..The problem with these people is that their movie clips are waaaay too large. They could reduce their movie file sizes by a factor of 5. I am sure that would alleviate some of the pressure on their server... Has noone pointed this out to them?
A little internet research here reveals that Gold is full of it. First of all, if his thermodynamic explanation of "light pressure" is correct then the Crookes radiometer should stop rotating after a few seconds (once the black side reaches thermal equilibrium and the veins slow down under the influences of friction). Secondly the obvious question is this: If Reynold's explanation is INcorrect(and Gold is right) then the Crookes radiometer should rotate the "wrong" way even in a perfect vacuum. But guess what: Pyotr Lebedev did the experiment in 1901, creating a sufficiently good vacuum, and the thing rotated the "correct" way (according to the photon model of light). In sum, without resorting to complicated explanations of what is going on (Reynolds etc...) the experimental evidence clearly indicates that Gold is wrong.
Viewing a mirror in terms of thermodynamics is clearly a misconception. What I wonder is: How did this guy get to be quoted in New Scientist? Or should I not be wondering these things?
Okay, so should I elaborate the points a little? Here goes...
Recognise that science and politics are inseparable. What do I mean? I do not mean that science depends on politics, or that politics depends on science. I would say that there is a multi-level exchange between science and society. Each needs the other to exist as it does today. Native Americans (North Americans, not Aztecs, Toltecs etc...) for example has no need for science as we know it today. Bows and arrows did the job fine. And if you argue that they would have progressed to guns in the fullness of time, I would argue "no". From what I can see, their social structure was such that they remained in equilibrium with their environment deliberately and by choice. They never had a need for such "progress". But I digress. Point is that science defines us. I look at my desk and everything from the magnetic miniDV tapes to the LCD screen have been built on the physics research of the last two centuries: So with a little more thought, let me rephrase the first statement to something like this: Recognise that society, science and politics have become inseparable. That it is impossible to turn the clock back, but just as our ancestors used science to place us out of equilibrium with our environment, so we can also consciously choose to use science for the good of humanity and that such a choice cannot work without the active participation of scientists. Namely the education of society, the policing of their intellectual property --- ensuring that it remains the intellectual property of all humanity, and their active participation in society and politics.
Point 2: I think if it does spark an arms race, but scientists of both sides continue to subvert the process by sharing information, the arms race would not last for very long at all. It would become a farce.
Point 3: Tricky, I agree. I agree that money is the problem. Let me elaborate by means of example. The idea of atomic fission existed before the Manhattan Project. It should have been used to produce nuclear powerstations, not bombs. Instead some scientists continued to work on bombs of more and more destructive power. Edward Teller for example, who was definitely NOT motivated by money, more by irrational fear in my opinion. Typical of a physicist who did not think beyond the immediate consequences of his actions. That choice should have been consciously made a long time ago and yes, it would have diminished the money going to physics, but so what?
Last point: Where's the money? The money lies in having a market to sell stuff to. You can sell them jack shit when they are all dead. *Duh*
With regards to "I can build a cheaper, faster machine" sort of claims. Let me make an analogy. I like to build and fly RC gliders. It gives me pleasure to spend 300 hours constructing one. It is also cheaper than buying a completed aeroplane from the shop. And although my craftsmanship probably does not match the pre-built ones, I can make a pretty "fast" glider. Likewise some people like to build their own computers. Its not only cheaper, but fun and you have the freedom to make a system up to your own specifications.
On the other hand, I own a mac. I paid the extra money (and I am a student) because not only do I have NO CLUE how to put a PC together, but I do not choose to waste my time trying to find out. Likewise, I want a system which works. I don't care if your PC is faster than my Mac, I want a system which does not crash when I am in the middle of writing my thesis or processing my video data. No crash, EVER.
Back to the analogy. The only point where it breaks down is that I never post to RC forums saying
"I can build an RC glider which is cheaper and faster than your shop built glider"
Such a statement would be preposterous and it is equally ridiculous to see such statements about computers on/.
