it would be nicer if they also started investing more interest in human rights, democratic ideals, freedom of speech, free press, no censorship, political pluralism, open competition of ideas and on and on and on.
Science is a system and culture based on open discourse, accountability and merit. A culture that strives for good science should also honour these values in itself.
12. an interesting conclusion of the examples (9, 10) is that it may become possible to actually control basic weather patterns
We will need a new source of energy that is of the order 500 GigaWatts*year.
I don't really care where it comes from, as long as it's efficient and reliable and can be done in the order of decades.
We are building solar energy farms in California the produce 700 MegaWatts*year, expandable to 1 GigaWatt*year.
Why not scale that up?
Are the total strains to society/environment and costs of energy-investment of building, maintaining and shutting down nuclear reactors lower? If yes, then do that instead. I don't care where the energy comes from if it's total real costs are lower.
But who ten years ago would have though of scaling a server-farm as a search-databsae to such proportions before Google and others did it?
I mentioned Google just so one could understand that maybe the only thing preventing one from scaling to such dimensions is the fact that it's "unusual" and not because it's (wrongly though of as) undoable....
To the first point: that's why I mentioned copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS) solar panels. Production costs are a fraction of silicon panels since silicon in crystal form isn't needed anymore. see links in my original post. These are cheap to produce, see the links. It's only been around for about a year...
To the second: I'm not explicitly advocating solar or wind, those are just the final conclusions. I am saying that we need an alternative source scaled up to a continuous 500 GigaWatts a year. I'm not sure if nuclear can really last longer than 100 years since, reusing/refining first-iteration nuclear fuel leads to huge amounts of secondary contamination. Larger than in the first iteration. The efforts here will be huge, what's the impact to the environment (health costs of Americans) and security (more atomic reactors more trouble...). If nuclear works and it's real costs are lower then solar of wind, go for it. If we get viable Fusion, go for it. This is all on the basis of 500 GigaWatts*year.
Don't forget the rest of the world will want to step up fission power also, not everybody will do it as efficiently as we will. not everybody will be as carefull and clean as we will... so, are the costs then really lower?
To the third: birds are not in such danger. That's an emotional argument. Birds also fly into houses and windows. Should we stop building those? Birds are constantly being killed by domesticated cats. Get rid of cats? Birds are constantly being killed by planes. No more planes? Birds probably also fly into trees. No more tress? Heck, birds get muscles cramps and fall out of the sky. Magnesium pills for the birds and outlaw gravity? Anyway, who cares about the environmental costs of birds when weighing that against the enviromental risks of atomic energy or even the total societal cost of us not having a long term indepenent-of-outer-nations source of energy?
To the forth: I don't know if tidal power can supply Gigawatts per year of continuous energy....? And that without influencing the tides...?
I'm not an "environmentalist", but the warming effect is happening (no matter if it's natural or man-made) and if we don't do something, the economic costs will be staggering.
We attach lighting rods to our houses to avoid the high costs of damage from lighting. We finance high-tech medical research to combat natural diseases and illnesses. Old people wear casts after breaking their bones due to old age. We are seriously contemplating space missions to move incoming asteroids that would otherwise destroy civilization.
Why do we do all these "so very expensive" acts? Most of them are natural, why not just accept them and live (or most likely die) with it?
We do all these things no matter what the cause to alleviate the problem because we don't resign when the going gets tough. We want to live and need new frontiers. New challenges.
Global warming is a problem. It has to be treated. I think the only way to treat it is using huge amounts of energy for sequesteration, energy obtained from long-term reliable sources. At the same time these sources can be used a energy sources for society.
the final conclusion is essentially...
on
An Inconvenient Truth
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I have seen the movie; it is well done.
There are some conclusions that I think are inevitable...
The final ultimate conclusions is essentially:
Wind or solar energy-farms should be build in gargantuan scales.
If one is dubious about such large scaling, just think of Google, they use tens of thousands of
computers to power the search machine, all are centrally controlled and maintained.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, says it can't be done with energy-farms on colossal areas.
These farms are used for sequesteration and also as an energy source.
This does not depend on changing human nature, it will work and it will pay itself of.
All it needs is for someone to propagate the idea.
