Clock reactions are chemical interactions that exhibit a physical change periodically over a given time interval. Many of these reactions involve iodine, the most famous being the Chlorine Dioxide-Iodine-Malonic Acid reaction. These reactions can be quite startling as flasks of colorless liquid periodically turn dark blue and then resolve back to their original colorless state. Even more striking, they seem to alternate between being colorless and blue several times. The term "clock reaction" is derived from the fact that the time at which these sudden changes occur can be predicted. 

Beyond performing these reactions in a well stirred beaker, there are two other notable ways to conduct experiments with clock reactions that demonstrate interesting properties of these reactions. The first is in a continuous flow stirred tank reactor (CSTR). In a CSTR, the reactants are introduced at a continuous rate while the volume of liquid in the reactor is kept constant by siphoning off excess fluid. The result of this process is that one can maintain the ideal conditions in which the reaction may occur over time and restricts the buildup of excess product or reactant that would otherwise make the oscillations of the reactions decay. In a CSTR, clock reactions can be maintained switching predictably from colorless to blue, for example, for far longer than in a simple beaker.

The second way to conduct a clock reaction experiment is in a tank with no stirring at all. This allows the reactants to interact heterogeneously, or without being thoroughly mixed. When this occurs, we can get some parts of the tank that are one color and other parts that are another color. This means that we can observe two different stages of the reaction in one vessel. The patterns that this makes are called Turing patterns, named by the great computer scientist Alan Turing. Turing predicted that the heterogeneous mixing of chemicals called morphogens in complex organisms were responsible for biological pattern formation like spots on a leopard, stripes on a zebra, or patterns on a tropical fish. The existence of such patterns and chemicals has since been confirmed and clock reactions are often used to study these types of Turing patterns.

Which of the following would Turing have agreed was predicted by his morphogen theory?

The Millikin oil drop experiment is among the most important experiments in the history of science. It was used to determine one of the fundamental constants of the universe, the charge on the electron. For his work, Robert Millikin won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1923.

Millikin used an experimental setup as follows in Figure 1. He opened a chamber of oil into an adjacent uniform electric field. The oil droplets sank into the electric field once the trap door opened, but were then immediately suspended by the forces of electricity present in the field.

Figure 1:

By determining how much force was needed to exactly counteract the gravity pulling the oil droplet down, Millikin was able to determine the force of electricity. This is depicted in Figure 2.

Using this information, he was able to calculate the exact charge on an electron. By changing some conditions, such as creating a vacuum in the apparatus, the experiment can be modified. 

Figure 2:

When the drop is suspended perfectly, the total forces up equal the total forces down. Because Millikin knew the electric field in the apparatus, the force of air resistance, the mass of the drop, and the acceleration due to gravity, he was able to solve the following equation: 

Table 1 summarizes the electric charge found on oil drops in suspension. Millikin correctly concluded that the calculated charges must all be multiples of the fundamental charge of the electron. A hypothetical oil drop contains some net charge due to lost electrons, and this net charge cannot be smaller than the charge on a single electron.

Table 1: 

In Trial 1 and 3, the additional net force not present in Trial 2 and 4 is most probably acting:

The Millikin oil drop experiment is among the most important experiments in the history of science. It was used to determine one of the fundamental constants of the universe, the charge on the electron. For his work, Robert Millikin won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1923.

Millikin used an experimental setup as follows in Figure 1. He opened a chamber of oil into an adjacent uniform electric field. The oil droplets sank into the electric field once the trap door opened, but were then immediately suspended by the forces of electricity present in the field.

Figure 1:

By determining how much force was needed to exactly counteract the gravity pulling the oil droplet down, Millikin was able to determine the force of electricity. This is depicted in Figure 2.

Using this information, he was able to calculate the exact charge on an electron. By changing some conditions, such as creating a vacuum in the apparatus, the experiment can be modified. 

Figure 2:

When the drop is suspended perfectly, the total forces up equal the total forces down. Because Millikin knew the electric field in the apparatus, the force of air resistance, the mass of the drop, and the acceleration due to gravity, he was able to solve the following equation: 

Table 1 summarizes the electric charge found on oil drops in suspension. Millikin correctly concluded that the calculated charges must all be multiples of the fundamental charge of the electron. A hypothetical oil drop contains some net charge due to lost electrons, and this net charge cannot be smaller than the charge on a single electron.

