia wrote:
Actually the reactions I included don't release radiation... just particles. The way in which radiation gets released from other reactions is an interesting topic though. Photons (gamma radiation) are particles too, so I don't really see the difference here...? All waves are particles and all particles are waves... if that's what you mean. But an electron is more a particle than a photon in my opinion.
|
I was mainly wondering why you are saying beta particles are not radiation, since mostly every other source says the opposite.
|
United States24701 Posts
On February 12 2010 01:30 crate wrote:
I was mainly wondering why you are saying beta particles are not radiation, since mostly every other source says the opposite.
Yeah I should be clear about whether I mean ionizing radiation or electromagnetic radiation.
|
On February 12 2010 01:31 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2010 01:30 crate wrote:
I was mainly wondering why you are saying beta particles are not radiation, since mostly every other source says the opposite. 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?
|
This is a cruel joke...
But informative and good read.
|
On February 12 2010 01:31 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2010 01:30 crate wrote:
I was mainly wondering why you are saying beta particles are not radiation, since mostly every other source says the opposite. Yeah I should be clear about whether I mean ionizing radiation or electromagnetic radiation.
...
|
I wish I was 18 again, I would totally have double majored in physics.
|
United States24701 Posts
On February 12 2010 01:41 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2010 01:31 micronesia wrote:On February 12 2010 01:30 crate wrote:
I was mainly wondering why you are saying beta particles are not radiation, since mostly every other source says the opposite. 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?
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
On February 12 2010 02:00 ArmChairCritic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2010 01:31 micronesia wrote:On February 12 2010 01:30 crate wrote:
I was mainly wondering why you are saying beta particles are not radiation, since mostly every other source says the opposite. Yeah I should be clear about whether I mean ionizing radiation or electromagnetic radiation. ...
Quit a fitting username you have lol
|
On February 12 2010 02:04 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2010 01:41 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 12 2010 01:31 micronesia wrote:On February 12 2010 01:30 crate wrote:
I was mainly wondering why you are saying beta particles are not radiation, since mostly every other source says the opposite. 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? 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 Show nested quote +On February 12 2010 02:00 ArmChairCritic wrote:On February 12 2010 01:31 micronesia wrote:On February 12 2010 01:30 crate wrote:
I was mainly wondering why you are saying beta particles are not radiation, since mostly every other source says the opposite. Yeah I should be clear about whether I mean ionizing radiation or electromagnetic radiation. ... 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.
|
United States24701 Posts
On February 12 2010 02:34 ArmChairCritic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2010 02:04 micronesia wrote:On February 12 2010 01:41 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 12 2010 01:31 micronesia wrote:On February 12 2010 01:30 crate wrote:
I was mainly wondering why you are saying beta particles are not radiation, since mostly every other source says the opposite. 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? 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 On February 12 2010 02:00 ArmChairCritic wrote:On February 12 2010 01:31 micronesia wrote:On February 12 2010 01:30 crate wrote:
I was mainly wondering why you are saying beta particles are not radiation, since mostly every other source says the opposite. Yeah I should be clear about whether I mean ionizing radiation or electromagnetic radiation. ... 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.
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.
|
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'.
|
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.
|
All I read here was "Guide to Beta" and thought its for SC II beta lol
All tho Im not so disappointed in this stuff
|
United States24701 Posts
On February 12 2010 02:56 Freezard wrote:
Was the electron comment really necessary? Far from everyone knows what an electron is. 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.
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?
|
FUUU! That's one less piece of knowledge to throw at people..
Edit: By the way, aren't you supposed to know this after 10 years of school (Which is obligatoric in Denmark)?
|
As you didnt answer my question -_-
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]).
|
I'm glad I came here to see an angry Cloud post
|
"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!!!!
|
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
|
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.
|
United States24701 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:Show nested quote +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
I'm still waiting for someone to substantiate this criticism as I'm curious...
Show nested quote +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
For the scope of this guide I think what I said about that is ok.
|
Come on when you use the word "beta" in the title of a thread on a Starcraft website what do you expect?
|
On February 12 2010 01:48 larjarse wrote:
This is a cruel joke...