Runup to that conclusion:
Sadly recent news and statistics can let one only draw the
following conclusions:
it is not possible to change human habits
even if the first world nations reduce CO2 emmisions, the second and
third world nations will compensate by buying oil and coal no longer
being bought by first world nations [1]
for us as a developed and civilized world to (really don't want to sound
melodramatic) survive this, we will need to reduce CO2 levels in the
atmosphere.
As much as I would like humanity to finally change its habits and maybe become a bit more
conscious of itself as a whole: what I would like has little influence on what "is" ;
in particular little influence on 6 billion+ people... (e.g. China will likely overtake the
US concerning CO2 emmisions in 10 years...)
Since (1) will happen no matter what, reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere by reducing emmisions
will not be enough
the conclusion from (3): sequesteration of CO2
requirement: large amounts of energy
the amount of energy needed for (4) will be large, it cannot come from other
limited sources such as gas or atomic
thus it must come from renewable sources: wind, solar, tidal/water
(I exclude fusion since this is still too uncertain for the next 30 years)
no matter what the source of energy, the industry needed to provide the amounts of energy
will be huge,
it cannot only be used for sequesteration but also (obviously as an energy source)
a second conclusion of (1) is that humanity cannot change one of it's habits:
consumption of resources / pruduction of goods, both need energy;
if we cannot solve the problem by reducing consumption of energy,
then we solve the problem by producing more means of producing energy
based on (7) look for systems that have a positive energy return on energy investment
scale the good candidates to very large levels
basically I think (8) is the only way to go for humanity, (8) is then applied to (4)
examples of (8) can be found : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_energy_develop ment
first example:
a wind turbine produces enough energy for a bit more then 300 homes, the US has approx. 300 million citizens,
and maybe 80 million homes, thus 1000*1000 wind-turbines would supply enough energy
for all households and sequesteration of CO2
just lining them up next to each would not work since there is only so much wind availible,
spacing them at a distance of 1km to each other might work, thus one would need
1 million square kilometers, the US itself occupies 10 million square kilometers.
wind turbines could be setup on the same areas used for agriculture
the energy return on energy investment is more than twenty-fold,
amortization after approx. 3 years.
Amount of time to build: decades
a further maybe quicker to implement example for (8) would be to create large industries
that create huge amounts of solar panels, not based on silicon but instead
on the energy/resources-cheaper version: copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS) solar panels [2]
[3] claims th
"The cadmium atom that has lost an electron becomes a negatively charged ion, which can then be controlled with an electrical field," said Daniel Stick, a doctoral student in the University of Michigan's physics department who participated in the work.
either the doctoral student goofed or the writer and editors of the story really don't know the simplest thing about charges in an atom...
come on people, 200+ comments on slashdot and nobody complains about this trivial mistake?
so what you're saying is the "indeterminate state"
in the case of the entangled photons means that
their states had not been "set" yet?
I have always been boggled how "indeterminate state" was to be understood.
If it meant the particle has a state that simply has not been meassured yet?
Or if it meant the state of the particle has not been (for lack of a better word) "set" yet?
As a simple analog it can be compared to multplying an unknown number with -1. It flips the sign but it doesn't set the sign or determine the value.
So the grandparents question remains open... what is "entanglement"?
This isn't a new question/dilemma, Einstein didn't like it and called it "spooky action".
It boils down to the question what is an "indeterminate state"?
does it mean the particle has a spin that simply has not been meassured yet?
or does it mean the spin of the particle has not been (for lack of a better word) "set" yet?
does it mean the particle has a spin that simply has not been meassured yet?
or does it mean the spin of the particle has not been (for lack of a better word) "set" yet?
Saying one thing:
Although two entangled systems can interact across large spatial separations,...
and then another:... no useful information can be transmitted in this way,
If the particles are interacting then information is being transmitted.
To say that it's not usefull is more of a copout.
It is just maybe not yet possible for us to meassure some kind information while keeping the particles in an indeterminate state (e.g. without meassuring the spin state).
(Of course what Wiki authors write has no bearing on reality, it could be that the spin states are set, which is also the simplest explanation.)
in a way you're repeating the last sentence of my previous post:
I suppose that would mean that the spin shouldn't be determinable from the emitted photon, otherwise that would equal a measurement...
