An internet example would be Malaysia, when some idiot office worker sent out an email saying there would be a riot. Thousands of forwards ensued and next thing you knew, half the office workers stayed home fearing the riot. How many millions of dollars of productivity was lost that day? If this can happen in M'sia (highly educated,97%+ literate, etc,) can it not happen elsewhere?
Agreed.
Except that you can blame the government for sowing the seeds of distrust in the minds of the population by feeding them filtered news. The irony is that the population is smart enough to see through the crap spewed out by the government, but not smart enough to see through the crap spewed out by the Internet.
The "oh space is too important to be left to the hands of non-NASA people" is just grating. If you want large scale exploration of space, you need the big corporations and rich people, whether you like them or not. (Or you can let U.Sam tax you to bits to fund regular Mars missions)
Ironic, that NASA, a creation of a nation which espouses capitalism, would complained about the historic milestone in the commercialization of space. I would have expected them to welcome Tito with open arms and maybe fund a few of their own tourists. Imagine the extra flights they could have made to build the ISS.
Anyway, about the "dangers" of civilians breaking things : that didn't stop the submarines commanders to let civilians sit in consoles during a mock emergency surfacing drill. Of which I believe, is so much more dangerous letting some guy who is at least trained to float around a mostly automated station.
Ok. This is now waaay over my head. I am but a puny funny gravity guy....:). (One day, when I have time, I'll think about these, but right now I contend myself with knowing the words not the details.)
But that's just the 4-vector covariant index form. And your eequation is not the Maxwell equation, but just the definition of the Gauge Field Strength tensor F^{mu nu}. (For fun, your equation written in super-duper concise diff.forms is :
F=dA where F is a 2-form and A is a one-form, and d is the exterior derivative.
You could have at least said the the Maxwell theory of em fields was contradicted by the observation of particle phenomena (quanta). But you didn't, and even so that misses the point completely.
When I said "classical field theory", that's what I meant. The quantum theory of EM is called "Quantum electrodynamics", and is part of "quantum field theory".
Apparent paradoxes are used as an argument to justify an irrational, dualistic interpretation of the theory.
If you mean the particle-wave duality, then it is not a paradox. Please do not confuse "not-intuitive" with "paradox". Quantum Field Theory is a hard subject to master, and it breaks down at some energy scales. But it is an excellent theory at low common day energy scales. QED predicts the fine structure constant to more than 10 decimal place, and no theory in this world is better than QED.
However, at a closer look one can find that any paradox arises only from an inconsistent physical
concept or other errors in logic. Goedel proved that from a logical system which contains a contradiction, absolutely any proposition may be proven. With a consistent theoretical interpretation (in any branch of science) no paradox should occur at all.
Since your previous statement is wrong, this is non-sequitur. There is no paradox in QED. Every undergrad physics student know E&M is not self-consistent. (Read Feynman's lectures on physics Vol 2 for a beautiful exposition. The book is aimed at freshmen, so you should be able to figure it out.)
"Quantum mechanics used only the Heaviside/ Gibbs externalized electromagnetics and completely missed Maxwell's internalized and ordered electromagnetics enfolded inside a structured scalar potential.Accordingly, QM [quantum mechanics] maintained its Gibbs statistics of quantum change, which is nonchaotic a priori. Quantum physicists by and large excluded Bohm's hidden variable theory, which conceivably could have offered the potential of engineering quantum change -- engineering physical reality itself.
This, I gathered, is the whole problem. Bearden's generous used of big-sounding words and rhetoric masked the fact that this is a lot of BS.
So, let's see:
"externalized/internalized" : what does this mean?! There is no such thing in physics or math.
"QM maintained its Gibbs statistic charge, which is no-chaotic apriori" : What's a Gibbs statistic charge? What is "no-chaotic"?! "Charge" is a conserved quantity in a field theory, which means that it is some physical thing (like eg. electric charges) that you can measure and is constant in time provided that there is no "current" (eg. electric current) flow into the system.
I am too tired to say horrible things about the last sentence.
I am sorry if I sounded sarcastic. But please read some better books if you want to understand this stuff. A good place to start is "Feynman Lectures on Physics Vol 1-3". And forget about crap like Bearden's book.
As I said, physics is both financially and socially unrewarding. The price of admission into physics is many years of hard work and lots of frustration. But to be able to learn the stuff so that one can figure wonderful things out, and doing it correctly, is well-worth it. There is no short-cut to hard-core science.
That's at least a 100 on Baez's Crackpot Index!
on
The New Flatland
·
· Score: 2
Perhaps not. There is a lot of work on canonical quantum gravity which takes a pretty good stab at exactly that. (Whether it has succeeded is still an open question.)
