Weirdest Stuff In Science?

[Baker]

My vote ... buckminsterfullerenes

And as you can see, Mr. Buckminster has his own post office stamp!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckyball

[Mindf!3ldzX]

it might help if I better understood heh

[scar3crow]

Poops pretty weird.

[Yugo2Heck]

String theory.

Hawking radiation.

[Baker]

Hawking radiation.

I don't believe in Hawking radiation

I do believe in pair production, where the massively insane magnetic fields of neutron stars rotating at near lightspeed produce matter out of thin air.

I also believe in zero-point-energy where a vaccuum completely absent of matter or even photons produces tiny particles that blink in and out of existence in Planck time (aka 5.391 � 10−44 seconds = a far shorter time than even 1 trillionith of a nano-second), which is responsible for the Casimir effect

[Sajt]

Clap if you believe

[Yugo2Heck]

Isn't Hawking radiation an inevitable result of pair production and/or zero point energy at the event horizon?

[foq]

I think the wierdest thing in science is why we need to be taught it. Wtf so a desert can become a forest over trillions and billuons of years who gives a shit?

[Canadian*Sniper]

I think the wierdest thing in science is why we need to be taught it. Wtf so a desert can become a forest over trillions and billuons of years who gives a shit?

um... I think it goes the other way around It's called deterioration right? Where soil gets degraded from livestock and human constructions over time. Once soil is completely degraded, deterioration is complete and it'll spread to the nearby soil. This means you can no longer use that soil to grow anything. You can't fix it and it's becoming a huge problem in 3rd/4th world countries. They can't grow anything and depend on Canada/USA/etc to supply them with food and water. That's more geography than science.

Physics was awesome!

[Baker]

Isn't Hawking radiation an inevitable result of pair production and/or zero point energy at the event horizon?

I've read there is something wrong with the theory. Not being someone super strong in physics, it is my interpretation that the counter-argument is that the problem with that theory is that it makes certain assumptions about the operations of physics in sizes far smaller than the proven rules of physics operate in.

I think the theory involves distances smaller than the Planck length, supposedly the shortest length relevant to any rules of physics, they say.

[Deckard_B26354]

Prions and zero-point energy. Oooohhhhh (cue X-files theme)