I understand that the manipulation doesn't get to lead to a way of deducing the spin. Of course "cares" don't influence reality, it was a figure of speach. cool down.
I was assuming that the manipulation would not equal a meassurement, and it seems there are ways to do so as the my "neighbour-poster" explained.
other. Google search "Quantum Entanglement" yielded this: (from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/)
In the second part of the paper, Schrödinger showed that, in general, a sophisticated experimenter can, by a suitable choice of operations carried out on one system, steer the second system into any 'mixture' of quantum states he chooses, i.e., not steer the system into any one particular state, but constrain the state into which the system evolves to lie in a given set, and at the same time fix the probabilities with which the system evolves into the states from the given set. He found this conclusion sufficiently unsettling to suggest that the entanglement between two separating systems would persist only for distances small enough that the time taken by light to travel from one system to the other could be neglected, compared with the characteristic time periods associated with other changes in the composite system. He speculated that for longer distances each of the two systems might in fact be in a state associated with a certain mixture, determined by the precise form of the entangled state.
What you're saying is that the spin is already determined and *not* yet undetermined? I've never quite known what to think about that. I would, as you suggest, also prefer the theoretical construct notion. But it seems this is not yet clear...?
Although two entangled systems can interact across large spatial separations,...
but goes on to say:
... no useful information can be transmitted in this way,...
That may seem screwball, but doesn't simply flipping the spin effect the other entangled particle? Would it also flip?
If so, would it give off any measurable signal (a photon)?
I don't care about determining the spins of the particles (and hope they stay undeterminable), I just care about making them repeatedly give of signals at selected time intervalls...
(I suppose that would mean that the spin shouldn't be determinable from the emitted photon, otherwise that would equal a measurement...)
as I understand it, the entanglement effect only concerns the yet undecided spin before/during the first measurement which leads to the spin of the *other* entangled electron being determined at the same time. ("same time" can be tricky...)
An explanation for this interaction taking place has been to say that the two not connected objects are actually still connected... just not connected in space but some sort of "phase-space"...
My question now is: are they still connected afterwards! They should be, shouldn't they??
If the spin can be willyfully changed that could mean instantaneous transmission of data...
Since there is no free lunch this problably will not work... either because the entanglement is only valid for one measurement or it was never there.
I wouldn't be surprised if the entanglment effect is just a theoretical construct to make modelling reality easier...
There were a lot of irrational nrs there.
But, they were nothing compared to all the new-age transcedental hippy nrs hanging around. Woowee they'd never stop spouting of their nrs and flashing you their digits.
what if, what if, what if an apple!=an apple
on
Math Awareness Month
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Short answer: it doesn't matter.
Long answer:
Mathematics is based on the basic rules we have inferred from observing reality.
If somehow reality changed, then we would infer other basic rules.
IOW Mathematics is about inferring basic rules and then building on top of these rules to come to (interesting) conclusions.
There will always be certain basic rules as long as you are in a system where you can make differenciable observations.
What you asked is a bit philosophy and a bit silly and unfortunately in the tone of anti-science ideologues (sorry).
I'll explain:
I haven't seen any compelling proof that the cosmos IS mathematical.
What is that supposed to mean?!
Mathematics is not a religious ideology or cult. It is a though process. Reality simply "is". No matter what you're compelled to believe in, reality will not change.
... happen in a post-mathematical phase of human understanding ofthe cosmos.
what is that supposed to mean!?
"post-mathematical" phase... that might be something somebody would say that has no idea what math is.... I already explained the basics on the top. As long as people will be setting up rules to live with reality, they will be practicing math. After that, it's all just a matter of who has the better math.
If someone always gets shortchanged at the market-place of reality because their "post-mathematical" view of the reality of counting credits is farther advanced than the grocers, then they aren't going to get very much farther on the enlightment road. They also aren't going to get very far in a space ship in cold vacuum if they can't model harsh reality well. There is no such thing as debating, convincing or coming to a consensus with reality. It is does what it does and doesn't care what you think.
I'm so wrapped up in and surrounded by the mathematical model, that it seems irrefutable. But a look at history provides a proud narrative of ingenious folly.