Well, that's true. Canonical quantization of Ashtekar's loop variables is a good stab, I agree. (In fact I hope they succeed just because I like to cheer for the underdogs vs anything stringy!). But it still is a difficult problem. Personally, I still find it a bit fuzzy in the intepretation of what is actually "momenta" in canonical quantization of gravity. But I am no expert in this field, so I guess I'd shut up now.
(Btw, I just quickly skimmed the responses to OP, being one of the lazy ones who read at +1. So sorry if I repeated your rebuke to the OP.)
Never read Bearden's paper. From the OP, it's total crap.
(a) I can write Maxwell's equation in whatever form I like : quaternions, vectors, component by component (go read Gell-Mann's book to see how cumbersome that is) covariant-indice form, and (most beautifully) in differential forms. It expresses a bunch of coupled differential equations that's all.
(b) Maxwell's theory is a classical field theory. You can attach words like " unified ", "successful", and blah to it, and it's still a classical field theory. I don't understand what the heck the OP is rambling about "quartenions" blah. There is no point to be made. The use of "big words" and impressive looking references only serve to give the false impression that there is actually "something" there.
(FYI, we now have quantum field theory, where we promote variables to operators and then impose canonical quantization on it. Which, btw, is totally incompatible with general relativity).
I don't blame the OP for being ignorant about the finer points of physics (after all, it's a career choice which pays very little!). But the sad truth is that nowadays, there are so many "wannabes" like Bearden who writes crap and mislead the general public. The people should be careful about what they read.
Re:So where does the information come from?
on
A Map to Nowhere?
·
· Score: 2
(1) People have portrayed the task of unravelling the human genome as a Herculean task. Well, the entire genome can be fitted on a CDROM. That isn't very much data at all.
Analysis : Nonsense. Define "a lot" of data. Please.
(2) Are we really saying that the human body is no more complex that a copy of Windows 2000? Obviously, it is.
Analysis : Rhetoric and strawman argument.
(3) So where is this extra information located? It is obvious that there must be some other mechanism at work. I would posit that the mechanism is supernatural.
Analysis : Special Pleading.
(4) There really is no other explanation. The Church has known this for many thousands of years, and now the scientists are realising it too. The missing information must be supplied by the Holy Spirit. When a man impregnates a woman, the Holy Spirit breathes life into the resulting embryo. At least, this is what we were told in school. In actual fact, it breathes information in, and gives it a soul.
Analysis : Rhetoric. Special Pleading.
(5) I know I will be labeled a troll for this, and am saddened.
Analysis : Ad Hominem, attacking the audience's tendencies instead of the idea.
(6) But really, the Church has known this for thousands of years, and now we are being proved correct.
Analysis : Fabrication. The Church "knew" zilch (flat earth, witchcraft etc..) for thousands (actually 2 thousands, still grammatically correct but kinda stretching it) of years.
Conclusion : Can do better. C-
GaAs has the density of steel. I think diamond is about twice that (I don't quite remember).
I agree with most points, except that though in space you don't need much backing, you still need to reinforce them for launch. Which entails about 4-6gs for a shuttle, and lots of vibration.
Well, they use to call the show "Towards 2000" in the 80s. Then switched to B2K in the 90s. But glad to hear they are still around because I loved the show when I was a kid! People should watch this more so they won't go buy stuff from places like this
The prime cost of putting things into space is not material, but the rockets you build to put them up there. Diamonds are much more dense than silicon or GaAs (the solar cell of choice in space nowadas, so the article is kinda wrong), so they will be correspondingly more massive.
Sure diamonds may have higher efficiency, but what they should also worry about is Watts/mass, not just efficiency. As long as W/m of GaAs is higher, they should think hard before switching.
Still, ranting over, it's a real cool technology. Imagine, building a zillion nano-vacuum tubes!
Not as good as Anne Marie. No where near Signal_11. I would give it a 6.5 if not the subject he picked is easy to troll, therefore requires less effort.
Cartesian coordinates are defined whatever you like, as long as it is on a flat Euclidean space and the +y/+x are orthogonal to each other by 90 degrees (not necessary true in an arbitrary geometry). For example, I can take +x to be up and +y to be right. (Or +x to be NE and +y to be SE etc..)
Btw, is your teacher blond, slim, and good-looking too?
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't see your birthday speech in the list of things being patented.
And save tons of dollars on postage :P
Sigh..
An internet example would be Malaysia, when some idiot office worker sent out an email saying there would be a riot. Thousands of forwards ensued and next thing you knew, half the office workers stayed home fearing the riot. How many millions of dollars of productivity was lost that day? If this can happen in M'sia (highly educated,97%+ literate, etc,) can it not happen elsewhere?