It seems that there have been very few comments about the really "big issue" behind this: Namely the interplay between science and politics. There has been a lot of preaching from the pulpit by American scientists, condemning their third world counterparts for getting involved in scientific projects which may lead to biological weapons etc, etc, etc... I find this arrogance utterly disgusting (the main reason I left physics myself).
Does it really make it better that America has WMD's and other countries do not? I think this is the height of racial arrogance to think that Americans are such superiour beings: that they know how to use this power "justly" or "righteously" and others who have this power are branded "psychopaths" etc etc. No, I think Americans are no different from any other human beings. I think they are equally evil and corrupted by power, but this is not my main point.
The point is that (contrary to what most scientists think) science and politics are inherently intertwined. From the time Galileo realised how projectiles moved, scientists have made the bombs, aimed the guns, designed the infrastracture and all the other things which provide governments and people with power. The power not only to make their own lives better, but the power to take from those who do not have the technical know-how. In turn governments provide the funds and the scientists flock like moths to a flame, unconcerned about the consequences of their actions.
I think it is time for scientists of all types and from all over the world to make a stand along roughly the following principles:
Recognise that science and politics are inseparable.
Agree to share all information relating to the design of any weapon which may endanger humanity (like hypersonic bombers).
If at all possible refuse to work on research areas which would endanger humanity
Freely share all information relating to products which are being used for unfair commercial gain. (The current situation with AIDS drugs which most African countries cannot afford is a good example of this).
Of course everything I have written here is a utopian fantasy. So go ahead and shoot it down. But just remember that there are not my ideas. I think Albert Einstein and Robert Oppenheimer would have at least partially agreed with all the points I made above.
Well, are you really surprised when the education system seems to deliberately NOT teach people to think? I think what you described above is a rather poor inditement of your mother's teaching don't you think? Especially since she is a science teacher and surely science is the field in which epistemologically sound reasoning is paramount? Scientists are meant to question, reason with evidence and control groups and so on. Hmm, although research shows of course that they are incapable of transferring this reasoning to areas outside their area of expertise, but that is another story...
I am not a metallurgist I am afraid. But I am pretty sure you are wrong about the low temperature pliability. I am a cyclist and ride an aluminium bike. I have been in hot conditions where the road surface temperature was probably on the order of 120F. If the frame started to get pliable I think I would have noticed. Basically I'm thinking like this: As temperature increases, elongation goes up (A big factor in bicycle metallurgy) and if you keep going eventually the metal is going to become "pliable". As I said: if such things as aluminium bikes exist, I am sure there is little danger that you are close to the range of "pliable" at 120F.
I don't think you are entirely correct. First of all, IBM manufactures the G3 as far as I know. Secondly rumour has it that the G3 can go much much faster than it currently does. Apple does not buy faster G3's from IBM because it would look rather silly if your G3 had a higher clock-rate than your G4. (This is ignoring of course that the G4 has that altivec unit which means that it would still beat a faster G3 on altivec optimized apps. But your average consumer probably does not understand these things.) Advantage of getting everything from IBM? You keep your G3 line going, but ramp up the speed considerably. The G3 goes into low end laptops. You drop Motorola completely and put a powered down version of the 970 into your high end laptops. (Rumour again is that at 1.4 GHz the 970 consumes energy at the same rate as the current G4's). The downside? As you correctly observed, Apple then has all its eggs in one (IBM) basket. But the situation does not seem to be as bleak as you make out.
