tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22679422965401259352024-02-06T18:22:44.647-08:00QuantumMechanicsDemystifiedPhysics news and discussion.GNHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15180342767762548292noreply@blogger.comBlogger135125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2267942296540125935.post-28606092398898757492010-02-12T14:09:00.000-08:002010-02-12T14:13:23.416-08:00Calculus e-BookVideo about new <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvxkPTbXAO8">calculus book</a><br /><br /><object width="873" height="525"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kvxkPTbXAO8&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kvxkPTbXAO8&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="873" height="525"></embed></object><br /><br />Learn about a new book called “calculus without limits” that’s going to revolutionize your understanding of calculus. This book uses a plain-English writing style combined with detailed step-by-step problem solutions to show you how to do calculus problems. It might be the only study guide you’ll ever need, ending frustration saving time and helping you pass calculus. It’s great as a textbook supplement, for college or AP courses, or for self-study.<br /><br />Let’s face it-calculus sucks for a lot of people. Its hard and confusing, and its frustrating. But what if someone would just show you the exact steps required to solve any problem?<br /><br />Calculus without limits teaches in plain-English. Its an easy to understand problem solving based review of all topics in first year calculus.<br /><br />Covers limits<br />Derivatives<br />Integration<br />Infinite series and differential equations<br /><br />Each section features complete step by step solutions of the same problems you’ll see on homework and exams. Here’s a chapter by chapter breakdown. Each chapter is written in plain-English, with a get-in, get-out approach to explanations, and a focus on showing you solved problems.<br /><br />Chapter 1 reviews functions and graphing<br />chapter 2 covers computing limits<br />The next two chapters cover differentiation<br />The next chapters are packed with solved integration problems<br />covers definite and indefinite integration<br />integration by u-substitution<br />integration by parts<br />integration using partial fractions<br />trig substitution<br />integration of trig function and powers of trig functions<br />integrating exponentials, natural log, and inverse trig functions<br />then its on to sequences and series<br />learn the basics about sequences and series<br />see how to do convergence tests<br />learn about power and taylor series<br />the final chapter covers ordinary differential equations<br /><br />So whats it cost? Calculus without limits is $27.Compared to your average calculus book-that can cost more than a hundred dollars, that’s dirt cheap.And calculus without limits is available for instant download-you can have it in 30 seconds, read it online or print it out.<br /><a href="http://calculus-without-limits.com/"><br />calculus without limits</a>GNHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15180342767762548292noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2267942296540125935.post-31856888651194729112009-09-23T14:51:00.000-07:002009-09-23T14:52:36.570-07:00Calculus Book Now Available on AmazonCalculus without Limits is now available as a hard copy on Amazon.com.<div><br /></div><div>Click this link for more info:</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Calculus-without-Limits-David-McMahon/dp/1448694906/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253742663&sr=1-3">Calculus without Limits</a></div>GNHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15180342767762548292noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2267942296540125935.post-60552012424306153062009-08-31T17:40:00.001-07:002009-08-31T17:44:56.167-07:00Calculus App for iPhone<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=328239469&mt=8"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 134px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoP-CcOcNWN4j1yetwhnLkJnrh99YHJzzTp2tzVurBhutruNg5Y4c09ogSsTM6GLEHUsaK5xoCNiYUOI0lcEab67ZnRFVVHFbz1bFw3M0e7S11HMtCmceg9WsbqKAyrclAttvQqrCKDP6r/s200/Screen1.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5376292932696099634" border="0" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;">Calculus Test</span> is a new app for the iphone that drills you on calculus problem. Test your knowledge of limits, derivatives, indefinite integrals, definite integrals, the chain rule, integration by parts, u-substitution, and more using this handy iphone app.<br /><br />Tap <span style="font-style: italic;">limit</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">derivative</span>, or <span style="font-style: italic;">integral</span> and a problem is randomly selected and displayed for you to solve. Solve it, then tap "Answer" and in flash card format, the screen view flips to reveal the answer.<br /><br />This simple drill program is great to help you get ready for your calculus exams, whether its college calculus or the dreaded AP Calculus exam. Also great for those who want to learn calculus through self-study.