Agreed.
Except that you can blame the government for sowing the seeds of distrust in the minds of the population by feeding them filtered news. The irony is that the population is smart enough to see through the crap spewed out by the government, but not smart enough to see through the crap spewed out by the Internet.
Oh well. Rant over. Back to work.
The "oh space is too important to be left to the hands of non-NASA people" is just grating. If you want large scale exploration of space, you need the big corporations and rich people, whether you like them or not. (Or you can let U.Sam tax you to bits to fund regular Mars missions)
Ironic, that NASA, a creation of a nation which espouses capitalism, would complained about the historic milestone in the commercialization of space. I would have expected them to welcome Tito with open arms and maybe fund a few of their own tourists. Imagine the extra flights they could have made to build the ISS.
Anyway, about the "dangers" of civilians breaking things : that didn't stop the submarines commanders to let civilians sit in consoles during a mock emergency surfacing drill. Of which I believe, is so much more dangerous letting some guy who is at least trained to float around a mostly automated station.
Ok. This is now waaay over my head. I am but a puny funny gravity guy....:). (One day, when I have time, I'll think about these, but right now I contend myself with knowing the words not the details.)
But that's just the 4-vector covariant index form. And your eequation is not the Maxwell equation, but just the definition of the Gauge Field Strength tensor F^{mu nu}. (For fun, your equation written in super-duper concise diff.forms is :
F=dA where F is a 2-form and A is a one-form, and d is the exterior derivative.
You could have at least said the the Maxwell theory of em fields was contradicted by the observation of particle phenomena (quanta). But you didn't, and even so that misses the point completely.
:
When I said "classical field theory", that's what I meant. The quantum theory of EM is called "Quantum electrodynamics", and is part of "quantum field theory".
Apparent paradoxes are used as an argument to justify an irrational, dualistic interpretation of the theory.
If you mean the particle-wave duality, then it is not a paradox. Please do not confuse "not-intuitive" with "paradox". Quantum Field Theory is a hard subject to master, and it breaks down at some energy scales. But it is an excellent theory at low common day energy scales. QED predicts the fine structure constant to more than 10 decimal place, and no theory in this world is better than QED.
However, at a closer look one can find that any paradox arises only from an inconsistent physical concept or other errors in logic. Goedel proved that from a logical system which contains a contradiction, absolutely any proposition may be proven. With a consistent theoretical interpretation (in any branch of science) no paradox should occur at all.
Since your previous statement is wrong, this is non-sequitur. There is no paradox in QED. Every undergrad physics student know E&M is not self-consistent. (Read Feynman's lectures on physics Vol 2 for a beautiful exposition. The book is aimed at freshmen, so you should be able to figure it out.)
"Quantum mechanics used only the Heaviside/ Gibbs externalized electromagnetics and completely missed Maxwell's internalized and ordered electromagnetics enfolded inside a structured scalar potential.Accordingly, QM [quantum mechanics] maintained its Gibbs statistics of quantum change, which is nonchaotic a priori. Quantum physicists by and large excluded Bohm's hidden variable theory, which conceivably could have offered the potential of engineering quantum change -- engineering physical reality itself.
This, I gathered, is the whole problem. Bearden's generous used of big-sounding words and rhetoric masked the fact that this is a lot of BS. So, let's see
"externalized/internalized" : what does this mean?! There is no such thing in physics or math. "QM maintained its Gibbs statistic charge, which is no-chaotic apriori" : What's a Gibbs statistic charge? What is "no-chaotic"?! "Charge" is a conserved quantity in a field theory, which means that it is some physical thing (like eg. electric charges) that you can measure and is constant in time provided that there is no "current" (eg. electric current) flow into the system.
I am too tired to say horrible things about the last sentence.
I am sorry if I sounded sarcastic. But please read some better books if you want to understand this stuff. A good place to start is "Feynman Lectures on Physics Vol 1-3". And forget about crap like Bearden's book.
As I said, physics is both financially and socially unrewarding. The price of admission into physics is many years of hard work and lots of frustration. But to be able to learn the stuff so that one can figure wonderful things out, and doing it correctly, is well-worth it. There is no short-cut to hard-core science.
I believe you score highly on the Crackpot Index
Perhaps not. There is a lot of work on canonical quantum gravity which takes a pretty good stab at exactly that. (Whether it has succeeded is still an open question.)
Well, that's true. Canonical quantization of Ashtekar's loop variables is a good stab, I agree. (In fact I hope they succeed just because I like to cheer for the underdogs vs anything stringy!). But it still is a difficult problem. Personally, I still find it a bit fuzzy in the intepretation of what is actually "momenta" in canonical quantization of gravity. But I am no expert in this field, so I guess I'd shut up now.
