I don't think these scientists have done their research properly. Never mind the PFC's, the only way that Canada has managed to raise it's temperature high enough to sustain algea and lichen is because we have vast quanitities of hot air constantly being expelled from the likes of Rita McNiel and Celine Dion...
Considering the fact that we haven't changed our technology for over 20 years (Shuttle Orbiter) it isn't that suprising.
I remember reading that the expected rate of critical mission failures (ie. firework displays - like Challenger) was one in 300, and recently in a post on a similar topic someone who is currently working in the field mentioned a 2% failure rate. This is an accountable loss! Even if everything is taken care of NASA still expects this number of failures.
If you launched every week, you would be facing a disaster at least every six years. Not to mention the cost associated with launching these orbiters.
Since the space shuttle is such a complex system (probably the most complex engineering feat mankind has ever undertaken) it is only expected that NASA will hesitate to launch whenever anything isn't perfect. Who know's, if that pin chips off some insulation, you might have another Challenger - remember it was only a faulty o-ring that caused that tradgedy.
In the end I wouldn't expected manned spaceflight to become any more frequent until we have a new orbiter, as long as we stick with the space shuttle we're dragging our feet.
Re:Here's what will really blow your mind...
on
Electron Fission
·
· Score: 2
I guess I didn't really say that too well. I agree that the wave nature of the electron is very important in this experiment, however, I would find it hard to have a discontinuity in the wave function of the electron (as the doctor states) without it splitting into two physical entities. In a double slit experiment, you only see the electrons hit the screen one at a time - you don't record a wave hitting the screen. It is only after many have hit the screen, and you record where they all hit, that the pattern emerges. In effect I'm saying that you can't directly observe the wave function (it is just a consequence of the statistical nature of QM) and therefor it couldn't 'make' bubbles which can be observed.
If you're very interested in these types of QM musings I highly suggest reading "Wholeness and The Implicate Order" by David Bohm. It is definately one of the most interesting books (and easy to follow) I've read in some time.
I don't think this will give the US any more incentive to return to the moon. We've been there and determined all that we needed to know. If the Chinese mission(s) determines that there is something of value that we didn't find, then maybe it will happen.
NASA funding has become so tight lately that something like a manned mission to the moon is probably last on their list. With the ISS underway and the demand that it places on the space programs of all the involved countries there is no incentive (financially, the only one that ever seems to determine anything in the end) for trips.
As for spying on what the Chinese are doing, I think there are cheaper methods of watching them than sending men there, besides the fact that it would be extremely expensive from an energy considerations point of view for them to take anything of this size to the moon.
This could definately be implemented, however I don't believe that it would make your country any more 'secure' from imperialists.
Destroying multi-million dollar spy satellites of countries that have the capability to pretty much decimate yours isn't going to put you in good favour none the less. It's a sad reality, but there really isn't much that anyone could do about it - the US forces crippling trade embargos on any country that doesn't even have the same political views as it (Cuba, for example). There is one post (a very good idea I might add!) however which suggests making a bunch of these nanosatellites that could just sit in front of the spy satellite's cameras, now that would be wicked!
If there was ever another large scale global war, (I hope we're past that though) I wouldn't be surprised if this type of anti-spying tactic was employed.
Re:Here's what will really blow your mind...
on
Electron Fission
·
· Score: 2
Ok, here's the flaw with that arguement, (one that is often made with quantum mechanics since it is often presented with an over-emphisis placed on the 'reality' of the wave function) the wave function would not have the ability to 'make' the bubble in the first place. If you found the electron in the bubble, you would also only find one bubble, the one with the electron in it! The other bubble would have never existed! The fact that there are multiple bubbles either implies that the electron actually split up, only to recombine later, or that there is some other effect creating the extra bubbles.
Allthough I'm not the guy who actually wrote the code (my professor did) I'm currently working on an MPI / OpenMP implementation of it and it should be finished soon, with an abundance of simulations to follow.
If you want to see what it does, click on the link 'program' in my parent post. Allthough it will probably not make that much sense to someone outside of the field at least it is out there to see. Basically it helps us find ways to model the evolution of early galaxies.
If you're very interested in this kind of stuff, head to our main site to check out all the work that the other astrophysicists are doing.
Re:The Nature of Electron Fission
on
Electron Fission
·
· Score: 2
Firstly, I'm going to just let an opinion fly about reductionist principles in general - even if they do bust the electron into bits, would it even matter in the grand scheme? One of the things in physics is that most theories are only valid for certain scales and they are only approximations to the next level down (or up I suppose). Although this would lead us into a new level of research it would be the exact same thing over again. Important none the less but I don't think too many physicists would be peeing their pants in glee over it.