<br /><br /><a href="http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=328239469&mt=8">Calculus Test Drill app for iPhone</a>GNHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15180342767762548292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2267942296540125935.post-85424016968478993472009-08-20T18:19:00.000-07:002009-08-20T18:24:53.376-07:00New Calculus e-BookI am putting together a calculus book for instant download. This book covers first-year college calculus including<div><br /></div><div><ul><li>Computing Limits</li><li>The Derivative</li><li>Derivatives of polynomials, exponential, and log functions</li><li>Derivatives of trig functions</li><li>Product, quotient, and chain rules</li><li>Definite and indefinite integrals, Riemmann sums</li><li>Integration by u-substitution</li><li>Trig substitution, partial fractions, and integration of rational functions</li><li>Integration of trig functions, hyperbolic functions, exponentials, and logarithmic functions</li><li>Integration by parts</li><li>Indeterminate forms and L'Hopitals Rule</li><li>Sequences and infinite series</li></ul><div>The approach used is to provide a large number of solved examples. The complete package is $27. To learn more visit:</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://calculus-without-limits.com">Calculus Without Limits</a></div><div><br /></div><div>Also, keep your eye out for <a href="http://calculus-without-limits.com/iphone.html">Calculus Test</a>, an iphone Calculus flash card iphone App that acts as a companion to the e-Book.</div><div><br /></div></div>GNHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15180342767762548292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2267942296540125935.post-52488888801189280672009-08-12T15:49:00.000-07:002009-08-12T15:58:14.412-07:00Math Art T-Shirts and More on Zazzle.com<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://zazzle.com/dantopa/gifts?pg=5"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 194px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9tkSnhIxZr1b7V5Xp1WQ9uzfwHCd7LWYLC4HJjUotNVFiey2I0UYpNtOwRBqCfH2FReOgy1ReNAHc72kkxITqcxooXxJMr27_BT6AyZEXZUrXwVBfsAI6006wBiuSywGntnnpnmpvrFD1/s200/Picture+9.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5369215067619509666" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://zazzle.com/hat_einstein_ash_thread_embroidered_hat-233756600598006458"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 196px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiF52sfvI5IL174FeLxsz75ZCgVWOZIN-La52coVnX3MCQaex9Py9JnJp3S-bRmmCCffiLP0NlTNSm0IGxcz1x9gVMGG6GQHtNiBUlLkE6tTQstL4YA09V6UsqBzLJj_0LPFJTacM-IGROe/s200/Picture+8.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5369214500880286242" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://zazzle.com/dantopa/gifts"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSF6kSl86_ndFkzvfZTQ1Q65IjBz0qzRbbozDOf89Bv2RORTHu5hNWVbbIAwxCpiwZ_oSKsgzJOUyabAizMNpsiXphrImSKK3mes3iH7_wEMJwts-UeVJaB2nIta5VTPVWTqkVVfcgSJOy/s200/Picture+1.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5369214037876907890" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.zazzle.com/dantopa/gifts">Math and Science related items on zazzle.com.</a></span>GNHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15180342767762548292noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2267942296540125935.post-75270827468101154922008-12-19T13:07:00.001-08:002008-12-19T13:07:53.743-08:00Alert: Large Earth Collider May Destroy Earth<a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/news/scientists_warn_large_earth"><br />http://www.theonion.com/content/news/scientists_warn_large_earth</a>GNHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15180342767762548292noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2267942296540125935.post-16075654526376856642008-12-16T12:38:00.000-08:002008-12-16T12:42:29.461-08:00New Energy Revolution-NOTRandy Mills with his company "Blacklight Power" has been claiming for years he can generate power by putting hydrogen atoms in a "state below the ground state". As anyone who has studied quantum physics knows, you can't put a hydrogen atom in any energy state lower than the ground state. Its not physically possible and would violate the laws of quantum physics as we know it. Those laws have been repeatedly tested and verified to higher and higher precision over the past hundred+ years, and the theory of quantum mechanics is completely solid, so why should anyone believe this nonsense?<br /><br />Apparently the goons at CNN don't care about the details of quantum theory. They'd rather get happy about Blacklight power's claim to no CO2 emissions, cheap power, 200 times more powerful than burning gasoline or coal. All based on a pseudo-scientific claim. CNN is supposed to be a news organization so they should have consulted some leading scientists in this report.<br /><br /><a href="http://money.cnn.com/video/#/video/news/2008/12/11/news.energyfix.121108.cnnmoney">Blacklight Power</a>GNHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15180342767762548292noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2267942296540125935.post-30369972532285694712008-11-14T06:46:00.000-08:002008-11-14T06:48:21.688-08:00Hubble Photographs Extra Solar PlanetsThe Hubble Space Telescope was used to take a photograph of a planet orbiting another star, the first such photograph made. Its just a white dot in the picture, but its an astounding achievement.