Flame or troll, I'll bite. This thread is neither mindless, nor left wing. First of all, there is no real left wing in America. Go and look up your definition of left wing if you don't believe me. Second of all, go and read the literature. It has been observed over and over again that the centerists (which is what I would call most people posting to slashdot) are more epistemologically sophisticated and make sounder, more reasoned arguments than right wingers such as yourself. And indeed it is the case. Go and read what people have posted. YOU are the one which is uninformed. You have not cited ANY evidence, but instead have resorted to causal stories (note I did not say "casual") which is noted in cognitive psychology as a "reasoning bias" (A more famous example is the gamblers fallacy). Moreover you reveal your complete lack of intellingence by spelling "enslaved", "inslaved". Which in turn leads me to believe that you probably do not understand what "epistemology" is, let alone a causal story. Ah well, a little rant makes me feel better anyway. Who cares if you cannot understand. And by the way: No one here doubts that Saddam was a brutal dictator. Being against a war in Iraq does not mean that I support Saddam at all. I am NOT sorry to seem him gone and Iraqi's have all the right to be happy. I feel however that the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians is an unacceptable way to go about removing him.
Early Tuesday a rather strange duplicate posting was the only outward sign of the rising tensions between Hemos and Taco. The spat began when Hemos polished off the remains of the morning coffee before Taco had had any. When Taco remonstrated with him, Hemos was reported to have said: "serves you right for being late for work Rob." Eyewitnesses report that Taco stormed off and with hands shaking from coffee deprivation proceded to make another pot muttering something about wreaking a terrible revenge...
OTOH let's start a discussion about all meta discussions that have occurred. OTOH I could just bitch that stories I submit never get accepted. *grumble grumble*
1 kg != 1 litre of water nor does it define the unit of kilogramme. What amazes me more is that there are at least two moderators who are so stupid that the post is sitting at "3 - insightful" whereas it should be sitting at "-1 Wrong". Grrr.
Umm, just downloaded Safari. Threaded links in Slashdot discussions don't work. Am I the only one having this problem? Everything works fine from Netscape, Mozilla, Chimera and I.E. (Just checked)
Yeah Safari is nice and zippy, but heck, what use is it if I cannot even read Slashdot properly?:(
My first memory is from about 2 years of age. Exactly 2 give or take a few weeks. There was a giant hailstorm. I remember asking my father if the windows were going to break and whether we were going to be ok... I was pretty scared.
I like the idea that language is required. This would fit nicely with the theories of the Russian psycologist, Vygotsky. He suggested roughly that all thought is mediated through language. People have even argued that purely visual memory is linguistic in nature, but I have not really read that literature at all. I would suggest you are onto something here. I skimmed through the posts. There does not seem to be anyone who has clearly pre spoken language memories.
So, these guys are undercutting NASA by a full order of magnitude in cost. Does anyone know if the U.S. is actively/secretively trying to shut these guys down? It cannot be good for the U.S. launch market and although they can try and defend their postion with all sorts of legal twists and turns, I think companies will not stand by idly when they can launch their satellites at one tenth of the cost somewhere else...
What happened with Planck (roughly as I know it) is as follows:
People had already suggested the idea of sub-microscopic oscillators as a possible method of explaining what was going on.
Planck deliberately decided to sit down and see if he could reproduce the power distribution given empirically by Wien's law using the idea of a statistical ensemble of sub-microscopic oscillators.
Boltzmann had figured a computational technique whereby you assumed a discrete set of energy levels in a statistical ensemble and then took the continuum limit at the end.
Planck, after some months of trying discovered that he could reproduce Wien's law if he followed Boltzmann's computational technique, (taking the continuum limit) but stopped at the scale given by the constant of proportionality h ie: Planck's constant.
He then decided to give this a straight up physical interpretation that the oscillators were themselves stable (in violation of maxwellian electrodynamics --- something which disturbed him quite deeply I think) and emitted their radiation in discrete energy steps - integral numbers of hf where f is the frequency of the oscillator.
That as I understand is what Planck did. After he spoke about it, he spend a lot of time apologising for the interpretation which he disliked and spend a lot of time trying to find a way to get back to a picture which was consistent with classical electrodynamics. Eventually he himself admitted defeat and accepted his own interpretation.