(Btw, I just quickly skimmed the responses to OP, being one of the lazy ones who read at +1. So sorry if I repeated your rebuke to the OP.)
Never read Bearden's paper. From the OP, it's total crap.
(a) I can write Maxwell's equation in whatever form I like : quaternions, vectors, component by component (go read Gell-Mann's book to see how cumbersome that is) covariant-indice form, and (most beautifully) in differential forms. It expresses a bunch of coupled differential equations that's all.
(b) Maxwell's theory is a classical field theory. You can attach words like " unified ", "successful", and blah to it, and it's still a classical field theory. I don't understand what the heck the OP is rambling about "quartenions" blah. There is no point to be made. The use of "big words" and impressive looking references only serve to give the false impression that there is actually "something" there.
(FYI, we now have quantum field theory, where we promote variables to operators and then impose canonical quantization on it. Which, btw, is totally incompatible with general relativity).
I don't blame the OP for being ignorant about the finer points of physics (after all, it's a career choice which pays very little!). But the sad truth is that nowadays, there are so many "wannabes" like Bearden who writes crap and mislead the general public. The people should be careful about what they read.
(1) People have portrayed the task of unravelling the human genome as a Herculean task. Well, the entire genome can be fitted on a CDROM. That isn't very much data at all. Analysis : Nonsense. Define "a lot" of data. Please. (2) Are we really saying that the human body is no more complex that a copy of Windows 2000? Obviously, it is. Analysis : Rhetoric and strawman argument. (3) So where is this extra information located? It is obvious that there must be some other mechanism at work. I would posit that the mechanism is supernatural. Analysis : Special Pleading. (4) There really is no other explanation. The Church has known this for many thousands of years, and now the scientists are realising it too. The missing information must be supplied by the Holy Spirit. When a man impregnates a woman, the Holy Spirit breathes life into the resulting embryo. At least, this is what we were told in school. In actual fact, it breathes information in, and gives it a soul. Analysis : Rhetoric. Special Pleading. (5) I know I will be labeled a troll for this, and am saddened. Analysis : Ad Hominem, attacking the audience's tendencies instead of the idea. (6) But really, the Church has known this for thousands of years, and now we are being proved correct. Analysis : Fabrication. The Church "knew" zilch (flat earth, witchcraft etc..) for thousands (actually 2 thousands, still grammatically correct but kinda stretching it) of years. Conclusion : Can do better. C-
Brittannia is owned by the Queen of England! :P
beauty of diamonds. They are hard as hell, and to me that's the real beauty. Sorry, but ranting from an ex-engineer.
Oh. Right. Which just shows how long it was since I worked on these things. Thanks.
GaAs has the density of steel. I think diamond is about twice that (I don't quite remember).
I agree with most points, except that though in space you don't need much backing, you still need to reinforce them for launch. Which entails about 4-6gs for a shuttle, and lots of vibration.
well, you still need to send up the stuff you use to make them crystals.
Well, space-qualified GaAs cells cost >>>$1 per cm^2.....(I think it was something like $30-$50 per cm^2 the place I used to work in bought one.)
Well, they use to call the show "Towards 2000" in the 80s. Then switched to B2K in the 90s. But glad to hear they are still around because I loved the show when I was a kid! People should watch this more so they won't go buy stuff from places like this
The prime cost of putting things into space is not material, but the rockets you build to put them up there. Diamonds are much more dense than silicon or GaAs (the solar cell of choice in space nowadas, so the article is kinda wrong), so they will be correspondingly more massive.
Sure diamonds may have higher efficiency, but what they should also worry about is Watts/mass, not just efficiency. As long as W/m of GaAs is higher, they should think hard before switching.
Still, ranting over, it's a real cool technology. Imagine, building a zillion nano-vacuum tubes!
"Fuddy-Duddy! Fuddy-Duddy!" (hee)
Not as good as Anne Marie. No where near Signal_11. I would give it a 6.5 if not the subject he picked is easy to troll, therefore requires less effort.
Creativity : 5
Believability : 7
Language : 5
Topic : 5.5
Cartesian coordinates are defined whatever you like, as long as it is on a flat Euclidean space and the +y/+x are orthogonal to each other by 90 degrees (not necessary true in an arbitrary geometry). For example, I can take +x to be up and +y to be right. (Or +x to be NE and +y to be SE etc..)
Btw, is your teacher blond, slim, and good-looking too?
RG: Very proud to help them learn and grow and yet also often sad to see them leave the fold.
:).
Hmm...spoken almost like a character from Ultima
Shouldn't it be : What you say !!