But informative and good read.
lol good one micro
|
Many people 30+ doesn't know what an electron is. Not everyone bothers much about chemistry when in school and quickly forgets about it because they find it very boring. Anyhow, I'm not going to discuss it with you since you keep saying third world countries knows nothing about this stuff and it's all racial and USA baby. I guess you don't know how many from TL are actually South Americans and I bet 90% of them knows what an electron is. I also got many Indian friends and they are all smarter than most people I know.
Lovin: Unless school changed dramatically since I went there, no. You don't learn this stuff in elementary school, nor in high school. You need to go up to university level to learn this kind of stuff.
|
United States24701 Posts
On February 12 2010 04:49 Freezard wrote:
Many people 30+ doesn't know what an electron is. Not everyone bothers much about chemistry when in school and quickly forgets about it because they find it very boring. Anyhow, I'm not going to discuss it with you since you keep saying third world countries knows nothing about this stuff and it's all racial and USA baby. I guess you don't know how many from TL are actually South Americans and I bet 90% of them knows what an electron is. I also got many Indian friends and they are all smarter than most people I know.
Lovin: Unless school changed dramatically since I went there, no. You don't learn this stuff in elementary school, nor in high school. You need to go up to university level to learn this kind of stuff.
In most non-third world countries this information is guaranteed to be in the curriculum in required classes. Most places with poor education systems where you don't get basic information like this are third world countries. Does that mean all third world countries fail to convey this information? No. Don't make a logical fallacy and accuse me of saying something that I didn't say.
|
If your school does not teach you basic basic chemistry or even basic science you either dropped out from middle school, or there is something terribly terribly wrong with your school, or you cant really go to school due to you not being to afford it or certain conditions that affect you. It was just a fun remark, you guys just need to relax. Seriously, he just said if you never heard about what an electron is your eduction is probably fucked up which is probably the truth
|
On February 12 2010 04:44 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2010 04:38 Hammy wrote: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 I'm still waiting for someone to substantiate this criticism as I'm curious...
I really hope this is a joke, but please look into middle school and high school rankings in the world and you might get your own answer. Don't confuse the quality of education with how widespread it is within a country. Sure, not all countries have the same ratio of their population that's finished high-school, but that doesn't necessarily correlate with the quality of education that's provided. Anyways, I suggest you just look this stuff up yourself (and I'm far from being an expert anyways), because it's pretty lame to see such an uneducated comment regarding the lack of education elsewhere.
|
United States24701 Posts
On February 12 2010 04:56 Hammy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2010 04:44 micronesia wrote:On February 12 2010 04:38 Hammy wrote: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 I'm still waiting for someone to substantiate this criticism as I'm curious... I really hope this is a joke, but please look into middle school and high school rankings in the world and you might get your own answer. Don't confuse the quality of education with how widespread it is within a country. Sure, not all countries have the same ratio of their population that's finished high-school, but that doesn't necessarily correlate with the quality of education that's provided. Anyways, I suggest you just look this stuff up yourself (and I'm far from being an expert anyways), because it's pretty lame to see such an uneducated comment regarding the lack of education elsewhere.
I still don't understand what it is I said that people claim I'm wrong about...
I think people are assuming I said something that I didn't.
|
On February 12 2010 04:51 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2010 04:49 Freezard wrote:
Many people 30+ doesn't know what an electron is. Not everyone bothers much about chemistry when in school and quickly forgets about it because they find it very boring. Anyhow, I'm not going to discuss it with you since you keep saying third world countries knows nothing about this stuff and it's all racial and USA baby. I guess you don't know how many from TL are actually South Americans and I bet 90% of them knows what an electron is. I also got many Indian friends and they are all smarter than most people I know.
