Earlier quoted context omitted.
One approach is reductio ad absurdum: If Central Banks can create money without negative effects, then - why tax people? - why even work? Can't we just print enough money for everyone and live happily ever after? I realize these questions are quite provocative and their answering only explains if it will work but not how or when it will fail.
> - why tax people? Printing money is actually more or less equivalent to a tax, because it reduces the value of the existing money supply. > - Can't we just print enough money for everyone and live happily ever after? No, because printing money redistributes wealth, it doesn't create it.
Ask HN: What scientific phenomenon do you wish someone would explain better?
781–790 of 839 posts
Re: Ask HN: What scientific phenomenon do you wish someone would explain better?
#782Re: Ask HN: What scientific phenomenon do you wish someone would explain better?
#783Low, medium, and high-frequency radio waves (below 30MHz, wavelengths longer than 10 meters) are a form of EM radiation. Which means that an antenna is 'transmitting' low-energy, long-wavelength photons. (Which gets us into the whole wavicle question.) But the signal from a radio station appears to be continuous. So: how to picture this? Is the signal made of discrete 'photons' overlapping, or combined somehow? Or is…
More detail:
Say you have an AM station that transmits at frequency f = 650kHz and uses power P = 50kW.
The equation for a photon's energy is E = hf, where E is the energy, h is Planck's constant and f is the frequency. Here h = 6.6310^(-34) Js and f = 6.510^5 Hz. Thus the photon's energy is E = 4.3110^(-28) J. This is very tiny number.
The number of photons per second is n = P/E = 1.1610^32.
Let's try to visualize this. Avogadro's number is 6.022*10^23 for each mol of something, so if we divide it out from n, we see that there are almost 200 million mol of photons being released every second!
Water is 18g/mol, which takes up about 16 cm^3. 200 million moles of water is about a million gallons. If a photon was like a water molecule, a "water AM station" would be releasing about a million gallons of water per second.
Re: Ask HN: What scientific phenomenon do you wish someone would explain better?
#784I'm sure there are great explanations out there but I haven't had time to read up on them, but a few of the space things that always bother me when I watch pop-sci space tv: - "as soon as iron starts to be produced in the core of a star it instantly collapses" - I get that fusing iron costs energy rather than produces it and this causes a collapse.. but can it really be that quick? There are other fusion reactions th…
The core of the star is the hottest and most dense part. Greater heat and density make it easier for fusion reactions to run. If suddenly the core is made mostly of iron, then the amount of energy it produces rapidly drops. Even if there are nice, easily fusible hydrogen atoms farther out from the core, they will not be fusing at a very high rate, because the temperature and pressure is lower where they are. Also, the more easily fusible atoms remaining outside the core can't diffuse into the core fast enough to refuel it. The only possible outcome is collapse.
In some sense "dark matter" and "dark energy" are just placeholder words for "whatever thing is causing all this weird stuff to happen". This is actually very analogous to how "the ether" was a placeholder term for "whatever thing that radio waves are waves in". (Now we refer to it as "the electromagnetic field". The "ether" terminology was associated with some incorrect assumptions, such as a privileged reference frame, which is why people sometimes say it was an incorrect hypothesis. But the electromagnetic field is certainly real, it just didn't turn out to work like some people thought it did.) Scientists have observed so far the dark matter seems to behave pretty much like ordinary matter, except that it just happens to ignore the electromagnetic and strong nuclear forces. Not only does it hold galaxies together, but its gravity also bends the paths of light rays, just as we expect of anything massive. So calling it "matter" isn't too much of a stretch. It's still very mysterious, though.
Radiation pressure actually does limit the mass of stars, to something on the order of 100 to 200 solar masses, see this stack exchange question: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/328/is-there-a... That doesn't stop smaller clouds of gas from collapsing to form smaller stars, though.
Re: Ask HN: What scientific phenomenon do you wish someone would explain better?
#785Crypto and practical security. I get tired of the circular “don’t roll your own crypto unless you’re qualified”. How does one become qualified? I don’t feel like I know how to evaluate many of the arguments people make for or against technologies people argue about on HN, such as Signal or different password managers. I feel like “security through obscurity” is a bad thing, and “layers of security” are a good thing,…
Re: Ask HN: What scientific phenomenon do you wish someone would explain better?