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/science/space/14planet.html?em">Read About it on the NY Times</a>GNHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15180342767762548292noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2267942296540125935.post-47617158013102025762008-11-05T10:41:00.000-08:002008-11-05T10:42:54.188-08:00Michael Crichton DiesBad news from the NY Times: Science fiction author Michael Chrichton has died.<br /><br /><br />Michael Crichton, the author of the blockbuster science-fiction novels <a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE7DD1730F936A25752C1A966958260">“Jurassic Park,”</a> “The Andromeda Strain” and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/books/review/30BARCOTT.html">“State of Fear,”</a> has died. He was 66. An obituary will follow on <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/pages/obituaries/index.html">nytimes.com</a>.<br />UPDATE: Mr. Crichton’s family has issued the following statement:<br />“Best-selling author Michael Crichton died unexpectedly in Los Angeles Tuesday, November 4th after a courageous and private battle against cancer.<br />While the world knew him as a great story teller that challenged our preconceived notions about the world around us — and entertained us all while doing so — his wife Sherri, daughter Taylor, family and friends knew Michael Crichton as a devoted husband, loving father and generous friend who inspired each of us to strive to see the wonders of our world through new eyes. He did this with a wry sense of humor that those who were privileged to know him personally will never forget.<br />Through his books, Michael Crichton served as an inspiration to students of all ages, challenged scientists in many fields, and illuminated the mysteries of the world in a way we could all understand.<br />He will be profoundly missed by those whose lives he touched, but he leaves behind the greatest gifts of a thirst for knowledge, the desire to understand, and the wisdom to use our minds to better our world.<br />Michael’s family respectfully asks for privacy during this difficult time.<br />A private funeral service is expected, but no further details will be released to the public.”GNHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15180342767762548292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2267942296540125935.post-64006484152656433732008-11-04T14:14:00.000-08:002008-11-04T14:18:57.854-08:00Advances in NeuroscienceI have to say one of the worst things that could happen to a person is paralysis. Even worse than that, how about ALS ("Lou Gherig's Disease"). Physics buffs are probably familiar with this disease from Stephen Hawking-and Kudos to him for having made a very productive life that took him well above his circumstances. But that disease totally sucks. <br /><br />A cure has always seemed far off, but some recent advances in neuroscience that might be more akin to bioengineering have given some hope that might at least make the disease not so devastating. Scientists have been working on letting patients use the mind to manipulate objects-computers, wheel chairs and the like. This is a huge development, while it certainly isn't what an ALS sufferer would like-to have their body functional again, at least it gives them a window to the world and some level of control they could never have had before. These exciting developments are profiled in the 60 minutes video you can watch by clicking below. <br /><br /><embed src='http://www.cbs.com/thunder/swf30can10cbsnews/rcpHolderCbs-3-4x3.swf' FlashVars='link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ecbsnews%2Ecom%2Fvideo%2Fwatch%2F%3Fid%3D4564186n&partner=cbssports&vert=News&autoPlayVid=false&releaseURL=http://release.theplatform.com/content.select?pid=4PF1Vfze5CaFeulvXsJx3oJkwJsWXd2u&name=cbsPlayer&allowScriptAccess=always&wmode=transparent&embedded=y&scale=noscale&rv=n&salign=tl' allowFullScreen='true' width='425' height='324' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer'></embed><br/><a href='http://www.cbs.com'>Watch CBS Videos Online</a>GNHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15180342767762548292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2267942296540125935.post-34296424018494800742008-11-04T08:08:00.001-08:002008-11-04T08:31:58.193-08:00Are humans still evolving?The other day I stumbled on a post about the question of whether or not humans are still evolving. To put this question on the table, you are talking about the Darwinian type natural selection where offspring are put out there and some are more fit to reproduce than others. Over time this leads to changes in the species.<br /><br />An alternative or perhaps complimentary view is "punctuated equilibrium". The basic idea is that a species reaches an equilibrium state where it basically remains unchanged for a long period of time. Then some dramatic or catastrophic event happens separating members of the species into isolated populations, and from there new species evolve. This makes a lot of sense to me, I have no doubt this is at least part of the way that species evolve.<br /><br />In modern humans I have a hard time believing traditional Darwinian evolution has much if any influence. Here is a basic fact: in the modern world, just about anyone can reproduce. The picture put forward by Darwin of more offspring than can possibly survive leading to changes in the species simply does not exist in humans anymore.