Does the Hafele-Keating experiment hold up or is it still unproven?
338958
The Hafele-Keating experiment, though contested, holds up with the physics behind it. In fact, the global positioning system (GPS) in programmed with equations to compensate for the effect of time-dilation caused by the difference in in the gravitational field between the earth's surface and satellite orbit.
450756
That's a perfectly reasonable experiment.  It addresses issues of solubility and phase equilibria.  As long as the project is done in a logical manner (i.e. following the scientific method), it should be a good project.
137491
No.\n\nHowever, just recently, in 1999, John Webb, an Australian astronomer, wrote a paper about some results (gathered by another group) that *hinted* at a *minor* change in the speed of light. In the end, though, more recent follow-up observations have not found this effect. So the speed of light remains, as far as we can determine, constant.\n\nWhat the observations were is spectra from extremely distant quasars. The relationship of the spectral lines for different substances (they were probably looking at lines from ionized iron) depend on the rules of Quantum Mechanics (which are not disputed by anyone sensible) and some physical constants.\n\nThe most important constant related to this is what is called the "fine structure constant," which depends on the value of Planck's constant ("h"), as well as the speed of light ("c"), and also another one known as the "permittivity of the vaccuum." It turns out that the fine structure constant has a value of about 137 with no units. Its a pure number.\n\nWhat the observations suggested was that the fine structure constant (written as the greek letter alpha) was slightly different in the distant, and therefore long-ago, quasars. Their reasoning was the the most likely "constant" in the fine structure constant to be variable was c, the speed of light.\n\nTherefore the said that their pre-1999 observations suggested that the speed of light was slightly different in the first billion years or so, after the Big Bang.\n\nIf true, this is a huge deal, even if the variation in c is very small. So a couple of groups went out and tried to duplicate the results. Better observations did NOT show the effect, so the idea that c was changing was dropped.\n\nThis proceeded exactly the way science is supposed to work. Note in the 2001 link below, at the bottom of the article the then-proponents of this idea "were careful not to overhype it." This differs from some cranks who make great claims without any observations.\n\n\nA couple of related comments: when light passes through a medium, like glass, the photons bounce around alot instead of just flying straight through, so the effective speed of the light through the glass is less than c. The constant c = 299,792,458 meters/s, is the speed of light in a vaccum.\n\nAlso, there are some experiments which have been done on light in a medium which are sometimes portrayed as "light going faster than c." That is sort true, but misleading. The faster speed is the phase speed and no information is carried faster than light.\n\nAnd finally, some creationists claim that the speed of light has changed *A LOT* because they want all the distant galaxies and such to be much closer to us, so that the age of the universe fits their bible-based conclusions. I don't think these guys want the universe to be 6000 years old, but only a few million. At any rate, there is absolutely no evidence for this drastic change in c, and lots of evidence that the idea wrong.
589672
Good answer Azreal! Scientists in Australia have actually transported light matter across the laboratory in the last year though....hey its a start!
926717
Surprisingly it is. See the both enclosed aticles about the theory and experiments done to prove it. In reality human mankind will not have the ability to do it for a long time.\n\nVery simplified it would work like this:\n\nIn an atom always 2 electrons on the same circle are linked. One has to have a up-spin, the other has to have a down-spin. But you do not know which one has it. Kick the elctrons out of the circle and send them into two directions. \n\nWhen you know measure the spin of one you know exactly the spin of the other one. If you would be able to manipulate one the information would be transfered immediatly to the other on. This has been done in laboratories.\n\nEInstein predicted this but nobody really believed it would work, the science community is still under a certain shock.\n\nThe challenge is to do this with all the electrons of you body.\n\nBut ther is a practible application for this. The speed of comuter today is "slow" because information is transfered in form of electrons which move in metals inside the chips, the next step would be to transport the information by light whcih is significant faster and the next step would be a "quantum-computer" where the information is transfered in the above menioned form. This would reduce the time to calculate any problem in an unbelievable way and calculations which are not possible today could be done.