I really don't know what to think... are you being pleasantly open-minded and just wondering out loud or (I've heard this kind of talk before) do you have an anti-scientific agenda to push here?
If our models or reality are wrong, then they will simply be adjusted to fit reality better. But the though process, the process of trying, testing, proposing, refuting, accepting or even simply calling BS will always stay.
Netwons models of force and gravity turned out to not always work. We still use them because they usually work well enough. In the extreme cases Einsteins modifications of his models are used.
Did science change after modifying the models? No. The process of science was to change the models because the modifications worked better.
I don't know how old you are or what level classes you referred to, but if you really liked it that much, then take some more classes. If you're good enough at it, then you will really like:
Analysis, Number Theory and Function Theory
Like any other discipline, once you grasp the basics , admiring the cleverness and hacks of the people in that discipline can be very awe inspiring.
Math is an intimidating discipline, usually because many things have to be thought out thoroughly. Proofs can sometimes be very long.
An incredible part is when you find or learn about alternative proofs. The ones that are only a few lines, that at the core contain a clever new idea that for some strange reason had eluded everyone for ages.
In a way math and mathematical proofs are like lock-picking. In the worst case you have to use a drill or explosives, in the best cases - the cases that are always hoped to be found - the are ways to open the vault by listening, maybe using a magnet or string and giving it a final kick.
how are they gonna wiretap "ssh-tunnels"?
on
VoIP Wiretapping
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
now necessarily using "ssh" but everyone should know how that is meant...
as soon as the VOIP software offers encrpytion plugins on both side of the line, wiretapping is just as feasable as reading encrypted email or viewing ssh-terminal sessions...
this won't work... the most likely thing that will happen is that the service providers will leave the country. Or worse, that companies outside will be more competitive and push local companies out of the market.
What's to prevent a company in India from making this software for willing costumers to use?
Keyword: multiphase flows, fluid-fluid interaction
on
Bang But No Splash
·
· Score: 2, Informative
What would be great is to check this phenomenon out with computer simulation.
That's exactly the first thing I thought of. And this begs to be simulated.
It might be tough to set up though, since you'd have to deal with a compressible gas phase and incompressible fluid phase, and keep track of the fluid surface to account for surface tension.
You pretty much described what is done.
The Navier-Stokes equations for compresible and incompressible fluids are used. But in this case air-compression is so low, that incompressiblity could be assumed. All of the difficulty here is tracking the surface and maintaining surface tension. From the equations you can read that the surface tension will depend on two things: pressure jump and the jump of the normal derivative of the fluid velocity. Possibly an artificial surface tension could be added that depended on the change of curvature of the interface surface.
I'm sure it could be done though. Axisymmetric simulation would probably be fine to start off.
Only recently, the preferred approach to date uses a method called the level set method. Here the interface is explcitly tracked. Problems arise here because originally the numerical methods and underlying mathematics that are used weren't set up for changing domains i.e. changing differential equations in the middle of a discrete spacial cell in (a finite element).
that's what a lot of the comments here seem to be missing.
There is no such thing as inherently "good" or "bad", to say a mutation is good or bad is to imply someone is evaluating, we know were that idea leads off to...
(If we didn't have mutations, we'd all still be one-celled *g*)
No, if the offspring has a different gene than both of the parents, one must conclude that the source of the gene is not what one expected!
A present theory is that the un-mutated DNA came from the RNA of the parents. The RNA of the parent s did not (yet) contain the mutation. (Since the parents got those from the their parents).
It was also said that still 90% of the offspring contained the mutated genes. That means the parents RNA only sometimes had influence... (IANAB)
So, the theory is testing the idea that the RNA could be serving an additional role as a bad backup copy of the DNA.
In a way you could call this meddling of the grandparents in the parents lives, "telling" them how to raise their children, heh heh
What was reported is that although there were mutations in the DNA of the plant, its siblings didn't have them anymore. The researcher said that the best theory at the moment is that the non-mutated DNA was coming from the RNA of the plant. IANAB, but I think RNA usually is though to serve only a functional "middle man" role betweeen the genetic code and the cell machinery, and not actively involved in reproduction...
He did not say that the plant was actively fixing its DNA for its offspring.
