I recently went to a gas station and purchased both a 3 musketeers bar and a Dr. Pepper before exiting the building. When I ate the candy I still had some in my mouth and decided to wash it down with some Dr. Pepper and then it exploded in the car. I was wondering why this occurred and could find no information online about this and I couldn't find any similar ingredients that linked it with Mentos other then key ingredients for most candy that is non-interactive.
... View more
Think xyz axis in space. Assume there are two Hydrogen atoms on the x axis. Assume they are heading toward each other along the x axis. Then what do you predict will happen? A Hydrogen molecule will necessarily be formed or not? How about assuming the initial states of the two Hydrogen atoms to be both in 1S state? Or rather how about assuming them to be 2Py and 2Pz states each? I think the latter case seems more favorable for forming a Hydrogen bonding. Because the electrical charge distribution might form a net attraction between all of the participant electrons and protons upon collision. And if the bonding were to be formed, then after bonding are the protons oscillating? After the bonding, are the electron clouds ocsillating too? How do you muse? P.S. If some net charge acceleration occurs upon the bondong process, then do you think that some electromagnetic radition accompanies?
... View more
Dear all, As always, please take a break and have some coffee, Sirs. I am now reading a book "Quantum Divide" written by C.C. Gerry and K. M. Bruno, published from Oxford University Press. In chapter 8 of the book, the authors explain the readers that the reductionism is the base of modern science. They say that the property of matter can be explained by its constituent molecules. Then the property of the molecule can be explained by its constituent atoms. And the atom can be explained by its constituent elctrons and nucleus. They are calling this process of iteration as reductionism. Quantum mechanics can explain the behavior of electron and nucleus. Then we naturally wish to know more fundamental explanation than the quantum mechanics. That is, we try to reduce the thing further. But the authors write that "Perhaps quantum mechanics is the end of the road for reductionism."(page 169) Can't we ever obtain an understanding of physics that is further deeper than the quantum mechanics? Is the quantum mechanics the last word of or the end of physics? How do you think, Sirs? Thank you for reading Sincerely
... View more
Dear all, As always, please take a break first and have some tea before reading this blog, Sirs. I like to think about the empty vacuum space. If we are floating in the free weightless vacuum space wearing some appropriate surviving suit and if we wave our hand, then we feel no reaction force to our hand. And however strongly we stare at the space itself, we cannot see anything. There seems to be nothing in the vacuum. Thus the physical space is but a nothing, a perfect void. But I am doubting whether the space is really completely nothing or not. When we were junior school pupil, we all learned the Archimedes principle. The principle says that when an object is immersed in a water, then the object will feel a floating force which is proportional to its occupying volume in the water. The Archimedes principle induces me to imagine that the similar effect might be occuring when an object or matter such as an electron or a proton exists in a space. That is, if a matter exists in a space, then it will exclude a portion of the "empty space" which is equal to the mattere's volume. This "fact" leads me to suspect that there might be something, some effect around the matter, much like the Archimedes force. I like to imagine the physical property and structure of the space, of the complete empty void space if it really happens to possess such a property or a structure. What would your imagination about the space be like, Sirs? Thank you for your time Sincerely
... View more