As for the question about the difference between the wave function and the particle splitting up, I don't think this article means to determine what is actually seen. It only states that a very interesting behaviour of this experimental apparatus was noticed (multiple bubble formation when only one was expected) that might indicate the existance of electrinos (the proposed name for the remains of the electron) and that further experiments are going to be undertaken to consolidate what is actually observed.
The researcher is very hopeful that he has in fact observed electrinos however the physics community as a whole is skeptic, so I guess we'll have to wait until a further date.
Here's what will really blow your mind...
on
Electron Fission
·
· Score: 1
Allright, so you look at the bubbles and find that the electron does exist in one of them. What do you think would happen to the 'empty' bubble?
Right now I'm currently working on a program that simulates galaxy evolution using these Alpha servers. Often in physics this is the only way that we can test many of our theories since there is no way to set up a universe in the lab - the next best thing is a simulation. Computational science is exploding right now and there are many researchers who need time on these machines, it's definately added a new discipline to the rigid framework of theorist/experimentalist. It's kind of sad that so many people take the point of view that these machines are 'useless'. They are quickly becoming one of the most important tools for scientific research.
From what I have been hearing on/. lately it seems that most people don't really think advances like this are that interesting. While we're at it we might as well tear down all our particle accelerators and stop doing space missions as well since they don't really have any immediate use...
The brain of the proposed six teraflop system will be an interconnected network of Compaq AlphaServers, 682 them, each of which itself contains four Compaq Alpha microprocessors.
Wow. I'm using 4 of these servers right now and I thought that was pretty impressive.
While the purpose of this project is to make the mouse recognize things, I think the greater significance is shown by the doctor's following comment:
"I had to use a way of thinking that felt very different from what I normally use," Dr. Brody said.
I think that this is probably the most interesting thing in the whole NYT article. By making this into a contest he is not only bringing more interest into the field but also challenging people to really 'think'! This is how progress really happens. It will definately be interesting to see which different disciplines his methodology will affect, especially if his creation is as novel as it seems.
In a perfect system the only things that are considered are the earths gravitational force (the downward pull) and the velocity of the object in orbit (forward motion). That is the model you will most likely deal with in first semester classes.
It excludes things like drag, and other minimal effects. The main instability in the orbits results from the fact that not only the Earth is pulling on the satellite/station, but the moon, sun, and every other celestial body (to some degree) as well. This creates varying gravitational potentials which change depending on the positions of all the parties involved (Gravity is dependent on 1/r^2).
Now, the space junk just happens to be stuff that is in a relatively stable orbit. It may stay up for weeks, months or years depending on it's velocity and position relative to the earth. After it's orbit decays to a certain point it will either plummet to the earth or take off into space depending on how far it's initial orbit was from the earth. It's kind of funny, there are actually telecommunication satellites that went haywire and are now whipping around in the geosynchronous orbit range, requiring everyone to be on the lookout for possible collisions (small probability however).
There is actually an MIT lab that tracks most of the large debris using a radar telescope in conjunction with the defense department. Try tracking thousands of objects that are only a meter wide in the vast expanse of possible earth orbits!
The real problem with all of this junk is that it is nigh impossible to propagate the orbits. Since all these factors are subtle and accumulate over time it makes it quite a task to make proper orbit integrators. After you include the difficult to model drag effect of re-entry, it makes finding out where MIR is going to land a shot in the dark.
As for MIR's orbit, I believe it is in low earth orbit, and therefor it would also be moving around the Earth.
The space station has to have it's orientation and position constantly regulated so that it maintains a proper orbit (it's orbit is constantly decaying due to drag, the dynamical gravitational potential it experiences from the moon/earth/sun system, and solar flux (albeit quite smaller than the others)). If there is no fuel left to fire the thrusters required to reposition it, it will slowly drift towards the earth. As it gets nearer, it experiences more and more drag from the atmosphere, which aids it's descent. So in the end it is a matter of not having enough fuel to keep it in place.
Anyone want to start the betting on where it lands? If they don't have the money to go up and properly de-orbit the fungal wonder it's anyones guess where it will land!
Lockard's argument also suffers from a narrow definition of community
I think that this is more of a serious flaw than a a minor affliction. It is all dependant on what you view a community as being. If you assume that a community is a collection of people who interact in an effort to attain certain goals (whether they be for the individual or the community), while acquiring a sense of common identity, then the 'virtual' community is very, very real.
Some of the greatest people of our time all agree that we need to start making changes to prolong the existance of our planet, yet the general public hardly seems to listen until it's right in their face. Although Hawking might be a bit drastic in his prediction, the process by which our planet is being ravaged is very real.