The non-mutated RNA was itself directly inherted from the parents. In a way the RNA has become a bad backup copy of the DNA. That's the present theory... I guess this is what they'll start looking for... "Bad backup copy" since still 90% of the offspring of the plant still contained the mutated DNA.
Slashdot Mirror
Are they put under surveillance?
Following this (well meant yet broken) logic, it would be only a small step...
/ Visit the UK: a CCTV at every corner and on every bedpost
and for all deniers I provide this practical list, pick your poison:
Science is a system and culture based on open discourse, accountability and merit. A culture that strives for good science should also honour these values in itself.
We will need a new source of energy that is of the order 500 GigaWatts*year. I don't really care where it comes from, as long as it's efficient and reliable and can be done in the order of decades. We are building solar energy farms in California the produce 700 MegaWatts*year, expandable to 1 GigaWatt*year. Why not scale that up?
Are the total strains to society/environment and costs of energy-investment of building, maintaining and shutting down nuclear reactors lower? If yes, then do that instead. I don't care where the energy comes from if it's total real costs are lower.
But who ten years ago would have though of scaling a server-farm as a search-databsae to such proportions before Google and others did it?
I mentioned Google just so one could understand that maybe the only thing preventing one from scaling to such dimensions is the fact that it's "unusual" and not because it's (wrongly though of as) undoable....
To the second: I'm not explicitly advocating solar or wind, those are just the final conclusions. I am saying that we need an alternative source scaled up to a continuous 500 GigaWatts a year. I'm not sure if nuclear can really last longer than 100 years since, reusing/refining first-iteration nuclear fuel leads to huge amounts of secondary contamination. Larger than in the first iteration. The efforts here will be huge, what's the impact to the environment (health costs of Americans) and security (more atomic reactors more trouble...). If nuclear works and it's real costs are lower then solar of wind, go for it. If we get viable Fusion, go for it. This is all on the basis of 500 GigaWatts*year.
Don't forget the rest of the world will want to step up fission power also, not everybody will do it as efficiently as we will. not everybody will be as carefull and clean as we will... so, are the costs then really lower?
To the third: birds are not in such danger. That's an emotional argument. Birds also fly into houses and windows. Should we stop building those? Birds are constantly being killed by domesticated cats. Get rid of cats? Birds are constantly being killed by planes. No more planes? Birds probably also fly into trees. No more tress? Heck, birds get muscles cramps and fall out of the sky. Magnesium pills for the birds and outlaw gravity? Anyway, who cares about the environmental costs of birds when weighing that against the enviromental risks of atomic energy or even the total societal cost of us not having a long term indepenent-of-outer-nations source of energy?
To the forth: I don't know if tidal power can supply Gigawatts per year of continuous energy....? And that without influencing the tides...?
I'm not an "environmentalist", but the warming effect is happening (no matter if it's natural or man-made) and if we don't do something, the economic costs will be staggering.
We attach lighting rods to our houses to avoid the high costs of damage from lighting. We finance high-tech medical research to combat natural diseases and illnesses. Old people wear casts after breaking their bones due to old age. We are seriously contemplating space missions to move incoming asteroids that would otherwise destroy civilization.
Why do we do all these "so very expensive" acts? Most of them are natural, why not just accept them and live (or most likely die) with it?
We do all these things no matter what the cause to alleviate the problem because we don't resign when the going gets tough. We want to live and need new frontiers. New challenges.
Global warming is a problem. It has to be treated. I think the only way to treat it is using huge amounts of energy for sequesteration, energy obtained from long-term reliable sources. At the same time these sources can be used a energy sources for society.
There are some conclusions that I think are inevitable... The final ultimate conclusions is essentially:
Nothing, absolutely nothing, says it can't be done with energy-farms on colossal areas. These farms are used for sequesteration and also as an energy source. This does not depend on changing human nature, it will work and it will pay itself of. All it needs is for someone to propagate the idea.
Runup to that conclusion:
Sadly recent news and statistics can let one only draw the following conclusions:
come on people, 200+ comments on slashdot and nobody complains about this trivial mistake?
I have always been boggled how "indeterminate state" was to be understood.
If it meant the particle has a state that simply has not been meassured yet?