Table 1: 

Changes to which of the following would likely result in a difference in the observed strength of the electric field needed to suspend an oil drop?

The Millikin oil drop experiment is among the most important experiments in the history of science. It was used to determine one of the fundamental constants of the universe, the charge on the electron. For his work, Robert Millikin won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1923.

Millikin used an experimental setup as follows in Figure 1. He opened a chamber of oil into an adjacent uniform electric field. The oil droplets sank into the electric field once the trap door opened, but were then immediately suspended by the forces of electricity present in the field.

Figure 1:

By determining how much force was needed to exactly counteract the gravity pulling the oil droplet down, Millikin was able to determine the force of electricity. This is depicted in Figure 2.

Using this information, he was able to calculate the exact charge on an electron. By changing some conditions, such as creating a vacuum in the apparatus, the experiment can be modified. 

Figure 2:

When the drop is suspended perfectly, the total forces up equal the total forces down. Because Millikin knew the electric field in the apparatus, the force of air resistance, the mass of the drop, and the acceleration due to gravity, he was able to solve the following equation: 

Table 1 summarizes the electric charge found on oil drops in suspension. Millikin correctly concluded that the calculated charges must all be multiples of the fundamental charge of the electron. A hypothetical oil drop contains some net charge due to lost electrons, and this net charge cannot be smaller than the charge on a single electron.

Table 1: 

The electric force experienced by oil drops will vary directly with the magnitude of charge on the drop. A scientist is measuring two different drops in two different experimental apparatuses, but each in perfect suspension and not moving. Drop 1 has a greater net charge than does drop 2. The magnitude of the electric force:

The Millikin oil drop experiment is among the most important experiments in the history of science. It was used to determine one of the fundamental constants of the universe, the charge on the electron. For his work, Robert Millikin won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1923.

Millikin used an experimental setup as follows in Figure 1. He opened a chamber of oil into an adjacent uniform electric field. The oil droplets sank into the electric field once the trap door opened, but were then immediately suspended by the forces of electricity present in the field.

Figure 1:

By determining how much force was needed to exactly counteract the gravity pulling the oil droplet down, Millikin was able to determine the force of electricity. This is depicted in Figure 2.

Using this information, he was able to calculate the exact charge on an electron. By changing some conditions, such as creating a vacuum in the apparatus, the experiment can be modified. 

Figure 2:

When the drop is suspended perfectly, the total forces up equal the total forces down. Because Millikin knew the electric field in the apparatus, the force of air resistance, the mass of the drop, and the acceleration due to gravity, he was able to solve the following equation: 

Table 1 summarizes the electric charge found on oil drops in suspension. Millikin correctly concluded that the calculated charges must all be multiples of the fundamental charge of the electron. A hypothetical oil drop contains some net charge due to lost electrons, and this net charge cannot be smaller than the charge on a single electron.

Table 1: 

Based only on the information in the passage, which of the following could be the charge of one electron?

I.  1.602176487 x 10^-6 C

II. 1.602176487 x 10^-2 C

III. 1.602176487 × 10^-19 C

IV. 1.602176487 × 10^-17 C

A chemist has mixed up the labels on some of his chemical compounds. To try to determine the compounds, the chemist dissolves the compounds in pure water. He notes the corrosiveness and color of each solution, along with a measurement of the pH for each (for which he estimates a 0.15 margin of error for each measurement).

Does this set of experiments achieve its goal? 

Since the early 1900s, there has been a steady increase in the earth’s atmospheric temperature, resulting in a phenomenon called “Global Warming.” While the steady temperature change has been well documented, the cause of global warming remains controversial.

Scientist 1

Scientist 1 believes that “external forcings” are the cause of increased temperature over the past century. “External forcings” can direct the change in temperature over thousands of years. One example of an external force is variation in the earth’s orbit around the sun. The earth orbital cycle lasts 26,000 years and causes general trends in warming and cooling.

Scientist 2

Scientist 2 believes that global warming is a man-made phenomenon due to an increase in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide or methane. Greenhouse gases have a natural warming effect, however, an increase in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases many enhance that effect. Since 1750, the concentration of carbon dioxide has increased 36 percent while the amount of atmospheric methane has increased 148 percent.