747869
This was an experimemt the US Navy conducted.  They attempted to "Cloak" a destroyer using magnetism.  How successful it was I am not sure.  There are several myths surrounding the experiment which depict gross outcomes of the experiment.
163834
Apparently it is an attempt (a rather odd one in my opinion) to model the nucleus of the atom without the use of the strong and weak nuclear forces, which every particle physicist I'm familiar with (and that's a lot; I used to teach physics for a living) accepts as standard.
132630
I think you should go for it.  Please keep us updated on whether or not you get it.  What a fun experiment.
9206
This is a treatment that is currently outside of the medical mainstream and is not supported by double blind randomized trials looking at five year survival rates (probably the gold standard test for a treatment program).  That said, to my knowledge, it has not been disproven either.  \n\nI am fairly certain the cure rates you are citing  are misleading.  As to the Nobel prize, I am not aware of any prize being awarded on the topic of C-C treatment (or, for that matter, to the primary advocates or inventors of the treatment).\n\nStill it is an interesting treatment concept -- those considering such a treatment should consult with a doctor though to be sure that certain side effects are avoided.\n\nhttp://www.cs.rochester.edu/~nelson/cesium/cesium_therapy.html
831271
Dear Madame,\n\nYou could try testing wave-particle duality nature of photons, and report on how the theory corresponds with Schodiger's findings in the early 20th century. \n\nAnyone can put a light bulb in a potato. Also, the above response about commercials is about as unscientific as you can get. I don't trust emus.\n\nPianoguy
635497
enough to admire it\n\nQM is here to stay like it or not (Einstein did not)\n\nIt is not just a theory but the most provable experimentally modern fundamental theory of the subatomic world.\n\nUnlike the Relativity and other classics theories, it is not a deterministic but "statistical" one. We can know this and that with certain degrees of probability -- that's what QM tells us. It works and that's whats counts at the end\n\n"There is nothing more practical than a GOOD theory."
973296
hi Fellow Genius !,\ngood question.\n\nYES. Protons do decay. they have an average lifetime of about 10 to the power 32 years. Now, since this is an average, it should be possible to monitor a large enough collection of protons, and observe a few decays in the space of an year or so. Such experiments, involving 100s of tons of H2O or some other material, are underway in many parts of the world [eg.: a cave 600m below Lake Erie, Ohio]. However, none of them have yet [so far as I know] found any convincing evidence for the "predicted" decays of protons. [will answer part 2&3 of ur Q seperately] contact me at email address: fizamaker@hotmail.com or IM with me on Y!Messenger [ I am usually online from 9 pm to 5 am India time all night ]. my ID there is :  fizanaqsh . Add my ID to ur contacts so we can talk back and forth on physics and metaphysical questions bothering u and/ or me !  I have a Skype ID also and its : homeworknetguru.\ndo take the trouble of replying if my answer satisfies ur curiosity or not. i am v. much interested in these questions. look out for my answer 2 the third part of ur question re the "arrow of time"
1051025
The question is too open. What experiment are you talking about? If you google science supplies you might find out, although since it's homework most people won't just give you an answer.
469212
See if this helps.\n\nhttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/atomic/hund.html
1078502
It is unproven... Science doesn't TRY to prove theories.  It makes them up and tries to DISPROVE them.\n\nOr that scientists don't agree on something, as if it means that it isn't true until they agree.  It's like saying that you won't wear a seat belt, because most trips don't result in a crash.  The few trips that do, and the extreme consequences make up for the mild inconvenience of wearing the seat belt to a person who is prudent.\n\nALSO, when someone hasn't spent any time really thinking about something, but expects someone to waste her time trying to explain it to them.  And of course, they also think that they are brilliant, when they haven't even bothered to learn the science that has been going on for the past few hundred years.
1106171
I can't remember exactly which of the theories it is (Young-Helmholtz trichromatic theory or the opponent-process theory), I believe it's the opponent-process theory that explains it though. I'd have to do some figuring to explain it further since that was in the beginning of my AP Psych course.
875072
Here's an interesting experiment.