• lime!@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    12 days ago

    the implication of einsteins mass-energy equivalence formula is mind-blowing to me. one gram of mass, if perfectly converted to energy, makes 25 GWh. that means half the powerplants in my country could be replaced with this theoretical “mass converter” going through a gram of fuel an hour. that’s under 10 kilograms of fuel a year.

    a coal plant goes through tons of fuel a day.

    energy researchers, get on it

    • Hugin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 days ago

      Because this is a science thread I’ll be a bit pedantic. Mostly because I think it’s an interesting topic. It’s a mass-energy equivalence (≡) and not just an equality (=) they are the same thing.

      So it’s meaningless to say convert mass into energy. It’s like saying I want to convert this stick from being 12 inches long to being 1 foot long.

      You can convert matter (the solid form of energy) into other types of energy that are not solid. But the mass stays the same.

      It’s like when people say a photon is massless. It has energy and therefor mass. It just has no rest mass. So from the photons frame of reference no mass but from every other fame of reference there is mass.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        11 days ago

        Yep. The Higgs field interacts with matter, both holding the waves it’s made up of “in place” (so it can seem macroscopically like it’s not a wave), and carrying a bunch of energy.

        There’s also mass-energy just in the very fast and powerful internal movements and fields of the nuclei and the individual protons and neutrons (which are made of gluons and quarks). Not sure about the breakdown off the top of my head, though.

        If you blew up an atomic bomb in a magically indestructible sealed container, it would stay the same weight, just with a noticeable contribution from pure electromagnetism now.

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 days ago

            That’s most of what I understand, honestly. It also connects to the weak force somehow, and I think other fields can have the same effect in certain case.

            I’m confident about the basic quantum mechanics of matter here, but I can’t actually do quantum field theory, so I guess I could still be misunderstanding something. Buyer beware.

  • pancake@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 days ago

    95% of our DNA is basically useless gibberish. Since the evolutionary incentive to shorten it is so small in our case, all sorts of processes “hijack” it to propagate themselves without giving anything back.

    • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      Recent studies have it at closer to 92% ‘junk’ DNA, and 8% actively coding.

      Also, a lot of non-coding DNA does actually serve other useful functions, it just doesn’t actively code.

      It could play a role in epigenetics, ie the regulation of what active coding sequences are active and when, it could be telomeres that prevent DNA strands from unravelling at the ends, it could be binding and scaffold sites that assist in the structural stability and integrity of the chromosome.

      DNA can be functional, without being active-coding.

      Only regions that are both non coding and also totally non functional are truly ‘junk’, but we keep consistently finding more ways that ‘non functional’ regions are actually functional.

      • pancake@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 days ago

        8% coding DNA? Wow, that’s quite a jump from the 2% coding and 5-10% conserved DNA that used to be cited. Full-genome sequencing has truly (metaphorically and literally) filled many gaps in the study of our genome…

  • FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    12 days ago

    When the moon is at its farthest orbit from earth, all of the planets in the solar system can fit in between earth and the moon.

    • Janovich@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      Just in general how spread apart everything is in space is wild. As big as planets and stars are, there’s still unfathomably more nothing in between them all. And that’s in a solar system where it’s comparatively “dense” compared to interstellar space let alone intergalactic. It makes the vastness of the ocean look tiny.

  • ClassifiedPancake@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    The size of the universe and the distance between everything in it. It takes about 8 minutes for light from our own sun to reach us. And the observable universe is about 5,859,000,000,000,000,000 times larger than that! That is quite a trip. I would need about 293,283,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 charging stops with my electric car to get to the end. I think I’ll pass.

    (Someone smarter than me will probably find out that my math is wrong)

    • Kacarott@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      12 days ago

      What I find mind blowing about the scale of the universe, is that on a logarithmic scale from the smallest possible thing to the largest possible thing, humans live at almost the exact centre.

    • BorgDrone@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 days ago

      It’s so absurdly big. Our galaxy (the Milky Way) is estimated to have between 100 and 400 billion stars in it. For a long time we thought our galaxy was all there was, it wasn’t until 1925 when Edwin Hubble was able to prove that M31 was not a nebula or cluster of stars in our galaxy, but in fact an entirely different galaxy altogether that we realized there are more galaxies out there.

