Science Memes

11086 readers

3123 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

[email protected]

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

667

life pro tip!! (mander.xyz)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

44 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (3 children)

I also think it’s an interesting choice to use uranium. Wouldn’t osmium be a better choice due to its increased density?

[–] 69420 8 points 7 months ago

I think more people know what uranium is. I, for one, had never heard of osmium until right now. Jokes are funnier if you don't have to explain them.

[–] phcorcoran 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Picking a higher density of the material just means the one gram would occupy less volume, it doesn't affect how much energy that gram is equivalent to in terms of E=mc2. For that calculation, as the equation implies, only the mass matters; a gram of feathers is equivalent to the same amount of energy as a gram of lead for that equation. Now, this equation is in fact a simplified assumption; if you launch your feather at relativistic speed, then we're talking

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

This is true. This is why I compared them using the fixed volume of one cubic centimeter rather than using something like specific gravity. The only thing that differs is the mass, which is of course, directly proportional to the energy.

[–] Chestnut 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

How much more matter is in a gram of osmium than in a gram of uranium?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Given that mass behaves the same regardless of what is providing that mass in a gravity field, I imagine it simply the ratio of the weights. I’m assuming NewtonIan physics here.

Osmium is 22.59 g/cm3.
Uranium is 19.1 g/cm3

I would therefore expect about 10% more energy if it was made of osmium, simply equating mass and energy here with the famous crazy-haired guy equation.