Eventually if enough people of academic stature speak up maybe one day humanity will be able to overcome our fixation with the 'now'.
Canada, while not being as grand as the US, definately has it's own merits. Our immigration policy is much more lax, and since we are experiencing a brain drain to the US most of our tech companies are eager to acquire skilled workers. We pay higher taxes, but at least health care is government funded. Oh ya, I forgot to mention that while you may experience a great deal of anti-immigrant hassle in the US (as one can imagine from some of these assinine posts) in Canada immigrants are more than welcome. Just bringing another option to the table...
Methanol is allready a liquid at normal temperatures, and as such I believe it is used in an adapted combustion engine. Fuel-Cell vehicles operate without using combustion (hence the reduced emissions). The problem with methanol is that you would still produce CO2 (same thing as using natural gas - another popular substitute for gasoline.
One of the options that I have noticed with these energy saving - concept cars is that most of them have a backup electrical system. Probably the most ingenuitive thing was the braking system. Supposidly the braking was done such that while you breaked you stored energy in the battery by an electromagnetic setup - kind of like a brake alternator! Unfortunately I can't remember the specifics though...
One of the professors at our university did a talk on these new fuel cell technologies last term. Supposidly one method of circumventing an explosion in an impact would be to store the hydrogen in a porous material that would limit the rate at which it was released. In a crash the tank (made out of this porous material) could be smashed into pieces however the gas would be trapped within the porous material and would slowly leak out over time (preventing the explosion). I guess they are still looking into finding a material with the right qualities for this application.
Automobiles utilising this technology would definately help us in the battle against pollution, however the problem of creating cheap vehicles using this technology would definately be a problem. Supposidly they will begin in the 50k price range, and that will definately be a factor in how quickly they come into mainstream use.
The way gas prices have been this summer however...
Ahhh... good point, however, who's to say that everyone is endowed with the same amount of responsability to begin with? People exhibit all sorts of negative social behaviour without doing any drugs at all! Just because I want to drink a few alcoholic beverages or smoke a marijuana cigarette doesn't mean that I'm going to need someone to tell me whether or not I should run around naked in the street shooting off a 12-gauge (sarcasm). If you can't handle things responsibly in any situation then you'll need someone to help you, let alone if you're on drugs. It's all about moderation, and in the grand scheme I figure my real life karma isn't doing that bad so I shouldn't need someone to moderate me down.
Hey man, I agree with you 100%. I was trying to make a point with that last comment however. I'm well on my way to becoming a theoretical physicist, and I haven't fucked up my brain (although I have experienced various controlled substances). I'm just saying that too many people tend to simplify the situation to a right/wrong situation when it is much more complex than that. If I can succeed in my aspirations and I don't affect anyone else then why should it matter? It's funny how much this topic parallels homosexuality - people are so concerned with what the guy next door is doing when it doesn't really matter. In the end I guess it's a question of personal freedom. If I'm responsible enough to deal with the situations that occur in my life, why should I have others tell me what to do?
Try doing your undergrad in physics while smoking on and off all term. Then getting your transcript and finding you've maintained your Dean's List status for the 5th term in a row. Don't believe the hype. It's all about moderation. Work hard, play hard, just make sure you don't let things get out of hand.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember reading that the expected rate of critical mission failures (ie. firework displays - like Challenger) was one in 300, and recently in a post on a similar topic someone who is currently working in the field mentioned a 2% failure rate. This is an accountable loss! Even if everything is taken care of NASA still expects this number of failures.
If you launched every week, you would be facing a disaster at least every six years. Not to mention the cost associated with launching these orbiters.
Since the space shuttle is such a complex system (probably the most complex engineering feat mankind has ever undertaken) it is only expected that NASA will hesitate to launch whenever anything isn't perfect. Who know's, if that pin chips off some insulation, you might have another Challenger - remember it was only a faulty o-ring that caused that tradgedy.
In the end I wouldn't expected manned spaceflight to become any more frequent until we have a new orbiter, as long as we stick with the space shuttle we're dragging our feet.
If you're very interested in these types of QM musings I highly suggest reading "Wholeness and The Implicate Order" by David Bohm. It is definately one of the most interesting books (and easy to follow) I've read in some time.
NASA funding has become so tight lately that something like a manned mission to the moon is probably last on their list. With the ISS underway and the demand that it places on the space programs of all the involved countries there is no incentive (financially, the only one that ever seems to determine anything in the end) for trips.
As for spying on what the Chinese are doing, I think there are cheaper methods of watching them than sending men there, besides the fact that it would be extremely expensive from an energy considerations point of view for them to take anything of this size to the moon.