<br /><br />Medical advances have ensured that infant survival is much higher than it was in the past. Moreover, medical advances have also ensured that survival of mothers during and after birth is much higher than it was in the past. Infant mortality can certainly be improved (in particular in the United States among industrialized nations) but the plain fact is a baby in modern society has a very good chance of surviving to adulthood. The days of a mom having 7 kids where only 2 made it to adulthood are long gone.<br /><br />Getting to my other point, like I said the bottom line is anyone can reproduce. Sure maybe some people have trouble "getting laid" in high school but this is a problem that goes away in adulthood. Its almost like a cliche-there is somebody out there for everyone. It doesn't matter if you're fat, skinny, tall, short, dark, light, blonde, brunette, bald or have all your teeth-if you want to you can find someone to have kids with-despite the difficulties a committed relationship might entail. You might have to hit your local trailer park if you're lacking in teeth-but the reality is even then you're going to get lucky sometime.<br /><br />This brings me to another point. If Darwinian evolution is at work, then what traits are being selected for in human populations? Is it intelligence? I think we can agree that intelligence is certainly a quality that contributes (but does not guarantee) to success. A person with high intelligence is likely to attain higher education, leading to a higher paying job which in Darwinian terms contributes to the acquisition of more resources. But does this lead to more reproduction? The answer in modern humans is probably not. In fact its actually the people in the slums and trailer parks who are actually reproducing more. This may be partly due to choice-an upscale lawyer can choose to have sex while using birth control while a teenager living in low class circumstances may not bother with it. So the teenager might end up having 5 kids while the lawyer has 1, 2, or maybe none.<br /><br />Medical intervention has made a lot of physical characteristics that might have contributed to Darwinian evolution in the past has now become irrelevant. Suppose that a person has a tendency to succumb to bacterial infections (say ear infections) more so than the general population. Two hundred years ago, that person might have died in childhood from a runaway bacterial infection. Now, in the vast majority of cases a quick trip to the doctor and you're cured. The person who would not have passed on their genes in previous generations now makes it to adulthood where they can reproduce. Eyeglasses are another example that is commonly given. If you could not see ten thousand years ago, well that could be a real problem. Not today where anyone in a modern society can get their eyesight corrected and survive quite well into old age. So near blindness is not a selection factor for reproduction anymore.<br /><br />I think the bottom line is most of us born in a modern society can be assured of making it to adulthood if not to old age. Reproductive access is also reasonable for the vast majority of people, these days if people don't reproduce its usually by choice. So has the human species stopped evolving? I would say definitely yes.GNHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15180342767762548292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2267942296540125935.post-58564848639696450572008-11-03T20:50:00.001-08:002008-11-03T20:51:03.222-08:00I love Global WarmingWhen it comes to global warming, its time to face up to the fact that we're going to enjoy warmer temperatures.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.cafepress.com/BlipStickers.324910114">I Love Global Warming</a>GNHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15180342767762548292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2267942296540125935.post-23929155968312626702008-10-26T08:13:00.000-07:002008-10-26T08:23:14.716-07:00Practical Physics News<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHBJSHge7vwd4ZR86HbXUu9OuB9ZCrH9c6xSFRf9EudgaT9XKbYRVih4VohIn9E4_r-gSRKXFQ6WIzdMAnubJCLT7O7AZn9qJqQ3YoKlsYQ-lNgG4SEJRNKLZoPURIdq238V9pljsKOS0G/s1600-h/xray190.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 153px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHBJSHge7vwd4ZR86HbXUu9OuB9ZCrH9c6xSFRf9EudgaT9XKbYRVih4VohIn9E4_r-gSRKXFQ6WIzdMAnubJCLT7O7AZn9qJqQ3YoKlsYQ-lNgG4SEJRNKLZoPURIdq238V9pljsKOS0G/s200/xray190.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5261481871697636338" border="0" /></a>These days physics often seems far removed from reality-black holes, worm holes, particles being in two places at once, 10 spatial dimensions. So its a pleasant surprise that physicists at UCLA have found a new dramatic application for the scotch tape in your kitchen drawer: generating x-rays.<br /><br />When the tape is peeled removing the adhesive-electrons are released generating electric currents. In the photo to the left you're seeing visible light emission from these electrons. It turns out they also emit x-rays, so many that its possible to x-ray a human finger. I was about to try an experiment and x-ray my painful tooth but that's on hold because apparently you have to do this in a vacuum.