You can get better education, free or nearly free, in most of Europe, and yet the US youth just sits there, saddling itself with gazillions in student loan debt -- all of which it cannot default on, because it belongs to uncle Sam himself. Shudder...
One can argue which universities in the world are the best, which metric to use etc, but higher education is not free in Europe. It is payed for with tax euros, or as in my case, tax kronor, as I got my education in Sweden. What you fail to understand is that students in Europe, in Sweden at least, take students loan too. There may not be tuition fees but students have to pay rent, eat, pay for books etc too you know. So while the total student loan amount in Sweden is generally smaller than in the U.S., students still have big loans in relation to expected future salaries. Very few are fortunate enough to go through higher education without student loans in Sweden.
Uranium has a large cross-section, yes, but do you think it is likely that they will build the reactor cladding from U-235?
That I made no comment on, I just happened to have the neutron cross sections in different Uranium isotopes at hand and used that as an example of how much the cross section can vary depending on the target material.
That is no entirely correct either. If the cross section was tiny then it would not transmute nuclei. The neutron cross section is dependent on both energy and the material. The interaction cross section of a 1 MeV neutron is about 1 barn in 235-U but only 0.01 barn in 238-U. And 1 barn is not tiny.
Fusion reactors generate enormous amounts of neutrons, which interact only weakly with matter.
This is completely wrong. Neutrons are strongly interacting particles. If they weren't they would not stay bound in atomic nuclei. A statement like that implies that a particle only interacts via the weak interaction, which is not correct for nuetrons./p
If CERN was doing real science (at the LHC) they would have been able to say with confidence that they were going to find (or not find) this "new" "particle" months ago and give reasons for exactly where and how they expected to find it.
What part of the fact that the Standard Model predicts this bound state at this mass did you not understand?
Do you have a hard time stomaching neutrinos too? When they were first proposed they could not be detected. Still they solved the very real problem of explaining the beta-decay spectrum.
This is all perfectly fine, for you. But why do you assume that everyone else is like you or think like you? I myself love watching movies. Not all movies, I do have my preferences. And it doesn't exclude having other hobbies as well.
The shots are beautiful, but it's obvious the composition was put together by punks trying to be hip.
And you know this how? I know JF Salgado personally and he is by no standards a punk. He is in fact a very professional astronomer and visualizer. It may not be your style but that in no way means he is a punk.
You do realize that even CfA people aren't experts in all fields, right? Doing Fermi-LAT is very tricky in the Galactic plane and only maybe a handful of people in the LAT team know how to do it correctly. That being said, this result isn't necessarily wrong but it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
Their kit consists of a few dozen beryllium ions trapped in magnetic and electric fields using a device called a Penning trap. These ions vibrate at between a few mega and kilohertz, frequencies that can be accurately measured by bouncing laser light off the ions and measuring any Doppler shift they cause.
Me thinks you forgot to read the part about bouncing photons off the ions. The ions will be moving relative to the photons due to the vibrations.
No, the neutralino does not interact through the weak interaction.
They really do. To quote the Berkeley CDMS website linked from the Ars article about possible (but very speculative) dark matter detection, who are trying to detect WIMPS and in specific neutralinos:
Specifically, a cross section for interaction between a neutralino and a nucleon in ordinary matter of the order of the electro-weak scale would be consistent with a meaningful cosmological role for the particle. This expectation of a weak interaction together with the expected mass range of the neutralino, 10 to 1000 GeV, produce the acronym "WIMP": Weakly Interacting Massive Particle.
So that and other usages of "weak interaction" lead me to believe neutralinos interact via the weak interaction.
I would expect there to be differences in the experiment, but the overview seems very similar: Put an extremely sensitive detector as far down in the earth as you can to shield yourself from as many normal cosmic rays and particles as possible, and wait for years to see enough events to say you've got a decent probability of having actually seen something real.