Lovin: Unless school changed dramatically since I went there, no. You don't learn this stuff in elementary school, nor in high school. You need to go up to university level to learn this kind of stuff. In most non-third world countries this information is guaranteed to be in the curriculum in required classes. Most places with poor education systems where you don't get basic information like this are third world countries. Does that mean all third world countries fail to convey this information? No. Don't make a logical fallacy and accuse me of saying something that I didn't say.
What you said:
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.
That's true, very few of them are here. Still, people from third-world countries who hang around here got the exact same probability of knowing what an electron is as any other country. You're saying they have computers, browse the Internet and plays Starcraft but doesn't know what an electron is.
Seriously just remove the third-world country bit.
|
It definitely sounds like you're putting "being in middle school" and "comming from a third world country" on the same level in terms of education, which is incredibly arrogant and fits into a rather common stereotype (No! I didn't say what stereotype! :p).
Perhaps it's just a poor choice of words.
|
United States24701 Posts
On February 12 2010 05:01 Freezard wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2010 04:51 micronesia wrote:On February 12 2010 04:49 Freezard wrote:
Many people 30+ doesn't know what an electron is. Not everyone bothers much about chemistry when in school and quickly forgets about it because they find it very boring. Anyhow, I'm not going to discuss it with you since you keep saying third world countries knows nothing about this stuff and it's all racial and USA baby. I guess you don't know how many from TL are actually South Americans and I bet 90% of them knows what an electron is. I also got many Indian friends and they are all smarter than most people I know.
Lovin: Unless school changed dramatically since I went there, no. You don't learn this stuff in elementary school, nor in high school. You need to go up to university level to learn this kind of stuff. In most non-third world countries this information is guaranteed to be in the curriculum in required classes. Most places with poor education systems where you don't get basic information like this are third world countries. Does that mean all third world countries fail to convey this information? No. Don't make a logical fallacy and accuse me of saying something that I didn't say. What you said: 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.That's true, very few of them are here. Still, people from third-world countries who hang around here got the exact same probability of knowing what an electron is as any other country. You're saying they have computers, browse the Internet and plays Starcraft but doesn't know what an electron is. Seriously just remove the third-world country bit.
You are repeatedly missing the point that I'm not implying that people from third world countries get poor education. I am saying that people who get poor educations are from third world countries. Of course as I admitted that's not entirely true either, but there is a lot of truth to it.
On February 12 2010 05:03 Hammy wrote:
It definitely sounds like you're putting "being in middle school" and "comming from a third world country" on the same level in terms of education, which is incredibly arrogant and fits into a rather common stereotype (No! I didn't say it! :p).
Perhaps it's just a poor choice of words.
That may be what it sounded like to you but it isn't what I said.
|
Why are people so afraid of stereotypes when they are statistically true? If the reality is arrogant it does not override the reality. If you do not know what an electron is and you are browsing this site (meaning you have the Internet) your education IS fucked up, thats all there is to it. Please inform me of any school system that does not teach you basic science and really basic basic chemistry by high school if that high school exists. If you are from a 3rd world country you are not as likely to have as good as an education as someone from a rich country, yes, the reality is sad, however, that does not negate the reality.
Why are you people so riled up about a single side joke when the blog is a pretty fine one at that?
|
United States24701 Posts
On February 12 2010 05:11 samachking wrote:
Why are people so afraid of stereotypes when they are statistically true? If the reality is arrogant it does not override the reality. If you do not know what an electron is and you are browsing this site (meaning you have the Internet) your education IS fucked up, thats all there is to it. Please inform me of any school system that does not teach you basic science and really basic basic chemistry by high school if that high school exists. If you are from a 3rd world country you are not as likely to have as good as an education as someone from a rich country, yes, the reality is sad, however, that does not negate the reality.
Why are you people so riled up about a single side joke when the blog is a pretty fine one at that?
Maybe they are sore that I made the sidebar look like sc2 beta info :p
BTW I could understand if someone from another country didn't know "electron" in english but nobody made that claim...
|
Getting good education or not has nothing to do with it. Just because everyone are guaranteed to get a good education in non-third-world countries doesn't mean everyone will have the knowledge they're supposed to have when they've finished it. Just look here in Sweden where 20% fails their high-school graduate. I would be very dumb to expect most people to pass physics/chemistry/math in school just because they get a good education. You're disregarding the human factor and basically just assuming people's knowledge.
