R is related to the metric. In layman's terms, the metric is related to how space and time bend. Picture a sheet of elastic graph paper. Now picture deforming it. R tells you how the lines on the graph paper change from one region to another.
Unfortunately, I do not know what the author of the top level parent was talking about.
I'm taking an intro GR course right now at my school. I would be totally lost if I wasn't able to ask my professor questions. This online course doesn't provide real-time interactions. They provide two e-mail addresses, but I'm not sure that would be enough for most students.
"The proton is the simplest thing around, and it is not spherical," says physicist Charles Glashausser of the Rutgers University campus in Piscataway, N.J.
Either USA Today took him completely out of context, or I just lost all of my respect for Rutgers campus in Piscataway. I don't think anyone who has studied physics for a few years, let alone a physics professor, would ever say that a proton is "simple."
When will "reputable" news sources ever write articles that don't dumb down physics until it's just plain wrong?
It's still one computer, one number. It cuts down the list of total numbers, but 200+ iterations will do that anyway.
The only thing I can think of is breaking the number down in chunks. Take the first m digits and the last m digits and produce a new set of digits. The ends of the sequences are "fuzzy" because a lesser significant digit could carry. A central computer would assemble the digits from different sources and check.
This is clearly not a solution. It takes too much effort to organize this.
Quantum computer science is still in its infancy. There are some algorithms out there which operate much quicker than their classical counterparts (e.g. factoring, searching). There are others that are impossible. For instance, it is impossible to copy a qubit.
This book is pretty good. It's used at my university to teach an intro course in quantum computing.
This confused me the first time I read it too. They aren't proposing a distributed "help us find the end of the 196 problem" program. They are proposing a "let's all find more numbers like 196" program.
Although I am interested in knowing whether or not a distributed 196p program could exist. CS and mathematicians, is it possible?
He has put his name on the website. Several times. It's Wade VanLandingham. Check the milestones page. He also searches for the numeric expression for his name in the numbers that result from the additions.
That's assuming you want to retrieve your attack tool after you've left it their. Like they said in the article, it's easy to get into a company for 1 or 2 minutes. It's probably harder to go back in and get what you've left.
Why can't they just add that into the article? It seems to me that these articles are just out there to introduce the new buzzwords that the author just learned.
BTW, wasn't it found from the "closing of the solar neutrino problem" that neutrinos do undergo flavor fluctuations? Didn't that make this experiment pointless?
As far as the standard model goes, all elementary particles are point particles. There are several problems with that. You pointed out one. Another is simultaneity of interactions for different observers.
String theory demands a minimum non-zero size for all of it's constituents (except for 0-branes, which are point particles and are part of M-theory).
This has been bothering me for a while. Science articles for layman always seem to gloss over it. Regardless of whether or not a neutrino has rest mass, wouldn't it still contribute to "dark matter"? Einstein told us that the curvature of the universe is determined by the mass and energy density in a given region. A neutrino, just like a photon, contributes to the overall "mass" of the universe.
This article is a bit better than others. Most other "neutrino mass" articles simply say that if a neutrino has mass (assume rest mass), it's path will be deflected by the gravitational pull of the earth. Granted, if a particle has rest mass it will be deflected orders of magnitude more than a photon (rest-massless), but a photon will still be deflected. This article says "if they do have mass, they'll be altered on the voyage from Chicago to Minnesota by a process that can only act on particles that respond to gravity." I don't know of any "process" other than gravity that "can only act on particles that respond to gravity."
My point is that something is being left out of all of these articles, or maybe I am always missing something. If anyone can help me out, I would greatly appreciate it.
Ah.... but they're simulating big things. Big things are easier to simulate than little things, not harder.
Not exactly true. Simulating large systems with the same level of accuracy as small systems is definitely harder. They will probably making a perturbative analysis of climate as opposed to asking where every single Nitrogen molecule will be.
A hammer and a feather will not fall at the same rate on any planet... ever, even in the presence of a vacuum.
Here's the really quick proof:
F=ma
A mass accelerates proportional to the force acting on it.
F=GMm/r^2
The force of gravity is proportional to the product of the masses, the gravitational constant and inversely proportional to the square of the distance.
Equating the two we find that a=GM/r^2. The accelaration of the object is proportional only to the gravitational constant, the mass it's being attracted to, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance.
Therefore, everything falls at the same speed. But this is wrong.
This is where most people stop. The analysis must be repeated for both masses (m and M). If the feather is m1, the hammer is m2 and the earth is M, the hammer and the feather both fall at GM/r^2. But the earth accelerates toward the hammer at Gm2/r^2 and it accelerates toward the feather at Gm1/r^2. Since m1 m2, the earth accelerates faster toward the hammer. Instantaneously, accelarations sum, so, in the rest frame of the earth, the hammer accelerates at G(M+m2)/r^2 and the feather at G(M+m1)/r^2.
The company that I work for has over 1000 servers. We are also limited to 8 characters. The convention we use is 2-3-3.