[rant]Here here. And I recommend the immediate censorship of all popular science authors and their books. And just to stir trouble, I mean not only Chopra (duh), but Hawking, Kaku, the whole crowd of them. They all add to the spread of the evil QATS virus. [/rant]
Grr, the human brain can only handle three dimensions. String theory got rid of 26 dimensions years ago with super symmetry (now down to 10 or 11). The triumph of the human mind is to be able to invent ways of dealing with a number of dimensions which is beyond conception and to do it successfully.
Well, comment 2 is not worth replying to, but the estimable Mr. Wood raises some interesting issues.
First of all, to put Galileo in perspective. He had the protection/advice of Cardinal Barberini who apparently was his friend. But he was still getting in trouble with the inquisition in 1616. He seems to have stopped making his views known then or certainly kept a bit quieter, probably under advisement from the Cardinal. In 1623 the same cardinal became pope and Galileo happily published "Dialogue..." presumably thinking that the church was going to become more open minded. Well of course the pope (formally Cardinal Barberini) could not look after him and that is when the shit hit the proverbial fan. - I am using "Physics, the Human Adventure" by G. Holton and S.G. Brush as my historical reference...
Now, paraphrasing the same guys, Galileo firmly believed that all the laws of nature stemmed from the mind of God. As you say, he was a devout Christian. The same authors also observe the continually raging conflict between religious doctrine and science, even into the 20th century. What I was trying to argue is that 1. Galileo's religious attitude suggest that science is in pursuit of a higher objective truth. (the mind of God etc...) Einstein, Hawking and other high energy theorists/cosmologists are/were fond of trumpeting this view of physics. 2. The running conflict between the church and science forced scientists to often take a stance of presenting a higher truth than religion, thus continually placing itself in danger of looking like a religion... Just look at the language we use, for example: "The laws of nature". Utter crap. Newton's law is no immutable law set in stone. It works if you are going nice and slowly. It does not work if you are going really fast. It is just a model with a limited range of applicability.
I would argue that science is not at all about seeking of higher truth. Some physicists would like to believe that, but I think the reality is somewhat different. Science is about making models of the world. Good models are those which are solvable and make testable predictions. This has very little to do with truth. All models have limited range of applicability. I don't think that general relativity holds a key to a higher truth than say newtonian mechanics. They simply represent different domains of applicability. I think that to think of doing physics as a pursuit of truth is completely erroneous and I do not think that good researcher (apart from string theorists/cosmologists) would think of doing physics from that perspective.
Thus when Robert Laughlin starts talking about physics being a sort of keeper of the gold standard of truth, my hair stands on end. He knows physics is not like that, but he is portraying the public image of physics. The one which makes people think that physicists are sooo clever etc, etc... The image which we perpetuate in a desperate attempt to stay on top of the pile. I agree entirely about the whole business of the commercialization of science and the inherent dangers of that and keeping secrets. However, his motivation is what I am arguing against. His article morphs from the dangers of commercialism to a comparison between physics and "softer" sciences and that is where I start having problems.
Physics is a field with a unique conflict. It is captured best by the actions of the father of modern physics, namely Galileo. He was both the founder of the open source nature of physics and the high priesthood of physics. He used to set up his telescope in the town square and let people come and take a look. He spread physics to the people. On the other hand there was his lifelong running conflict with the church. (Whose doctrine he was subverting). The result was that he had to try and shape physics as a keeper of absolute truth, as a religion which would replace or surpass the religious doctrines of the time. That dimension of physics is still present today in the way in which common people view physics. (Pretty much as a high priesthood in my opinion). Robert Laughlin (for all his nobel prize winning intelligence) is trying to protect the "religious mystery" of physics from being sullied. Nothing more.
So what do I think? I think the age of physics as a religion should be coming to an end and happily so. I think it is time that the true nature of physics was revealed. And who knows where it will go from there? It would hardly be in danger of dying. Physics will merely be something very different in the future. Laughlin's attempt to hold physics back from its natural evolution is the most certain way of killing it. Already I can see how physics is stagnating in the halls of power and if nothing moves it forward, I think its death is assured.