<br /><br />OK here is the kicker-physicist Seth Putterman says the process could be used for nuclear fusion. I'm a bit skeptical about that given the history of table top fusion attempts so far. You can read the details here:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/science/28xray.html">From a Strip of Scotch Tape, X-rays</a>GNHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15180342767762548292noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2267942296540125935.post-28521340232973809062008-10-22T07:32:00.000-07:002008-10-22T07:58:43.569-07:00Models or Reality?When I was a naive student first getting interested in physics, I was awed by its predictive power and took the theories themselves to be <span style="font-style: italic;">reality</span>. On the blog <a href="http://cosmicvariance.com/">Cosmic Variance</a> Sean Carroll promotes this viewpoint when he writes:<br /><br />"Right and wrong aren’t parts of the fundamental description of reality. That description has to do with wave functions and Hamiltonian dynamics, not with ethical principles. That is what the world is made of, at a deep level."<br /><br />This is exactly how I used to think about things. Lately though, I have become more of a positivist. This is the viewpoint that scientific theories are just models. A good model makes predictions that agree with experiment. The fact that the models often change with time as better data or ideas come to the fore shows that its naive to take the models as absolute descriptions of reality. For a simple example you might consider the Bohr atom. If you recall, Bohr thought of the atom as a little solar system, with the nucleus playing the role of the sun and electrons occupying fixed orbits at different distances from the nucleus. As they jumped from one orbit to another, they emitted or absorbed photons of light.<br /><br />We now know an atom isn't quite like that, and that instead the wave function of the electron allows us to make probabilistic predictions as to where the electron will be found. Each orbit is described by a different wave function, giving the "electron cloud" picture of the atom. The Bohr model of the atom, even though it agrees with a lot of experimental data, isn't real.<br /><br />The positivist would say that the electron cloud is no more reality than Bohr's atom was. It simply makes better predictions. At our current level of technology and predictive capability, it seems to work perfectly. But that doesn't mean that in the future a better model of the atom won't come about. And-despite its drawbacks-the Bohr model of the atom actually works quite well in many circumstances. In nuclear engineering its often if not always adequate enough to think of the atom in terms of Bohr's picture. On the other hand, if you're doing quantum chemistry then you need to think in terms of the electron cloud model.<br /><br />This goes to show that taking "wave functions" and "Hilbert space" to be reality itself is a naive viewpoint. Wave functions and Hilbert space are just tools that allow scientists to make predictions. They are good tools to be sure, but confusing a good tool that exists on paper and only in the minds of arrogant physics professors to be fundamentally real is an extremely naive approach to life.<br /><br />The positivist viewpoint makes a lot more sense. Stephen Hawking summed it up well in his best seller <span style="font-style: italic;">A Brief History of Time</span> when he wrote:<br /><br />"Any sound scientific theory, whether of time or of any other concept, should in my opinion be based on the most workable philosophy of science: the positivist approach put forward by Friedrich Hayek and Karl Popper and others. According to this way of thinking, a scientific theory is a mathematical model that describes and codifies the observations we make. A good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested… If one takes the positivist position, as I do, one cannot say what time actually is. All one can do is describe what has been found to be a very good mathematical model for time and say what predictions it makes."<br /><br />At the time I read this back in 1990, I was disappointed Hawking felt this way. Now with some maturity under my belt I realize that this is a far better description of what science does than taking some equations on a blackboard-which are good, useful tool to be sure-to really be reality itself.GNHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15180342767762548292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2267942296540125935.post-74616769386704238522008-10-20T21:58:00.001-07:002008-10-20T22:03:35.787-07:00Progress in ALS ResearchLou Gherig's disease is a horrible illness. The best science fiction writer couldn't come up with something as bad as losing your ability to move everything except maybe your eyeballs, while you stay locked-up, fully conscious in your prison of a body. Offering any kind of treatment for this debilitating disease would be a big breakthrough in medical science that would help people who really suffer-so this story caught my attention.<br /><br /><h1 style="font-weight: normal;font-family:verdana;" class="story"><span style="font-size:85%;">Swamping Bad Cells With Good In ALS Animal Models Helps Sustain Breathing</span></h1><span class="date">ScienceDaily (Oct. 20, 2008)</span> — In a disease like ALS - one that's always fatal and that has a long history of research-resistant biology - finding a proof of principle in animal models is significant.<br /><p>This week, Johns Hopkins researchers report that transplanting a new line of stem cell-like cells into rat models of the disease clearly shifts key signs of neurodegenerative disease in general and ALS in particular - slowing the animals' neuron loss and extending life.