Weakly interacting does not mean that it interacts via the weak interaction. That is why direct detection experiments look for elastic interactions between a dark matter particle and a nucleus in the experiment. This is why you have to minimize the background as much as possible.
No no no, those are the statistics for the individual countries. I don't think you understand how statistics work. When you add the populations together, it's a bigger number
So lets see, (0.09*9+0.03*4.5+0.05*5.5)/(9+4.5+5.5)=0.064, i.e. 6.4%.
Well, last I checked, the US unemployment rate was substantially higher than the 3% of Norway or the 5% of Denmark, both of which are "socialist" countries. And if you use uncooked numbers, it's higher than the 9% of Sweden, too.
Does the US have the same oil and natural gas resources as Norway? No. Norway has next to no major industries and because of oil and natural gas, which finances their entire social welfare, their unemployment rates will always be much lower. So Norway is not really a good country to compare the US with.
No to mention the fact that Norway has a fairly large oil and natural gas reserve compared to its size. A lot of their oil money is put into funds that finance their social welfare. Norway has next to no other major industry.
Its not like Sweden is any better. The former government loved the term "open unemployment rate", because that number was always substantially lower than the true unemployment rate.
Yeah, unemployment is up here, in that part of europe with the highest education (Scandinavia), why we're at above 2% now, which is a lot more than the comfortable 0.8% we used to enjoy prior to the current crisis.
Apparently you have no connection with reality what so ever
Norway ~3%
Sweden ~9%
Denmark ~5% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate
How you get this to 2% for "Scandinavia" is beyond me. And remember that Norway has a fairly low unemployment due it that thing called oil.
I have to correct myself. This is not the upsilon meson, but it still is an established naming scheme and I still think that naming it some stupid name like "mystery doom particle" or something is just ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
You can get better education, free or nearly free, in most of Europe, and yet the US youth just sits there, saddling itself with gazillions in student loan debt -- all of which it cannot default on, because it belongs to uncle Sam himself. Shudder...
One can argue which universities in the world are the best, which metric to use etc, but higher education is not free in Europe. It is payed for with tax euros, or as in my case, tax kronor, as I got my education in Sweden. What you fail to understand is that students in Europe, in Sweden at least, take students loan too. There may not be tuition fees but students have to pay rent, eat, pay for books etc too you know. So while the total student loan amount in Sweden is generally smaller than in the U.S., students still have big loans in relation to expected future salaries. Very few are fortunate enough to go through higher education without student loans in Sweden.
Uranium has a large cross-section, yes, but do you think it is likely that they will build the reactor cladding from U-235?
That I made no comment on, I just happened to have the neutron cross sections in different Uranium isotopes at hand and used that as an example of how much the cross section can vary depending on the target material.
That is no entirely correct either. If the cross section was tiny then it would not transmute nuclei. The neutron cross section is dependent on both energy and the material. The interaction cross section of a 1 MeV neutron is about 1 barn in 235-U but only 0.01 barn in 238-U. And 1 barn is not tiny.
Fusion reactors generate enormous amounts of neutrons, which interact only weakly with matter.
This is completely wrong. Neutrons are strongly interacting particles. If they weren't they would not stay bound in atomic nuclei. A statement like that implies that a particle only interacts via the weak interaction, which is not correct for nuetrons./p
If CERN was doing real science (at the LHC) they would have been able to say with confidence that they were going to find (or not find) this "new" "particle" months ago and give reasons for exactly where and how they expected to find it.
What part of the fact that the Standard Model predicts this bound state at this mass did you not understand?
Except that there is no Nobel Prize in Economics. The Economics prize is a prize given by the Swedish "Fed", Riksbanken on honor of Nobel.
Do you have a hard time stomaching neutrinos too? When they were first proposed they could not be detected. Still they solved the very real problem of explaining the beta-decay spectrum.
This is all perfectly fine, for you. But why do you assume that everyone else is like you or think like you? I myself love watching movies. Not all movies, I do have my preferences. And it doesn't exclude having other hobbies as well.
