Score
Title
9439
Megathread: 2017 Hurricane Season
47
Earthquake Megathread
5027
Nutrition Facts: Why is sodium listed instead of salt?
5
If NASA's mission to Mars is successful, will Mars become American Territory?
6
How heavy is fire? If something catches on fire is it heavier or lighter?
9952
Duck fat melts at 57 degrees Fahrenheit. So on a 90 degree day, is a living duck's fat just... sloshing around?
15
How does deodorant work?
15
What gas is inside of unopened peppers? Or is it just air?
6
How much Asteroid mining/extra mass until it has an impact on earth's orbit?
1
What is a kilowatt hour, and why do electric companies charge based on this instead of kilowatts?
4
Why is drinking milk after spicy foods better than drinking water?
192
If natural fruit juices contain large amounts of sugar, why do we only seem to refine sugars from a select few plants (sugarcane, sugar beets) instead of from fruits in general?
152
What have we learned from Cassini's dive into Saturn so far?
78
Why do hospitals have heart clinics specifically for Women? Aren't all hearts the same?
279
How does computer memory work when the computer is turned off?
45
Do ape's toenails grow slower than their fingernails, like humans?
8399
What have been the implications/significance of finding the Higgs Boson particle?
1
If we want to colonise mars, why don't we colonise it first with Cyanobacteria and then plants in order to create a habitable atmosphere?
97
Can microwaves work without using water molecules to heat up food?
7
Why does the fourth power show up in the Stefan–Boltzmann law?
7
When I scratch a piece of metal, do small amounts of atoms break off from it?
5
Do lactose intolerant people absorb the same amount of calories from milk as regular people?
3
What has kept land animals from evolving to enormous sizes, i.e. the size of a mountain?
14
How do they prevent the ISS from crashing into satellites and space junk?
29
Do small songbirds - a finch, say - ever get stung by bees/ wasps? If so, is it typically fatal?
45
It's been about 5 years since the Mochizuki's ABC Conjecture proof was originally published. What's its current status?
1
How do vaccines fail?
8
Does Quinine glow even after you remove it from a black light?
7
Can we forecast the northern and/or southern lights?
240
On a planet with more than 1 sun, what would a rainbow look like?
6
What can layers and swrils in rock indicate?
5
How do insects protect their eyes from direct sunlight?
4
Why can't you count the number of things touching you in a certain spot?
216
We are carbon based life forms, however, is it possible for life to be based off another element?
124
Is there a maximum size for a raindrop?
6
In a coronary bypass surgery, why do doctors use veins instead of arteries? Is there an advantage to this?
2110
Are there any challenges for parasites living in animal blood?
14
How real is the threat of human extinction by gamma ray bursts?
3
What happens when wind / a fluid is put through a T-shaped tube, where the bottom of the T is closed off, but the two sides are open? What happens to the fluid in the closed, vertical tube?
46
Is learning another language simply additive to your mother tongue, or is the second language "separate" in your brain?
8
What is actually happening when an electric current flows through an a salt solution or a molten salt?
3
How can Burning wood (carbon) generate UV radiation?
299 contact_fusion Last month they did publish an [erratum](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/357/6352/eaao5843) to the original [Science](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6326/715) article detailing the findings. They claim their conclusions stand. I'm sure that several groups are working to replicate the work and that it is under some intense scrutiny. Especially in a field like this, where there are a handful of groups with the necessary expertise to replicate the work, it can take a while. As I understand it, just replicating it is a feat on the order of the original discovery.
247 Astromike23 Even without experimental proof, we know about as well as we possibly can that metallic hydrogen does exist without the need for lab results. By mass, Jupiter is *mostly* liquid metallic hydrogen. We still haven't seen it directly, but literally no other substance could fit the bill for such low density to fit the planet's mass, yet high conductivity to fit the planet's enormous magnetic field. Don't get me wrong - lab results are still important, because while tons of computer simulations predict the properties of metallic hydrogen, there are probably still a few surprises about the material waiting for us. Nonetheless, even if this study is debunked, gas giants provide ample evidence that metallic hydrogen does exist. **EDIT** to add some background: To be clear, researchers have been claiming metallic hydrogen in the lab for over 20 years now, usually creating it for a split-second with some kind of implosion. Citations start with [Weir, et al (1996)](http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.1860), conductivities were measured by [Ternovoi, et al (1999)](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921452698013039), deuterium was made metallic by [Celliers, et al (2000)](http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.5564), claims of *atomic* metallic hydrogen were made by [Badiei, Holmlid (2004)](http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0953-8984/16/39/034/meta), and so on. What's so different about this detection is that it's the first claim of *solid* metallic hydrogen, which is difficult since it must be at high enough pressure to be metallic, but also cold enough to be solid.
39 sweedeh So the scientists who discovered that hydrogen may have a metallic phase using incredibly high pressure. They conducted to test to determine if the hydrogen had become metallic and more importantly superconducting. The first was a laser shinning through the sample which was block when the hydrogen went from clear solid to the metallic phase and they attempted to pass a current through it. This gave an inconclusive result as to whether the material had become metallic or superconducting. I don't believe they have published anything more on the discovery so other than what's in the original paper nothing more is known
6 [deleted] [removed]
299 0 contact_fusion Last month they did publish an [erratum](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/357/6352/eaao5843) to the original [Science](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6326/715) article detailing the findings. They claim their conclusions stand. I'm sure that several groups are working to replicate the work and that it is under some intense scrutiny. Especially in a field like this, where there are a handful of groups with the necessary expertise to replicate the work, it can take a while. As I understand it, just replicating it is a feat on the order of the original discovery.
241 0 Astromike23 Even without experimental proof, we know about as well as we possibly can that metallic hydrogen does exist without the need for lab results. By mass, Jupiter is *mostly* liquid metallic hydrogen. We still haven't seen it directly, but literally no other substance could fit the bill for such low density to fit the planet's mass, yet high conductivity to fit the planet's enormous magnetic field. Don't get me wrong - lab results are still important, because while tons of computer simulations predict the properties of metallic hydrogen, there are probably still a few surprises about the material waiting for us. Nonetheless, even if this study is debunked, gas giants provide ample evidence that metallic hydrogen does exist. **EDIT** to add some background: To be clear, researchers have been claiming metallic hydrogen in the lab for over 20 years now, usually creating it for a split-second with some kind of implosion. Citations start with [Weir, et al (1996)](http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.1860), conductivities were measured by [Ternovoi, et al (1999)](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921452698013039), deuterium was made metallic by [Celliers, et al (2000)](http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.5564), claims of *atomic* metallic hydrogen were made by [Badiei, Holmlid (2004)](http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0953-8984/16/39/034/meta), and so on. What's so different about this detection is that it's the first claim of *solid* metallic hydrogen, which is difficult since it must be at high enough pressure to be metallic, but also cold enough to be solid.
36 0 sweedeh So the scientists who discovered that hydrogen may have a metallic phase using incredibly high pressure. They conducted to test to determine if the hydrogen had become metallic and more importantly superconducting. The first was a laser shinning through the sample which was block when the hydrogen went from clear solid to the metallic phase and they attempted to pass a current through it. This gave an inconclusive result as to whether the material had become metallic or superconducting. I don't believe they have published anything more on the discovery so other than what's in the original paper nothing more is known
6 0 [deleted] [removed]