</p> <p>The new work supports the hypothesis that artificially outnumbering unhealthy cells with healthy ones in targeted parts of the spinal cord preserves limb strength and breathing and can increase survival.</p><p><a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081019144623.htm">Read the rest on Science Daily</a><br /></p><p><br /></p>GNHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15180342767762548292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2267942296540125935.post-10972847206033389162008-10-20T20:09:00.001-07:002008-10-20T20:09:56.876-07:00Opera about the making of the Atomic BombThe Terror and Attraction of Science, Put to Song<br />By DENNIS OVERBYE<br /><br />Is it the horror or the beauty that makes science cool?<br /><br />Sometimes it seems as if horror is the only story that science has to tell, or the only one we want to hear. Somebody has a gadget they have to build, an experiment too sweet to resist, forces they need to probe, regardless of the consequences. Think of Eve with her apple, Frankenstein with his monster, a stock trader with a foolproof get-rich-quick scheme.<br /><br />I shouldn’t have to tell you that it usually ends badly.<br /><br />The tug of war between beauty and horror is the theme of “Doctor Atomic,” the opera by John Adams and Peter Sellars about the building of the atomic bomb, which opened last week at the Metropolitan Opera. It stars Gerald Finley as J. Robert Oppenheimer, the brilliant philosopher-king of the secret society of scientists and engineers who were plucked from academia and assembled on a New Mexico mesa during World War II and told to make a bomb before the Germans did — a man as sung by Mr. Finley equally in love with the Bomb and his own inscrutability.<br /><br />The opera follows events on two nights — one in June and then on the eve of July 16 during the countdown to the first test explosion at Alamogordo amid lightning and rain — as the scientists wrestle with doubts about whether “the Gadget,” as they refer to the bomb, will work, or work too well, setting the atmosphere on fire, and whether it should be dropped on humans.<br /><br />As a love-starved Kitty Oppenheimer, sung by Sasha Cooke, sings, “Those who most long for peace now pour their lives on war.”<br /><br />“Doctor Atomic” was surely born on the dark side of science mythology. Pam Rosenberg, then director of the San Francisco Opera, wanted to do an opera about an American Faust, namely Oppenheimer, whose life certainly seemed to follow a tragic trajectory. Wealthy, articulate and effortlessly fluent in far-flung domains of learning and culture, he was the young American prince of the new science of quantum mechanics as well as a bohemian and a pal of communists (his brother Frank and his ex-lover Jean Tatlock). Less than a decade after he was hailed as the deliverer of Promethean fire and the symbol of American science, Oppenheimer was stripped of his security clearance and banished from government circles.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/science/21atom.html">Read the rest on the NY Times</a>GNHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15180342767762548292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2267942296540125935.post-86864244102297962592008-10-19T11:39:00.001-07:002008-10-19T11:53:48.478-07:00It from Bit SpeculationsLast night after watching some B. Allan Wallace lectures, I was wondering about the nature of consciousness. I am wondering if in some sense our consciousness (or the consciousness of anything) simply fundamentally exists in some sense, at least as information. Let's imagine a thought experiment. Suppose for the sake of argument that the technology existed where you could scan the atoms that make up a person, and any other information that might be relevant like say their energy states. Who knows how this could be done, lets say quantum computers turn out to be workable and that someday they have this capability. Furthermore lets say for the sake of argument that a memory device (maybe a quantum memory) is capable of storing all of this information for retrieval later.<br /><br />So in the year 2050 a woman (we'll call her Betty) is scanned and her data saved. Now suppose that technology has also advanced enough so that we could read the information and assemble the atoms together into the same state as Betty in 2050. Suppose this is done in the year 2150 long after Betty has died.<br /><br />It would seem to me that for all intensive purposes, if you could do this-arrange the same types of atoms/molecules together in the same state as Betty in 2050, the recreated Betty 100 years later would be completely indistinguishable from the original. I can't think of any scientific test that could be done even in principle that would tell you it wasn't really Betty, just a copy. So why not just say it <span style="font-style: italic;">is</span> the original Betty? This would be a scientifically implemented resurrection.<br /><br />What this says is that consciousness is more of an informational phenomenon, and in some sense it already exists in the universe and always exists provided the energy is there to do these sorts of things (i.e. arrange atoms together in the right way). In other words, the woman I've named Betty in the particular state she is in at some moment in 2050 including her conscious awareness is a packet of information. Rearrange the right atoms into the same state at any time in the history of the universe where it is plausible (not in the distant future when everything has decayed away though), that state is recreated and so is the consciousness that goes along with it.