Destroying multi-million dollar spy satellites of countries that have the capability to pretty much decimate yours isn't going to put you in good favour none the less. It's a sad reality, but there really isn't much that anyone could do about it - the US forces crippling trade embargos on any country that doesn't even have the same political views as it (Cuba, for example). There is one post (a very good idea I might add!) however which suggests making a bunch of these nanosatellites that could just sit in front of the spy satellite's cameras, now that would be wicked!
If there was ever another large scale global war, (I hope we're past that though) I wouldn't be surprised if this type of anti-spying tactic was employed.
If you want to see what it does, click on the link 'program' in my parent post. Allthough it will probably not make that much sense to someone outside of the field at least it is out there to see. Basically it helps us find ways to model the evolution of early galaxies.
If you're very interested in this kind of stuff, head to our main site to check out all the work that the other astrophysicists are doing.
As for the question about the difference between the wave function and the particle splitting up, I don't think this article means to determine what is actually seen. It only states that a very interesting behaviour of this experimental apparatus was noticed (multiple bubble formation when only one was expected) that might indicate the existance of electrinos (the proposed name for the remains of the electron) and that further experiments are going to be undertaken to consolidate what is actually observed.
The researcher is very hopeful that he has in fact observed electrinos however the physics community as a whole is skeptic, so I guess we'll have to wait until a further date.
From what I have been hearing on /. lately it seems that most people don't really think advances like this are that interesting. While we're at it we might as well tear down all our particle accelerators and stop doing space missions as well since they don't really have any immediate use...
Tru64 Unix
Wow. I'm using 4 of these servers right now and I thought that was pretty impressive.
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2000/split/pnu50 1-1.htm
It's quite an interesting concept, it will be cool to see what further experiments reveal.
While the purpose of this project is to make the mouse recognize things, I think the greater significance is shown by the doctor's following comment: "I had to use a way of thinking that felt very different from what I normally use," Dr. Brody said. I think that this is probably the most interesting thing in the whole NYT article. By making this into a contest he is not only bringing more interest into the field but also challenging people to really 'think'! This is how progress really happens. It will definately be interesting to see which different disciplines his methodology will affect, especially if his creation is as novel as it seems.
It excludes things like drag, and other minimal effects. The main instability in the orbits results from the fact that not only the Earth is pulling on the satellite/station, but the moon, sun, and every other celestial body (to some degree) as well. This creates varying gravitational potentials which change depending on the positions of all the parties involved (Gravity is dependent on 1/r^2).
Now, the space junk just happens to be stuff that is in a relatively stable orbit. It may stay up for weeks, months or years depending on it's velocity and position relative to the earth. After it's orbit decays to a certain point it will either plummet to the earth or take off into space depending on how far it's initial orbit was from the earth. It's kind of funny, there are actually telecommunication satellites that went haywire and are now whipping around in the geosynchronous orbit range, requiring everyone to be on the lookout for possible collisions (small probability however).
There is actually an MIT lab that tracks most of the large debris using a radar telescope in conjunction with the defense department. Try tracking thousands of objects that are only a meter wide in the vast expanse of possible earth orbits!
The real problem with all of this junk is that it is nigh impossible to propagate the orbits. Since all these factors are subtle and accumulate over time it makes it quite a task to make proper orbit integrators. After you include the difficult to model drag effect of re-entry, it makes finding out where MIR is going to land a shot in the dark.
As for MIR's orbit, I believe it is in low earth orbit, and therefor it would also be moving around the Earth.
Anyone want to start the betting on where it lands? If they don't have the money to go up and properly de-orbit the fungal wonder it's anyones guess where it will land!
I think that this is more of a serious flaw than a a minor affliction. It is all dependant on what you view a community as being. If you assume that a community is a collection of people who interact in an effort to attain certain goals (whether they be for the individual or the community), while acquiring a sense of common identity, then the 'virtual' community is very, very real.
Some of the greatest people of our time all agree that we need to start making changes to prolong the existance of our planet, yet the general public hardly seems to listen until it's right in their face. Although Hawking might be a bit drastic in his prediction, the process by which our planet is being ravaged is very real.
Eventually if enough people of academic stature speak up maybe one day humanity will be able to overcome our fixation with the 'now'.
One of the options that I have noticed with these energy saving - concept cars is that most of them have a backup electrical system. Probably the most ingenuitive thing was the braking system. Supposidly the braking was done such that while you breaked you stored energy in the battery by an electromagnetic setup - kind of like a brake alternator! Unfortunately I can't remember the specifics though...
Automobiles utilising this technology would definately help us in the battle against pollution, however the problem of creating cheap vehicles using this technology would definately be a problem. Supposidly they will begin in the 50k price range, and that will definately be a factor in how quickly they come into mainstream use.
The way gas prices have been this summer however...