Re:Dumb question for the physicists out there
on
Tetraneutron Discovered
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Yup, absolutely right. The half life of a neutron is about 12 minutes. More interestingly, here is a test for anyone who is feeling brave: Why is the half life of a neutron 12 minutes and not 10 nanoseconds like it should be considering it decays via the weak interacation? I was asked that on my PhD oral qualifying exam...
Einstein's Joke Paper
on
Science Askew
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Has anyone ever read Einstein's joke paper on relativity? Basically opens like this:
"Spend an hour with a beautiful woman and it feels like a minute. Spend a minute sitting on a hot iron and it feels like an hour - this is relativity." He then goes on to describe his experiment where he first finds a beautiful woman and spends an hour with her and indeed it feels like only a minute has passed and then describes how he sat on his wife's stove for a few seconds and how it felt like an eternity of pain...
Slashdot Mirror
..The problem with these people is that their movie clips are waaaay too large. They could reduce their movie file sizes by a factor of 5. I am sure that would alleviate some of the pressure on their server... Has noone pointed this out to them?
A little internet research here reveals that Gold is full of it. First of all, if his thermodynamic explanation of "light pressure" is correct then the Crookes radiometer should stop rotating after a few seconds (once the black side reaches thermal equilibrium and the veins slow down under the influences of friction). Secondly the obvious question is this: If Reynold's explanation is INcorrect(and Gold is right) then the Crookes radiometer should rotate the "wrong" way even in a perfect vacuum. But guess what: Pyotr Lebedev did the experiment in 1901, creating a sufficiently good vacuum, and the thing rotated the "correct" way (according to the photon model of light). In sum, without resorting to complicated explanations of what is going on (Reynolds etc...) the experimental evidence clearly indicates that Gold is wrong.
Viewing a mirror in terms of thermodynamics is clearly a misconception. What I wonder is: How did this guy get to be quoted in New Scientist? Or should I not be wondering these things?
Wow, someone actually replied!!
Okay, so should I elaborate the points a little? Here goes...
Well, hope you read this, it is a fun discussion
With regards to "I can build a cheaper, faster machine" sort of claims. Let me make an analogy. I like to build and fly RC gliders. It gives me pleasure to spend 300 hours constructing one. It is also cheaper than buying a completed aeroplane from the shop. And although my craftsmanship probably does not match the pre-built ones, I can make a pretty "fast" glider. Likewise some people like to build their own computers. Its not only cheaper, but fun and you have the freedom to make a system up to your own specifications. On the other hand, I own a mac. I paid the extra money (and I am a student) because not only do I have NO CLUE how to put a PC together, but I do not choose to waste my time trying to find out. Likewise, I want a system which works. I don't care if your PC is faster than my Mac, I want a system which does not crash when I am in the middle of writing my thesis or processing my video data. No crash, EVER.
Back to the analogy. The only point where it breaks down is that I never post to RC forums saying "I can build an RC glider which is cheaper and faster than your shop built glider" Such a statement would be preposterous and it is equally ridiculous to see such statements about computers on /.
Go back to your caves you stupid trolls.
It seems that there have been very few comments about the really "big issue" behind this: Namely the interplay between science and politics. There has been a lot of preaching from the pulpit by American scientists, condemning their third world counterparts for getting involved in scientific projects which may lead to biological weapons etc, etc, etc... I find this arrogance utterly disgusting (the main reason I left physics myself).
Does it really make it better that America has WMD's and other countries do not? I think this is the height of racial arrogance to think that Americans are such superiour beings: that they know how to use this power "justly" or "righteously" and others who have this power are branded "psychopaths" etc etc. No, I think Americans are no different from any other human beings. I think they are equally evil and corrupted by power, but this is not my main point.