<br /><br />You could ask what if we recreate Betty on the spot. Of course you couldn't do it instantly, no matter how advanced technology got there would be some finite time required to scan an organism and then construct the duplicate. So what would happen to Betty's consciousness then? Would it somehow split? Or is consciousness distinct and evolving, in other words you aren't really the same consciousness you were 2 seconds ago.<br /><br />Maybe in the distant future it would be possible to even recreate previous states of the universe in some kind of quantum simulation. Then it might be possible for an infinitely advanced civilization to resurrect the past including its living inhabitants. Where would all this information be stored? In Hilbert space of course.GNHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15180342767762548292noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2267942296540125935.post-22875461531896322312008-10-18T21:27:00.000-07:002008-10-18T21:29:15.466-07:00B. Allan Wallace on ConsciousnessSPEAKING OF CONSCIOUSNESS one of my favorite scholars in the area is B. Allan Wallace. The guy simply blows me away with his genius. He has a degree in physics and has studied neurosciences and is also a Buddist monk. A brilliant man with a lot of thoughts regarding the ultimate problem in science: consciousness. <br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FEftG26r1Tc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FEftG26r1Tc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z7gBW9HoTg8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z7gBW9HoTg8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>GNHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15180342767762548292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2267942296540125935.post-26347018633577202532008-10-18T18:35:00.000-07:002008-10-18T18:39:58.734-07:00John Hagelin on ConsciousnessOne of my favorite subjects is consciousness. I think it is the ultimate question in science. I actually spent some time in neuropsychology and worked in a research lab-and came away thinking that neuroscientists have no idea whatsoever what consciousness is about. Saying its "emergent" from "complexity" is a big non-explanation.<br /><br />Anyway so the debate over John Hagelin (TM Fame) over on Not Even Wrong led me to these YouTube videos which include interviews with Hagelin. Honestly I don't think Hagelin is all that wacky. Some of his thoughts actually make more sense than reductionist biology which has completely failed to explain how consciousness has arisen from the brain (hint: explaining what brain cells are responsible for vision does not explain why there is an entity inside my head WATCHING the show). <br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OrcWntw9juM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OrcWntw9juM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FSxluvq5HI0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FSxluvq5HI0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>GNHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15180342767762548292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2267942296540125935.post-26872813052081042182008-10-17T21:07:00.000-07:002008-10-17T21:13:35.108-07:00More on the Creation MuseumHere the wacko Ken Ham debates physicist/cosmologist Lawrence Krauss on Fox "News" about the creationist museum and some more Ken Ham related videos.<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HajP5pE4BE0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HajP5pE4BE0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YcMLUfmy0Q8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YcMLUfmy0Q8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IdRBBn1QA9U&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IdRBBn1QA9U&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>GNHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15180342767762548292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2267942296540125935.post-12953705901485058962008-10-17T16:08:00.000-07:002008-10-17T16:11:05.699-07:00The Quantum-Classical ConnectionOne of the biggest conundrums in modern physics is how does the classical world arise from the random and bizarre quantum world of superpositions and entanglement? Some light may have been shed on the issue by two mathematicians:<br /><br />Mathematicians Illuminate Deep Connection Between Classical And Quantum Physics<br /><br />ScienceDaily (Oct. 17, 2008) — In a seminar co-organized by Stanford University and the American Institute of Mathematics, Soundararajan announced that he and Roman Holowinsky have proven a significant version of the quantum unique ergodicity (QUE) conjecture.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081010081650.htm">Read the full story on Science Daily</a>GNHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15180342767762548292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2267942296540125935.post-72962845108458285332008-10-16T13:15:00.000-07:002008-10-16T14:53:01.652-07:00Creationist Museum Draws Big Crowds<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdd7mTooKG1S_vkJdsL_MKSqjZIkNidBzfdCWL1N4JduTMkUSUefJOQw_fidcrHD7MjjA9ha-M9TroB_qxjy0tNxSsnRoWB38jnr8ByjHVceRjES5hzXkDhenksJx3e8644m39Bt-3siej/s1600-h/CreationMuseum.