Or if it meant the state of the particle has not been (for lack of a better word) "set" yet?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=151085&cid=126 72458
As a simple analog it can be compared to multplying an unknown number with -1. It flips the sign but it doesn't set the sign or determine the value.
So the grandparents question remains open... what is "entanglement"? This isn't a new question/dilemma, Einstein didn't like it and called it "spooky action".
It boils down to the question what is an "indeterminate state"?
does it mean the particle has a spin that simply has not been meassured yet?
or does it mean the spin of the particle has not been (for lack of a better word) "set" yet?
or does it mean the spin of the particle has not been (for lack of a better word) "set" yet?
The Wiki authors aren't clear about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
Saying one thing: Although two entangled systems can interact across large spatial separations, ... ... no useful information can be transmitted in this way,
and then another:
If the particles are interacting then information is being transmitted. To say that it's not usefull is more of a copout. It is just maybe not yet possible for us to meassure some kind information while keeping the particles in an indeterminate state (e.g. without meassuring the spin state).
(Of course what Wiki authors write has no bearing on reality, it could be that the spin states are set, which is also the simplest explanation.)
I suppose that would mean that the spin shouldn't be determinable from the emitted photon, otherwise that would equal a measurement...
I understand that the manipulation doesn't get to lead to a way of deducing the spin. Of course "cares" don't influence reality, it was a figure of speach. cool down.
I was assuming that the manipulation would not equal a meassurement, and it seems there are ways to do so as the my "neighbour-poster" explained.
What you're saying is that the spin is already determined and *not* yet undetermined? I've never quite known what to think about that. I would, as you suggest, also prefer the theoretical construct notion. But it seems this is not yet clear...?
The author of the Wiki page actually begs to differ:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entang lement
and implies that the entangled particles do
interact :
Although two entangled systems can interact across large spatial separations,what about flipping the spin before measuring?
That may seem screwball, but doesn't simply flipping the spin effect the other entangled particle? Would it also flip? If so, would it give off any measurable signal (a photon)?
I don't care about determining the spins of the particles (and hope they stay undeterminable), I just care about making them repeatedly give of signals at selected time intervalls...
(I suppose that would mean that the spin shouldn't be determinable from the emitted photon, otherwise that would equal a measurement...)
An explanation for this interaction taking place has been to say that the two not connected objects are actually still connected... just not connected in space but some sort of "phase-space" ...
My question now is: are they still connected afterwards! They should be, shouldn't they??
If the spin can be willyfully changed that could mean instantaneous transmission of data...
Since there is no free lunch this problably will not work... either because the entanglement is only valid for one measurement or it was never there. I wouldn't be surprised if the entanglment effect is just a theoretical construct to make modelling reality easier...
There were a lot of irrational nrs there. But, they were nothing compared to all the new-age transcedental hippy nrs hanging around. Woowee they'd never stop spouting of their nrs and flashing you their digits.
Long answer: Mathematics is based on the basic rules we have inferred from observing reality. If somehow reality changed, then we would infer other basic rules.
IOW Mathematics is about inferring basic rules and then building on top of these rules to come to (interesting) conclusions.
There will always be certain basic rules as long as you are in a system where you can make differenciable observations.
What you asked is a bit philosophy and a bit silly and unfortunately in the tone of anti-science ideologues (sorry).
I'll explain:
-
I haven't seen any compelling proof that the cosmos IS mathematical.
-
... happen in a post-mathematical phase of human understanding ofthe cosmos.
-
I'm so wrapped up in and surrounded by the mathematical model, that it seems irrefutable. But a look at history provides a proud narrative of ingenious folly.
Netwons models of force and gravity turned out to not always work. We still use them because they usually work well enough. In the extreme cases Einsteins modifications of his models are used.What is that supposed to mean?!
Mathematics is not a religious ideology or cult. It is a though process. Reality simply "is". No matter what you're compelled to believe in, reality will not change.
what is that supposed to mean!? .... I already explained the basics on the top. As long as people will be setting up rules to live with reality, they will be practicing math. After that, it's all just a matter of who has the better math.