      Look at the Hubble Ultra Deep Field picture

      This was a taken by pointing the Hubble Space Telescope at a basically empty bit of space 2.4 by 2.4 arcminutes in size (for comparison, the moon has an apparent size of about 30 arcminutes, or half a degree). So an absolutely tiny part of the sky. It contains about 10.000 galaxies.

      The observable universe is estimated to have between 200 billion and 2 trillion galaxies in it, with on average about 100 billion stars per galaxy. It’s absolutely mind blowing.

  • Donjuanme@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 days ago

    You can observe the chirality of some molecules from the crystals they form, sometimes they twist clockwise, other times they twist counter clockwise. Which way they twist is dependent on their molecular structure.

  • John Doe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 days ago

    There are more stars in the visible universe than there are grains of sand on all the beaches in the world.

  • TacoButtPlug@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 days ago

    In chemistry I was taught one carbon atom can exist in at least 12 separate living bodies before it’s no longer stable.

    • SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days ago

      that doesn’t make any sense. Carbon doesn’t get less stable by being used in bodies.

      Carbon 14 exists, but that decays regardless if it’s in a body or not. At has quite a long half life

    • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      12 days ago

      As you established that is not true, however you can add some of that carbon from some body and add it to the iron from the blood of 400 other human bodies so you can forge one nice sword.

    • Hon I think you maybe misunderstood your chem class.

      Carbon is carbon is carbon and doesn’t know or care if it’s in a living body.

      Carbon-14 has a half life of 5700 years. This means that through random decay, the approximate rate of decay is one half of a given amount every 5700 years, this of course breaks down when you reach the single-digit quantities of atoms.

      Now, this has nothing to do with the stability of an atom of regular-ass carbon-12, your common garden variety carbon, which is extremely stable and would require outside influence to decay into another isotope.

      • TacoButtPlug@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        12 days ago

        Ahhh I misremembered. It was this “The average carbon atom in our bodies has been used by twenty other organisms before we get to it and will be used by other organisms after we die.”

        It’s been six years since that class.

  • Darren@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 days ago

    I dunno whether it counts: but that science has effectively cured AIDS.

    In 2004, 2.1m people died from it. Twenty years later that figure was a little over a quarter at 630k. The goal for 2025 is 250k. I think that’s absolutely remarkable.

    As a child in the 80s I was terrified of AIDS. It made me low-key scared of gay men because the news made it sound like I could I could get it from any one of them. And here we now are, able to provide a medication that can almost completely ensure that you will never be infected by HIV.

    Astonishing, really.

      • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        12 days ago

        Gravitational time dilation is an effect of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. Places with stronger gravity would then have time pass more slowly compared to earth. The opposite is also true.

          • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 days ago

            Kolob is a planet or star where God resides. Time moves very slowly there. Hence the high gravitational field. Probably because God is massive. I don’t know. I’m not a Christian scientist.

            • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 days ago

              Ironically Christian Scientists are actually a distinct sect/cult of US Protestant Christians and would be very angry at the Mormon idea of Kolob if they heard about it.

              • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                11 days ago

                They also put out a pretty decent newspaper The Christian Science Monitor. At least they did 30 years ago. They don’t take much medicine either, which, fine I guess.

                • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  11 days ago

                  The problem is that they will tell people to pray away cancer, that diseases and injuries and such can be healed spiritually.

                  That means you can end up with kids who need actual medical help, and won’t get it, and will then be told that they’re sick because they didn’t pray hard enough, that their soul is impure and that’s why they’re sick.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 days ago

        I saw that recently too. There’s some bug somewhere.

        If you downvote it it goes back up to zero and everything.

    • bradboimler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      12 days ago

      For the sake of discussion, let’s say on the one hand a magic man intelligently designed life and all that. And on the other hand we have it arise and evolve over the course of billions of years of random atomic interactions and genetic mutations. I honestly find the second one far more amazing, wondrous, amazing, and mind blowing.

      • Timur Sagdenov@social.cutie.team
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days ago

        @[email protected]
        There’s no “magic man” and “magic”. There are a lot of theories of magic with lots of details. If you’d dive deeper into the topic, it would be as mind blowing for you as a theory of evolution. So you just choose a theory which looks more interesting for you.

      • Fleppensteyn@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 days ago

        I don’t know but imagine what crazy processes would lead to creating that magic man floating around in nothingness, without a world to evolve on.