The point is that (contrary to what most scientists think) science and politics are inherently intertwined. From the time Galileo realised how projectiles moved, scientists have made the bombs, aimed the guns, designed the infrastracture and all the other things which provide governments and people with power. The power not only to make their own lives better, but the power to take from those who do not have the technical know-how. In turn governments provide the funds and the scientists flock like moths to a flame, unconcerned about the consequences of their actions.
I think it is time for scientists of all types and from all over the world to make a stand along roughly the following principles:
Of course everything I have written here is a utopian fantasy. So go ahead and shoot it down. But just remember that there are not my ideas. I think Albert Einstein and Robert Oppenheimer would have at least partially agreed with all the points I made above.
Well, are you really surprised when the education system seems to deliberately NOT teach people to think? I think what you described above is a rather poor inditement of your mother's teaching don't you think? Especially since she is a science teacher and surely science is the field in which epistemologically sound reasoning is paramount? Scientists are meant to question, reason with evidence and control groups and so on. Hmm, although research shows of course that they are incapable of transferring this reasoning to areas outside their area of expertise, but that is another story...
I am not a metallurgist I am afraid. But I am pretty sure you are wrong about the low temperature pliability. I am a cyclist and ride an aluminium bike. I have been in hot conditions where the road surface temperature was probably on the order of 120F. If the frame started to get pliable I think I would have noticed. Basically I'm thinking like this: As temperature increases, elongation goes up (A big factor in bicycle metallurgy) and if you keep going eventually the metal is going to become "pliable". As I said: if such things as aluminium bikes exist, I am sure there is little danger that you are close to the range of "pliable" at 120F.
I don't think you are entirely correct. First of all, IBM manufactures the G3 as far as I know. Secondly rumour has it that the G3 can go much much faster than it currently does. Apple does not buy faster G3's from IBM because it would look rather silly if your G3 had a higher clock-rate than your G4. (This is ignoring of course that the G4 has that altivec unit which means that it would still beat a faster G3 on altivec optimized apps. But your average consumer probably does not understand these things.) Advantage of getting everything from IBM? You keep your G3 line going, but ramp up the speed considerably. The G3 goes into low end laptops. You drop Motorola completely and put a powered down version of the 970 into your high end laptops. (Rumour again is that at 1.4 GHz the 970 consumes energy at the same rate as the current G4's). The downside? As you correctly observed, Apple then has all its eggs in one (IBM) basket. But the situation does not seem to be as bleak as you make out.
Flame or troll, I'll bite. This thread is neither mindless, nor left wing. First of all, there is no real left wing in America. Go and look up your definition of left wing if you don't believe me. Second of all, go and read the literature. It has been observed over and over again that the centerists (which is what I would call most people posting to slashdot) are more epistemologically sophisticated and make sounder, more reasoned arguments than right wingers such as yourself. And indeed it is the case. Go and read what people have posted. YOU are the one which is uninformed. You have not cited ANY evidence, but instead have resorted to causal stories (note I did not say "casual") which is noted in cognitive psychology as a "reasoning bias" (A more famous example is the gamblers fallacy). Moreover you reveal your complete lack of intellingence by spelling "enslaved", "inslaved". Which in turn leads me to believe that you probably do not understand what "epistemology" is, let alone a causal story. Ah well, a little rant makes me feel better anyway. Who cares if you cannot understand. And by the way: No one here doubts that Saddam was a brutal dictator. Being against a war in Iraq does not mean that I support Saddam at all. I am NOT sorry to seem him gone and Iraqi's have all the right to be happy. I feel however that the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians is an unacceptable way to go about removing him.
Sorry to say it, but RTFA. The heat is coming from the hard drive, not the CPU.
Early Tuesday a rather strange duplicate posting was the only outward sign of the rising tensions between Hemos and Taco. The spat began when Hemos polished off the remains of the morning coffee before Taco had had any. When Taco remonstrated with him, Hemos was reported to have said: "serves you right for being late for work Rob." Eyewitnesses report that Taco stormed off and with hands shaking from coffee deprivation proceded to make another pot muttering something about wreaking a terrible revenge...