I would say out of the people browsing TL, just as many from USA doesn't know what an electron is as from Peru.
EDIT: Obviously percentage wise.
|
"If some of the mass is converted into energy or vice versa, then the total mass changes whereas the total energy stays the same."
so let say for example, we start off with 0 enery and all mass, the total amount of energy can be converted from the mass can't exceed the mass total. But as the mass changes bit by bit the mass is converted into energy, hence comes the term the mass changes and total energy is conserved.
I was originally thinking energy in terms of the portion of energy that converted from mass, not in terms of the total energy of the system.
|
On February 12 2010 05:28 rei wrote:
"If some of the mass is converted into energy or vice versa, then the total mass changes whereas the total energy stays the same."
so let say for example, we start off with 0 enery and all mass, the total amount of energy can be converted from the mass can't exceed the mass total. But as the mass changes bit by bit the mass is converted into energy, hence comes the term the mass changes and total energy is conserved.
I was originally thinking energy in terms of the portion of energy that converted from mass, not in terms of the total energy of the system.
you cant have 0 energy. Mass is a form of energy :/
|
On February 12 2010 05:34 samachking wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2010 05:28 rei wrote:
"If some of the mass is converted into energy or vice versa, then the total mass changes whereas the total energy stays the same."
so let say for example, we start off with 0 enery and all mass, the total amount of energy can be converted from the mass can't exceed the mass total. But as the mass changes bit by bit the mass is converted into energy, hence comes the term the mass changes and total energy is conserved.
I was originally thinking energy in terms of the portion of energy that converted from mass, not in terms of the total energy of the system. you cant have 0 energy. Mass is a form of energy :/
so let's say for example, we start off with 0 pure energy, and all energy in form of mass, the total amount of energy can be converted from the energy in from of mass can't exceed the mass total. But as the energy in form of mass changes bit by bit the mass is converted into pure energy, hence comes the term mass changes and total energy is conserved. Better?
|
United States24701 Posts
On February 12 2010 05:20 Freezard wrote:
Getting good education or not has nothing to do with it. Just because everyone are guaranteed to get a good education in non-third-world countries doesn't mean everyone will have the knowledge they're supposed to have when they've finished it. Just look here in Sweden where 20% fails their high-school graduate. I would be very dumb to expect most people to pass physics/chemistry/math in school just because they get a good education. You're disregarding the human factor and basically just assuming people's knowledge.
I would say out of the people browsing TL, just as many from USA doesn't know what an electron is as from Peru.
EDIT: Obviously percentage wise.
You are certainly correct that students don't learn/remember everything they are supposed to have. However, I'm not talking about the most difficult thing from 12th grade... I'm talking about something that students first see in middle school, then cover across several years in high school. It's a very basic thing. Sure, there are still people who forgot it... but the 'third world' countries have those people too so I don't see why we are discussing this.
|
On February 12 2010 05:37 rei wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2010 05:34 samachking wrote:On February 12 2010 05:28 rei wrote:
"If some of the mass is converted into energy or vice versa, then the total mass changes whereas the total energy stays the same."
so let say for example, we start off with 0 enery and all mass, the total amount of energy can be converted from the mass can't exceed the mass total. But as the mass changes bit by bit the mass is converted into energy, hence comes the term the mass changes and total energy is conserved.
I was originally thinking energy in terms of the portion of energy that converted from mass, not in terms of the total energy of the system. you cant have 0 energy. Mass is a form of energy :/ so let's say for example, we start off with 0 pure energy, and all energy in form of mass, the total amount of energy can be converted from the energy in from of mass can't exceed the mass total. But as the energy in form of mass changes bit by bit the mass is converted into pure energy, hence comes the term mass changes and total energy is conserved. Better?