2 - Data Center 3 - Function 3 - Number.
We started using this convention before we had multiple data centers. Granted, we are limited to 1000 servers of each type at each data center, but that is plenty for our needs. Whatever you end up choosing, always remember to plan for scalability. You may run out of namespace before you run out of servers, and then you have to break convention.
Slashdot Mirror
R is related to the metric. In layman's terms, the metric is related to how space and time bend. Picture a sheet of elastic graph paper. Now picture deforming it. R tells you how the lines on the graph paper change from one region to another.
Unfortunately, I do not know what the author of the top level parent was talking about.
Where did you see this? If you give a little context, maybe someone will be able to help you.
I'm taking an intro GR course right now at my school. I would be totally lost if I wasn't able to ask my professor questions. This online course doesn't provide real-time interactions. They provide two e-mail addresses, but I'm not sure that would be enough for most students.
My favorite part is:
"The proton is the simplest thing around, and it is not spherical," says physicist Charles Glashausser of the Rutgers University campus in Piscataway, N.J.
Either USA Today took him completely out of context, or I just lost all of my respect for Rutgers campus in Piscataway. I don't think anyone who has studied physics for a few years, let alone a physics professor, would ever say that a proton is "simple."
When will "reputable" news sources ever write articles that don't dumb down physics until it's just plain wrong?
The only thing I can think of is breaking the number down in chunks. Take the first m digits and the last m digits and produce a new set of digits. The ends of the sequences are "fuzzy" because a lesser significant digit could carry. A central computer would assemble the digits from different sources and check.
This is clearly not a solution. It takes too much effort to organize this.
I hate it when a good joke gets modded "Off-topic" because one person doesn't get it.
This book is pretty good. It's used at my university to teach an intro course in quantum computing.
Although I am interested in knowing whether or not a distributed 196p program could exist. CS and mathematicians, is it possible?
Before any of you start posting that 196 is not a palindrome in base-197, think about what 10 through 15 are in hex.
He has put his name on the website. Several times. It's Wade VanLandingham. Check the milestones page. He also searches for the numeric expression for his name in the numbers that result from the additions.
Martian trailer parks, beware...
Why not? CDs still exist now.
"I'm an obese planet stuck inside a fat planet's body."
That's assuming you want to retrieve your attack tool after you've left it their. Like they said in the article, it's easy to get into a company for 1 or 2 minutes. It's probably harder to go back in and get what you've left.
Not according to management.
Why can't they just add that into the article? It seems to me that these articles are just out there to introduce the new buzzwords that the author just learned.
BTW, wasn't it found from the "closing of the solar neutrino problem" that neutrinos do undergo flavor fluctuations? Didn't that make this experiment pointless?
String theory demands a minimum non-zero size for all of it's constituents (except for 0-branes, which are point particles and are part of M-theory).
This article is a bit better than others. Most other "neutrino mass" articles simply say that if a neutrino has mass (assume rest mass), it's path will be deflected by the gravitational pull of the earth. Granted, if a particle has rest mass it will be deflected orders of magnitude more than a photon (rest-massless), but a photon will still be deflected. This article says "if they do have mass, they'll be altered on the voyage from Chicago to Minnesota by a process that can only act on particles that respond to gravity." I don't know of any "process" other than gravity that "can only act on particles that respond to gravity."
My point is that something is being left out of all of these articles, or maybe I am always missing something. If anyone can help me out, I would greatly appreciate it.
Don't forget that this argument is "mute".
Not exactly true. Simulating large systems with the same level of accuracy as small systems is definitely harder. They will probably making a perturbative analysis of climate as opposed to asking where every single Nitrogen molecule will be.
Here's the really quick proof:
F=ma
A mass accelerates proportional to the force acting on it.
F=GMm/r^2
The force of gravity is proportional to the product of the masses, the gravitational constant and inversely proportional to the square of the distance.
Equating the two we find that a=GM/r^2. The accelaration of the object is proportional only to the gravitational constant, the mass it's being attracted to, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance.
Therefore, everything falls at the same speed. But this is wrong.
This is where most people stop. The analysis must be repeated for both masses (m and M). If the feather is m1, the hammer is m2 and the earth is M, the hammer and the feather both fall at GM/r^2. But the earth accelerates toward the hammer at Gm2/r^2 and it accelerates toward the feather at Gm1/r^2. Since m1 m2, the earth accelerates faster toward the hammer. Instantaneously, accelarations sum, so, in the rest frame of the earth, the hammer accelerates at G(M+m2)/r^2 and the feather at G(M+m1)/r^2.
The company that I work for has over 1000 servers. We are also limited to 8 characters. The convention we use is 2-3-3.
2 - Data Center
3 - Function
3 - Number.
We started using this convention before we had multiple data centers. Granted, we are limited to 1000 servers of each type at each data center, but that is plenty for our needs. Whatever you end up choosing, always remember to plan for scalability. You may run out of namespace before you run out of servers, and then you have to break convention.
I think that this might have applications in MEMS technology.