OTOH let's start a discussion about all meta discussions that have occurred. OTOH I could just bitch that stories I submit never get accepted. *grumble grumble*
1 kg != 1 litre of water nor does it define the unit of kilogramme. What amazes me more is that there are at least two moderators who are so stupid that the post is sitting at "3 - insightful" whereas it should be sitting at "-1 Wrong". Grrr.
Ha ha ha :)
Umm, just downloaded Safari. Threaded links in Slashdot discussions don't work. Am I the only one having this problem? Everything works fine from Netscape, Mozilla, Chimera and I.E. (Just checked) Yeah Safari is nice and zippy, but heck, what use is it if I cannot even read Slashdot properly? :(
45MPH???? That is pathetic. Call me when you cross the 60MPH mark on a bicycle. (Ou Kaapse Weg, Cape Town, South Africa in a Cape gale ha ha ha!)
My first memory is from about 2 years of age. Exactly 2 give or take a few weeks. There was a giant hailstorm. I remember asking my father if the windows were going to break and whether we were going to be ok... I was pretty scared.
I like the idea that language is required. This would fit nicely with the theories of the Russian psycologist, Vygotsky. He suggested roughly that all thought is mediated through language. People have even argued that purely visual memory is linguistic in nature, but I have not really read that literature at all. I would suggest you are onto something here. I skimmed through the posts. There does not seem to be anyone who has clearly pre spoken language memories.
So, these guys are undercutting NASA by a full order of magnitude in cost. Does anyone know if the U.S. is actively/secretively trying to shut these guys down? It cannot be good for the U.S. launch market and although they can try and defend their postion with all sorts of legal twists and turns, I think companies will not stand by idly when they can launch their satellites at one tenth of the cost somewhere else...
What happened with Planck (roughly as I know it) is as follows:
- People had already suggested the idea of sub-microscopic oscillators as a possible method of explaining what was going on.
- Planck deliberately decided to sit down and see if he could reproduce the power distribution given empirically by Wien's law using the idea of a statistical ensemble of sub-microscopic oscillators.
- Boltzmann had figured a computational technique whereby you assumed a discrete set of energy levels in a statistical ensemble and then took the continuum limit at the end.
- Planck, after some months of trying discovered that he could reproduce Wien's law if he followed Boltzmann's computational technique, (taking the continuum limit) but stopped at the scale given by the constant of proportionality h ie: Planck's constant.
- He then decided to give this a straight up physical interpretation that the oscillators were themselves stable (in violation of maxwellian electrodynamics --- something which disturbed him quite deeply I think) and emitted their radiation in discrete energy steps - integral numbers of hf where f is the frequency of the oscillator.
That as I understand is what Planck did. After he spoke about it, he spend a lot of time apologising for the interpretation which he disliked and spend a lot of time trying to find a way to get back to a picture which was consistent with classical electrodynamics. Eventually he himself admitted defeat and accepted his own interpretation.[rant]Here here. And I recommend the immediate censorship of all popular science authors and their books. And just to stir trouble, I mean not only Chopra (duh), but Hawking, Kaku, the whole crowd of them. They all add to the spread of the evil QATS virus. [/rant]
Grr, the human brain can only handle three dimensions. String theory got rid of 26 dimensions years ago with super symmetry (now down to 10 or 11). The triumph of the human mind is to be able to invent ways of dealing with a number of dimensions which is beyond conception and to do it successfully.
Well, comment 2 is not worth replying to, but the estimable Mr. Wood raises some interesting issues.
First of all, to put Galileo in perspective. He had the protection/advice of Cardinal Barberini who apparently was his friend. But he was still getting in trouble with the inquisition in 1616. He seems to have stopped making his views known then or certainly kept a bit quieter, probably under advisement from the Cardinal. In 1623 the same cardinal became pope and Galileo happily published "Dialogue..." presumably thinking that the church was going to become more open minded. Well of course the pope (formally Cardinal Barberini) could not look after him and that is when the shit hit the proverbial fan. - I am using "Physics, the Human Adventure" by G. Holton and S.G. Brush as my historical reference...