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5257873068490074514" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdd7mTooKG1S_vkJdsL_MKSqjZIkNidBzfdCWL1N4JduTMkUSUefJOQw_fidcrHD7MjjA9ha-M9TroB_qxjy0tNxSsnRoWB38jnr8ByjHVceRjES5hzXkDhenksJx3e8644m39Bt-3siej/s200/CreationMuseum.jpg" border="0" /></a>Apparently a museum touting the literal truth of the Bible is becoming very popular. Located in Louisville, KY the museum includes exhibits showing humans and dinosaurs co-existing. The museum is discussed in this recent <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27119188/">msnbc article</a>. Here is a favorite quote:<br /><br />"One display shows humans coexisting with dinosaurs — despite the two species being separated by 65 million years in most science texts."<br /><br />What? What <strong>science texts</strong> have humans coexisting with dinosaurs? The worst thing about this quote is its from the reporter who wrote the story-not from some nut that works at the creation museum. Visitor Bill Michaletz says:<br /><br />"I do believe in creation, that God created it all," said Michaletz, who has five children. "I'm appreciative that there is a place to go for ourselves and our kids, to look at that view."<br /><br />Can't we be sensible here? I think you have to be really deluding yourself to believe literally in Genesis and a 6,000 year old earth. A reasonable compromise is in order, you can believe in Christianity and accept the findings of modern science as <a href="http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/">Kenneth Miller shows</a>. The museum was founded by wack-job <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Ham">Ken Ham</a>, whom I believe is Australian.GNHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15180342767762548292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2267942296540125935.post-89912115280165810482008-10-14T20:38:00.000-07:002008-10-14T20:45:34.391-07:00Too much publishing?I had an interesting discussion with a friend of mine who has two PhD's (one in math, one in electrical engineering). He says way too many papers are published these days. Looking at the archive (<a href="http://xxx.lanl.gov/">xxx.lanl.gov</a>) I would tend to agree. The idea of publish or perish combined with post-doc absurdity is putting too much pressure on people to write papers. The result is that too many papers are being published, and physics is by far the leading offender. In the old days a result had to be pretty significant to warrant a research paper. These days that isn't the case. As fast as a geek can type a new paper appears on the archive. It would be an interesting exercise to find out not only how many papers are really frivolous, but how many dupilicate other crap on some level that has already been published. String theory and "quantum information/quantum computing" probably lead the way for over production of papers.<br /><br />I was also thinking about the Nobel prize. Maybe we shouldn't give one every single year. After all the Fields medal is only given out every 4 years. The Nobel prize has such an air about it, yet we have to give one year in and year out regardless of whether<span style="font-style: italic;"> Nobel quality</span> work is really being done. How many of the Nobel prize winners in the last ten years are really equivalent to say, Albert Einstein or Marie Curie? Probably none. Yet by giving a Nobel prize every year, we give many people an automatic stamp of genius that many don't quite deserve. It will never happen, but I think the scientific world would be better off if Nobel prizes were cut back to one every four years.<br /><br />And stop publishing so many papers! Every calculation you do isn't worth writing up.GNHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15180342767762548292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2267942296540125935.post-51017019249737267752008-10-13T22:07:00.001-07:002008-10-13T22:07:37.680-07:00Physics Quote of the Day"Although life may be the result of an accident, I do not think that of consciousness. Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else."- Erwin SchrodingerGNHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15180342767762548292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2267942296540125935.post-52413515394635846542008-10-13T07:40:00.000-07:002008-10-13T07:45:57.286-07:00Poll on Nuclear Power PlantsAn interesting poll <a href="http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/poll-finds-generation-gap-on-nukes/">described here</a> asked if people were in favor of building new nuclear power plants. They wanted to find out if remembering the three-mile-island accident would influence your view. Apparently not. Older people were more likely to favor nuclear. In fact the only group with more opposition to building nuclear power plants were those 18-31. That is, of course, due to "green" brain washing.<br /><br />Wake up people. Building new nuclear power plants is going to be a necessity, not an option in the future. Coal and oil are limited resources. You can build "clean burning" coal plants, but nuclear is still going to be a far better option on that front since it releases no greenhouse gases. Of course uranium is a limited resource too, to help deal with that there will have to be reprocessing.<br /><br />The great hope long term is really <a href="http://www.iter.org/">nuclear fusion</a>.GNHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15180342767762548292noreply@blogger.com0