#786Wormhole time machines. The idea is, you can transform a normal [0] wormhole that isn’t a time machine into one which is by: 1) accelerating one end to high speed relative to the other 2) keeping on end in a lower gravitational potential than the other Why are either of these considered meaningful statements, never mind correct ? In the case of 2 in particular, isn’t GR supposed to require smooth values? So any time…
Imagine you have two spaceships in London. At the fire of a starting gun, they both take off, and fly around, each one taking a different path. Each ship has a clock that records the time elapsed since it took off. Eventually, they both return to the same landing pad in New York, landing at the same time. Thanks to time dilation, the readings on the clocks of the two ships might be different, even though they started and landed at the same places and times. Imagine we start both ships from a space station in deep space. One ship doesn't leave the station at all, it just stays in its docking bay, with its clock ticking along. The other flies down to the surface of Earth, sits there for a few years, and then flies back up to the space station. Thanks to the gravitational field of Earth, the ship that stayed home has more time elapsed on its clock than the ship that went to Earth.
Now suppose that each ship is carrying one end of a wormhole. The clocks on either end of the wormhole must stay synchronized. Someone sitting in the middle of the wormhole would be able to see the inside of one ship by looking to their left, and the inside of other ship by looking to their right. The clocks start out synchronized. As you point out, no matter how the ships move about, this does not change as the ships fly around. Anyone standing in the middle of the wormhole always sees that the clocks on the wall of each ship are in sync.
So: Entering the wormhole from ship A when ship A's clock reads X means you exit at ship B, at the time when ship B's clock reads X. And vice-versa for going from B to A. Now thanks to time dilation, ship B might arrive back at the station when its clock reads X, while ship A, which stayed behind, has a clock reading of (X + 20 minutes). If you are the station master, you can go into each ship to look at the clocks, and you will find that ship A's clock is always 20 minutes ahead of ship B's. But suppose that instead of walking between the ships through the station, you use the handy wormhole that connects them directly.
Suppose you enter ship B when its clock reads Y, and walk through the wormhole. You exit at ship A when its clock also reads Y. Then you step out of ship A, and walk through the station to ship B. It's clock reads (Y - 20 minutes), since according to people on the station, ship A's clock is still 20 minutes ahead of ship B's. When you originally entered ship B, its clock read Y. It now reads (Y - 20 minutes). Time travel. By retracing your path in the opposite direction, you can also travel 20 minutes into the future.
Re: Ask HN: What scientific phenomenon do you wish someone would explain better?
#787Sort of meta, but I always shudder when someone says that science has "proven" something. What sets science apart from most other methods of seeking answers is its focus on disproof . Your goal as a scientist is to devise experiments that can disprove a claim about the natural world. This misconception rears its head most prominently in discussions at the intersection between science and public policy. Climate change…
> Your goal as a scientist is to devise experiments that can disprove a claim about the natural world. If this claim was true, it would disallow science to make true claims, because no experiments can disprove such claims. Truth is a delicate matter and can't be handled by simple methods. Questions may not be settled, but they can be difficult to challenge.
Re: Ask HN: What scientific phenomenon do you wish someone would explain better?
#788Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you not see the $4 disappearing on the GP scenario?
I can see that the bank ended up with $4 less than it planned to, but I don't see that as money being destroyed. It happened because the original estimate of hypothetical dollars was wrong. (Also if the hypothetical dollars are "money" then you're double counting it: creating $10 in circulation has required creating $17 overall which strikes me as poor notation to say the least). (Also if all had gone according to pl…
Re: Ask HN: What scientific phenomenon do you wish someone would explain better?
#789Earlier quoted context omitted.
so therefore it stands to reason that other substances can exist that rewrite your mind to make you ineffective at other behaviors
I mean, not really. 1. There is one substance that rewrites your mind. 2. There is more than one substance that rewrites your mind. Are very different postulates.
Re: Ask HN: What scientific phenomenon do you wish someone would explain better?
#790the fundamentals of computer science. Unlike many who comment here regularly, I am not a programmer or developer and though it might seem silly, the way in which a bunch of code written in a programming language of any sort translates to a computer physically or electrically causing things to "happen" because of it has always been a bit fuzzy. I know that electronic systems and machines translate all instructions to…