Summarize the differences between the scientists' theories.

Since the early 1900s, there has been a steady increase in the earth’s atmospheric temperature, resulting in a phenomenon called “Global Warming.” While the steady temperature change has been well documented, the cause of global warming remains controversial.

Scientist 1

Scientist 1 believes that “external forcings” are the cause of increased temperature over the past century. “External forcings” can direct the change in temperature over thousands of years. One example of an external force is variation in the earth’s orbit around the sun. The earth orbital cycle lasts 26,000 years and causes general trends in warming and cooling.

Scientist 2

Scientist 2 believes that global warming is a man-made phenomenon due to an increase in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide or methane. Greenhouse gases have a natural warming effect, however, an increase in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases many enhance that effect. Since 1750, the concentration of carbon dioxide has increased 36 percent while the amount of atmospheric methane has increased 148 percent.

What data would support Scientist 1's theory?

Since the early 1900s, there has been a steady increase in the earth’s atmospheric temperature, resulting in a phenomenon called “Global Warming.” While the steady temperature change has been well documented, the cause of global warming remains controversial.

Scientist 1

Scientist 1 believes that “external forcings” are the cause of increased temperature over the past century. “External forcings” can direct the change in temperature over thousands of years. One example of an external force is variation in the earth’s orbit around the sun. The earth orbital cycle lasts 26,000 years and causes general trends in warming and cooling.

Scientist 2

Scientist 2 believes that global warming is a man-made phenomenon due to an increase in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide or methane. Greenhouse gases have a natural warming effect, however, an increase in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases many enhance that effect. Since 1750, the concentration of carbon dioxide has increased 36 percent while the amount of atmospheric methane has increased 148 percent.

Assume that both Scientist 1 and Scientist 2 were correct. How would temperature change over the next 20,000 years?

According to the Big Bang theory, which proposes that the universe is roughly 13.8 billion years old, all matter and energy were at one time compressed into a single microscopic point. This point then exploded outward in all directions in a rapid expansion. The expansion has continued to the present day, though it has decelerated significantly, which has allowed matter to cool to a state at which stable atomic components can form. The Big Bang theory proposes that our universe is finite in age, and since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, there exists a cosmological horizon, which is the maximum distance light or energy could have travelled since the occurrence of the Big Bang. Since the universe is still expanding, however, regions of space that are visible from our vantage point are not within each other's cosmological horizons. For example, if galaxy A is 10 billion light years away from us, and galaxy B is 10 billion light years away from us in the opposite direction, there is a total distance of 20 billion light years between them. The universe has only existed long enough for light, energy, or information to travel 13.8 billion light years between them; thus, it is not possible for any contact to have been made between the two galaxies. Yet, even these vastly separated regions of space have been observed to be extremely homogeneous—they have remarkably similar features and properties despite being so far away from each other. The question, therefore, is what caused this apparent homogeneity observed in the universe. If matter rapidly expanded outward, why does the universe have such a uniform appearance in every direction? If the Big Bang theory is correct, some explanation for this horizon problem is needed.

Scientist 1

In the current state of the universe there exist regions that lie beyond the cosmological horizons of others, and therefore cannot possibly be influenced by them. This was not always the case. At a point in time mere microseconds after the Big Bang, all of the matter in the universe experienced a period of exponential expansion, known as inflation, before the rate of expansion fell to a more stable level. This inflation led to all regions of the universe having homogeneous features even though they are not capable of affecting one another in any way in their modern state.

Scientist 2

Although there is ample evidence that a Big Bang occurred, the horizon problem, as well as the flatness problem, suggest that the Big Bang is not the full story of the inception of the universe. The horizon problem can be solved if, instead of viewing the Big Bang as the "beginning of everything," we stipulate that the expansion seen after the Big Bang was already occurring for some time before the Big Bang occurred. This marks the Big Bang as a sort of "causal horizon," which disallows us from directly observing evidence from any period beforehand. If we assume the universe is cyclic, the homogeneity of the universe is explained as the result of a continuous cycle of expansion and compression, which would naturally lead to a universe having uniform features.

If Scientist 1's theory were correct, which of the following would be a worthwhile question for scientists to further study?