Now, paraphrasing the same guys, Galileo firmly believed that all the laws of nature stemmed from the mind of God. As you say, he was a devout Christian. The same authors also observe the continually raging conflict between religious doctrine and science, even into the 20th century. What I was trying to argue is that 1. Galileo's religious attitude suggest that science is in pursuit of a higher objective truth. (the mind of God etc...) Einstein, Hawking and other high energy theorists/cosmologists are/were fond of trumpeting this view of physics. 2. The running conflict between the church and science forced scientists to often take a stance of presenting a higher truth than religion, thus continually placing itself in danger of looking like a religion... Just look at the language we use, for example: "The laws of nature". Utter crap. Newton's law is no immutable law set in stone. It works if you are going nice and slowly. It does not work if you are going really fast. It is just a model with a limited range of applicability.
I would argue that science is not at all about seeking of higher truth. Some physicists would like to believe that, but I think the reality is somewhat different. Science is about making models of the world. Good models are those which are solvable and make testable predictions. This has very little to do with truth. All models have limited range of applicability. I don't think that general relativity holds a key to a higher truth than say newtonian mechanics. They simply represent different domains of applicability. I think that to think of doing physics as a pursuit of truth is completely erroneous and I do not think that good researcher (apart from string theorists/cosmologists) would think of doing physics from that perspective.
Thus when Robert Laughlin starts talking about physics being a sort of keeper of the gold standard of truth, my hair stands on end. He knows physics is not like that, but he is portraying the public image of physics. The one which makes people think that physicists are sooo clever etc, etc... The image which we perpetuate in a desperate attempt to stay on top of the pile. I agree entirely about the whole business of the commercialization of science and the inherent dangers of that and keeping secrets. However, his motivation is what I am arguing against. His article morphs from the dangers of commercialism to a comparison between physics and "softer" sciences and that is where I start having problems.
Physics is a field with a unique conflict. It is captured best by the actions of the father of modern physics, namely Galileo. He was both the founder of the open source nature of physics and the high priesthood of physics. He used to set up his telescope in the town square and let people come and take a look. He spread physics to the people. On the other hand there was his lifelong running conflict with the church. (Whose doctrine he was subverting). The result was that he had to try and shape physics as a keeper of absolute truth, as a religion which would replace or surpass the religious doctrines of the time. That dimension of physics is still present today in the way in which common people view physics. (Pretty much as a high priesthood in my opinion). Robert Laughlin (for all his nobel prize winning intelligence) is trying to protect the "religious mystery" of physics from being sullied. Nothing more.
So what do I think? I think the age of physics as a religion should be coming to an end and happily so. I think it is time that the true nature of physics was revealed. And who knows where it will go from there? It would hardly be in danger of dying. Physics will merely be something very different in the future. Laughlin's attempt to hold physics back from its natural evolution is the most certain way of killing it. Already I can see how physics is stagnating in the halls of power and if nothing moves it forward, I think its death is assured.
Yup, absolutely right. The half life of a neutron is about 12 minutes. More interestingly, here is a test for anyone who is feeling brave: Why is the half life of a neutron 12 minutes and not 10 nanoseconds like it should be considering it decays via the weak interacation? I was asked that on my PhD oral qualifying exam...
Has anyone ever read Einstein's joke paper on relativity? Basically opens like this:
"Spend an hour with a beautiful woman and it feels like a minute. Spend a minute sitting on a hot iron and it feels like an hour - this is relativity." He then goes on to describe his experiment where he first finds a beautiful woman and spends an hour with her and indeed it feels like only a minute has passed and then describes how he sat on his wife's stove for a few seconds and how it felt like an eternity of pain...