Hey now, I'm a proud member of People for the Eating of Tasty Animals.
The shots are beautiful, but it's obvious the composition was put together by punks trying to be hip.
And you know this how? I know JF Salgado personally and he is by no standards a punk. He is in fact a very professional astronomer and visualizer. It may not be your style but that in no way means he is a punk.
You do realize that even CfA people aren't experts in all fields, right? Doing Fermi-LAT is very tricky in the Galactic plane and only maybe a handful of people in the LAT team know how to do it correctly. That being said, this result isn't necessarily wrong but it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
From the article itself:
Their kit consists of a few dozen beryllium ions trapped in magnetic and electric fields using a device called a Penning trap. These ions vibrate at between a few mega and kilohertz, frequencies that can be accurately measured by bouncing laser light off the ions and measuring any Doppler shift they cause.
Me thinks you forgot to read the part about bouncing photons off the ions. The ions will be moving relative to the photons due to the vibrations.
No, the neutralino does not interact through the weak interaction.
They really do. To quote the Berkeley CDMS website linked from the Ars article about possible (but very speculative) dark matter detection, who are trying to detect WIMPS and in specific neutralinos:
So that and other usages of "weak interaction" lead me to believe neutralinos interact via the weak interaction.
I would expect there to be differences in the experiment, but the overview seems very similar: Put an extremely sensitive detector as far down in the earth as you can to shield yourself from as many normal cosmic rays and particles as possible, and wait for years to see enough events to say you've got a decent probability of having actually seen something real.
Weakly interacting does not mean that it interacts via the weak interaction. That is why direct detection experiments look for elastic interactions between a dark matter particle and a nucleus in the experiment. This is why you have to minimize the background as much as possible.
The more important question, is the conductor a maestro? :P
Natural resources provide employment? Stop the presses!
You don't really know much about Norway, do you?
No no no, those are the statistics for the individual countries. I don't think you understand how statistics work. When you add the populations together, it's a bigger number
So lets see, (0.09*9+0.03*4.5+0.05*5.5)/(9+4.5+5.5)=0.064, i.e. 6.4%.
Well, last I checked, the US unemployment rate was substantially higher than the 3% of Norway or the 5% of Denmark, both of which are "socialist" countries. And if you use uncooked numbers, it's higher than the 9% of Sweden, too.
Does the US have the same oil and natural gas resources as Norway? No. Norway has next to no major industries and because of oil and natural gas, which finances their entire social welfare, their unemployment rates will always be much lower. So Norway is not really a good country to compare the US with.
No to mention the fact that Norway has a fairly large oil and natural gas reserve compared to its size. A lot of their oil money is put into funds that finance their social welfare. Norway has next to no other major industry.
That point would be which one?
Its not like Sweden is any better. The former government loved the term "open unemployment rate", because that number was always substantially lower than the true unemployment rate.
Yeah, unemployment is up here, in that part of europe with the highest education (Scandinavia), why we're at above 2% now, which is a lot more than the comfortable 0.8% we used to enjoy prior to the current crisis.
Apparently you have no connection with reality what so ever
Norway ~3%
Sweden ~9%
Denmark ~5%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate How you get this to 2% for "Scandinavia" is beyond me. And remember that Norway has a fairly low unemployment due it that thing called oil.
I get it but you could just as easily validate that looking at the far end of the Milky Way too.
No, as that still doesn't rule out the option of the Galaxy being special.
What they mean is that they can store six different things in the same place.
That's not the same as having six dimensions.
It is not physical dimensions no, but you know, the word dimension can be used in other contexts as well.
Doh, there I got it for not proof reading my own post LOL. I just love having my nit picked :P
This student is a concentrator, a la Feinman.
Feinman? Surely you're joking, Mr Feynamn! Sorry just couldn't resist picking a nit.
I have to correct myself. This is not the upsilon meson, but it still is an established naming scheme and I still think that naming it some stupid name like "mystery doom particle" or something is just ridiculous.