"post-mathematical" phase... that might be something somebody would say that has no idea what math is
If someone always gets shortchanged at the market-place of reality because their "post-mathematical" view of the reality of counting credits is farther advanced than the grocers, then they aren't going to get very much farther on the enlightment road. They also aren't going to get very far in a space ship in cold vacuum if they can't model harsh reality well. There is no such thing as debating, convincing or coming to a consensus with reality. It is does what it does and doesn't care what you think.
I really don't know what to think... are you being pleasantly open-minded and just wondering out loud or (I've heard this kind of talk before) do you have an anti-scientific agenda to push here?
If our models or reality are wrong, then they will simply be adjusted to fit reality better. But the though process, the process of trying, testing, proposing, refuting, accepting or even simply calling BS will always stay.
Did science change after modifying the models? No. The process of science was to change the models because the modifications worked better.
Analysis, Number Theory and Function Theory
Like any other discipline, once you grasp the basics , admiring the cleverness and hacks of the people in that discipline can be very awe inspiring.
Math is an intimidating discipline, usually because many things have to be thought out thoroughly. Proofs can sometimes be very long. An incredible part is when you find or learn about alternative proofs. The ones that are only a few lines, that at the core contain a clever new idea that for some strange reason had eluded everyone for ages.
In a way math and mathematical proofs are like lock-picking. In the worst case you have to use a drill or explosives, in the best cases - the cases that are always hoped to be found - the are ways to open the vault by listening, maybe using a magnet or string and giving it a final kick.
as soon as the VOIP software offers encrpytion plugins on both side of the line, wiretapping is just as feasable as reading encrypted email or viewing ssh-terminal sessions...
this won't work... the most likely thing that will happen is that the service providers will leave the country. Or worse, that companies outside will be more competitive and push local companies out of the market.
What's to prevent a company in India from making this software for willing costumers to use?
That's exactly the first thing I thought of. And this begs to be simulated.
It might be tough to set up though, since you'd have to deal with a compressible gas phase and incompressible fluid phase, and keep track of the fluid surface to account for surface tension.
You pretty much described what is done. The Navier-Stokes equations for compresible and incompressible fluids are used. But in this case air-compression is so low, that incompressiblity could be assumed. All of the difficulty here is tracking the surface and maintaining surface tension. From the equations you can read that the surface tension will depend on two things: pressure jump and the jump of the normal derivative of the fluid velocity. Possibly an artificial surface tension could be added that depended on the change of curvature of the interface surface.
I'm sure it could be done though. Axisymmetric simulation would probably be fine to start off.
Only recently, the preferred approach to date uses a method called the level set method. Here the interface is explcitly tracked. Problems arise here because originally the numerical methods and underlying mathematics that are used weren't set up for changing domains i.e. changing differential equations in the middle of a discrete spacial cell in (a finite element).
There is no such thing as inherently "good" or "bad", to say a mutation is good or bad is to imply someone is evaluating, we know were that idea leads off to... (If we didn't have mutations, we'd all still be one-celled *g*)
No, if the offspring has a different gene than both of the parents, one must conclude that the source of the gene is not what one expected!
A present theory is that the un-mutated DNA came from the RNA of the parents. The RNA of the parent s did not (yet) contain the mutation. (Since the parents got those from the their parents).
It was also said that still 90% of the offspring contained the mutated genes. That means the parents RNA only sometimes had influence... (IANAB)
So, the theory is testing the idea that the RNA could be serving an additional role as a bad backup copy of the DNA.
In a way you could call this meddling of the grandparents in the parents lives, "telling" them how to raise their children, heh heh
What was reported is that although there were mutations in the DNA of the plant, its siblings didn't have them anymore. The researcher said that the best theory at the moment is that the non-mutated DNA was coming from the RNA of the plant. IANAB, but I think RNA usually is though to serve only a functional "middle man" role betweeen the genetic code and the cell machinery, and not actively involved in reproduction...
He did not say that the plant was actively fixing its DNA for its offspring.
The non-mutated RNA was itself directly inherted from the parents. In a way the RNA has become a bad backup copy of the DNA. That's the present theory... I guess this is what they'll start looking for... "Bad backup copy" since still 90% of the offspring of the plant still contained the mutated DNA.
wow, very nicely written!
discworld of course, heh heh
by a factor of 2.5:
* blu-ray : 2
* hd-dvd : 5