Yup, that is true I guess, mass is liberated into energy and that energy is conserved. It is true if you put it that way. The original statement summed it up well: some of the mass liberated, mass down, energy stays the same.
|
I don't recall learning about electrons in middle school. High school certainly... but middle school? I don't even remember what I learned in middle school. Then again I had terrible science teachers in middle school.
|
There are plenty of inner-city schools in the USA that graduate students every year who can't read. Third world countries don't have a monopoly on people who missed out on education.
|
On February 12 2010 05:39 micronesia wrote:
but the 'third world' countries have those people too so I don't see why we are discussing this.
Because you were specifically mentioning third-world countries in your post? Third-world countries have those people, as does the rest of the world. There's no black and white in this case. Electrons is a basic thing for you, because you are well into the topic. If you mention atom to someone, most people would probably know that they're the small 'stuff' building the world. But to explain what an atom really is, the electrons/protons/neutrons, it's not as an easy task and I'm sure many people in the first-world countries wouldn't be able to answer that question. The either in middle-school or in a third-world country thing is an insult to those.
Anyway I liked your blog otherwise, I guess you won't get my point so I'm done here.
|
United States24701 Posts
On February 12 2010 07:52 Freezard wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2010 05:39 micronesia wrote:
but the 'third world' countries have those people too so I don't see why we are discussing this. Because you were specifically mentioning third-world countries in your post? Third-world countries have those people, as does the rest of the world. There's no black and white in this case. Electrons is a basic thing for you, because you are well into the topic. If you mention atom to someone, most people would probably know that they're the small 'stuff' building the world. But to explain what an atom really is, the electrons/protons/neutrons, it's not as an easy task and I'm sure many people in the first-world countries wouldn't be able to answer that question. The either in middle-school or in a third-world country thing is an insult to those. Anyway I liked your blog otherwise, I guess you won't get my point so I'm done here.
I think if we polled tl we'd find that the vast majority of people who didn't know what an electron is were either too young or from third world countries, or didn't speak good enough English. Thus, to the people reading my thread the comment 'you will know this unless you are too young or maybe in a third world country' would be more or less correct. Of course it can't be 100% and neither can any other generalization that we make all the time.
Explaining protons/neutrons/electrons is an easy task: electrons go around the outside, neutrons/protons are in the middle in the nucleus. That's what kids cover before they ever get to chem/physics. Most will go more in depth with the fact that electrons are negative, are pulled towards the nucleus, etc. Nothing beyond a very basic knowledge of electrons is required to get something out of reading the OP so it's reasonable for me to assume that most people know it.
I think the term 'third-world country' is so negatively charged that it raises eyebrows even before anything else is said... I feel that I'm being held to an extremely high standard here... one that isn't imposed elsewhere on TL.
Would you be upset if I said "Then you get an electron... by the way if you don't know what an electron is U R RETARDED"? I feel like that would receive less scrutiny.
|
fascinating debate about nothing
another interesting thread ruined
|
When i read proton (form latin = first) i remembered protoss. Anyway as protos is an enzyme. Dont remember what it does though.
OT: Very informative blog. I really liked it. Could you micro , please, continue writing on physics? I appreciate it. thanks
|
United States24701 Posts
On February 12 2010 23:03 rererebanned wrote:
fascinating debate about nothing
another interesting thread ruined
Well the 'debate' came sorta after most of the other discussion tapered off so I don't think it's a big deal. It also wasn't that rude on either end so I don't mind.
On February 13 2010 00:17 Art.FeeL wrote:
When i read proton (form latin = first) i remembered protoss. Anyway as protos is an enzyme. Dont remember what it does though.
OT: Very informative blog. I really liked it. Could you micro , please, continue writing on physics? I appreciate it. thanks
Anything in particular that interests you? I could see myself doing it as part of an attempt to brush up on a topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Alfa_beta_gamma_radiation.svg/454px-Alfa_beta_gamma_radiation.svg.png)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Beta-minus_Decay.svg/250px-Beta-minus_Decay.svg.png)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Ernest_Rutherford2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/367865/Rick+James.jpg)
