Insightful beyond all the other insightful posts for this discussion. Communication is so often ignored by engineers and technical creatives. A blog post, article, whatever can be found by potential new employers or clients. This can pay off big, perhaps as income or perhaps as an excellent opportunity beneficial in other ways.
One time, I landed a key position in an exciting project because one decision-maker saw some of my paintings online. Another time, it was my web pages on some personal side projects in electronics (the OP's step 3).
OTOH, if you do something to satisfy curiosity and build skills, and only show it to some friends, your mom, and the cat, it's not going to pay off at all.
Especially from radio astronomy. They too have large expensive equipment, but in contrast to HEP they don't need miles of hard vacuum in a pipe, gigawatts of power, or detectors larger than a billionaire's mansion. They get a *lot* of science - and covering several different areas of science - per dollar/euro/yen spent. For example, one radio astronomer at NRAO showed evidence against the existence of strange matter (u+d+s quarks in about equal proportions) in neutron stars, and around the same time we learned something about magnetic fields of exoplanets, and the atmospheres of gas giants, and the motions and composition of gases in the interstellar medium. Very different topics, touching on nuclear physics, geology, atmospheric science, and of course plain vanilla astrophysics, all accomplished with data taken with the same few radio telescope arrays.
Fermilab, SLAC, CERN, and the other particle accelerators have pretty much single-purpose use. You could argue that for example lepton physics is a different specialty than QCD, but still, the range isn't like in radio astronomy. Either kind of facility produces many academic papers (via scientists and their students) but real additions to the body of scientific knowledge seems low in proportion to the costs of building and running the facility for HEP. So, let's find new uses for those accelerators! Hit the moon with a neutrino beam, or something. There is biophysics and material science research going on at SLAC and probably the others. We need to think up a wider variety of things to do with high energy particle beams, besides study the particles themselves.
At least, when I was there, the NRAO facility in New Mexico had Zebra F-301 BP ball point pens in the stockroom for any sufficiently intelligent-looking person to use.
As an artist, I love doodling and sketching with ball point pens, wanting to vary from light fine details to a firmer line, and then write some math or a grocery list, then doodle more. I'm happy with 0.7mm lines from the F301, but Zebra probably makes other pens with skinnier lines.
I used to like one of the big brands because it used to be okay, but then their product seemed to go downhill, blobbing more than I like (zero).
FWIW, I remember CyberCoin. I also remember vacuum tubes which pretty much died out long before CC was created. Interesting to note that, while rare, vacuum tubes still have use in the real world.
Bad physics. You went 50 galaxy-frame light years in 10 ship-frame years, which when divided give only nonsense. To talk about the speed of some object, you must divide the distance as measured in one frame by the duration of the journey in the same frame.
Ship frame: you are in the ship the whole time. It's not moving relative to itself. Distance = zero. Time = 10 years ("proper time") as measured by your wristwatch, smartphone or wall clock on the ship. Speed = zero. An object does not move as measured in its own frame.
Galactic frame: Ship moved 50 LY. Everyone watched and waited 50 years (or 50.000001 years, whatever) for the ship to reach the destination (and actually didn't know until watching through their telescopes another 50 years later). 50/50 = one times the speed of light (actually a teeny bit less.)
Yes indeed, a *fool* can calculate 50/10 = faster than light. But we care not what fools think.
There is no lower limit of necessary rotational speed for a space elevator to work. But the slower the body spins, the longer the elevator cable must be. For the moon at one turn per about 27 days, it's roughly 90,000 km (55,000 miles) but this isn't a great answer. The Earth's gravity is more than a small perturbation; the elevator must be designed with ideas of Lagrangian points in mind not just a simple Kepler's law. L1 and L2 are around 60,000 to 70,000 km from the Moon, and the elevator would have to extend well beyond that range with a counterweight at the end.
Earth's geostationary orbit is about 36,000 km up from Earth's center, about half the distance from the moon to L1 or L2. Only a factor of two? The Moon has much less mass than Earth, so an object in circular orbit at some given radius moves much slower as compared to the same radius orbit around Earth, but the Moon also rotates much slower, so it's closer to matching that object in orbit.
Note that the Lagrangian points are determined only by the masses of Earth and Moon, and the Moon's orbit about Earth, and have no relation to the rotation of the Earth or Moon. We are lucky to have the Moon's rotation tidally locked, otherwise a lunar space elevator might be impossible.
The wikipedia articles for "lunar space elevator" covers the details fairly well, and "space elevator" shows a little bit of math, with links to references. An online calculator at http://www.1728.org/kepler3a.htm might be worth playing with, but only for the simple Keplerian situation - a lone planet or one with small moons.
The beige box era is over. We are glad for that. Now we're in the black (or dark gray) box era. Just as boring! Where is the creativity in styling?
The car companies are always fussing with their styles, having multiple lines of products to cater to different tastes, lifestyles, and levels of desire to show off. Could the PC makers do something like that, despite their product being an order of magnitude or two lower in price? Could they put out some flashy upscale models for trendy people, understated elegance for the conservative wealthy, jazzy colorful cabinets for those whole like their immediate surrounding to be visually busy, and so forth, along with low cost beige or black bland boxes for the budget squeezed and casual users.
Is there something about the desktop computer market that forces it to be entirely aimed at the low end? Surely at least some customers would be willing to pay more $$$ for more fun and style. I mean, Patek Philippe seems to be surviving somehow with absolutely no products within a factor of ten of the low end, or all plain ol' beige. Maybe there are some upscale PC makers out there, but do they have any status or brand recognition, the way Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Aston Martin and the like do? Only the upper 0.001% can afford such products but many in the upper few % lust for these. The hoi polloi portion of the market will be the same, mostly, but perhaps would feel an upward pull to be like the upper few %. Tricke-down economics failed, but trickle-down glamour and prestige seem to be pretty common in many things. This is where PC makers could innovate.
I babble on with so many questions, but I don't care as long as next year I can find something that isn't bland black or beige.
After reading about someone not permitted to be in their own house, which got my blood boiling, this excellent creative writing got me back to clear thinking.
(Hoists beer mug) To all the real and fake farmers!
Indeed. It's more a matter of finding at what pitch an object resonates, like the opera singer and the wine glass. Er, wait, no, that's still breaking things...
It's like launching a rocket at the right speed and direction to get to Mars, or cooking food at the right temperature for best results, or leaning a two-wheeled vehicle just right to go around a curve, or tuning a musical instrument to blend in with the band to make a smoother sound. Something has to be adjusted to achieve a certain condition. Then, when things are in that condition, it's about transformation not breaking.
A cell phone (it was a wristwatch in the old days) is made out of many parts which come apart and themselves can break, while a Higgs boson (or any other particle found by tuning beam energy) isn't made out of anything but itself, but given the right conditions may replace itself with a any set of particles that add up to the right energy, momentum, spin, charge and other quantum numbers.
In some ways, the world was more fun with two "superpowers". One superpower is no good due to lack of high-level high-stakes competition. Currently we have don't have any superpowers, but several powerful nations, just none that are "super" powerful.
The Interstellar Medium (ISM) is all over the spaces between stars, and is of great interest to several kinds of astronomers. It's frequently mentioned in talks at NRAO. A few "on-site" measurements would be of great value to astrophysicists. If only it weren't so far...
Slashdot Mirror
Insightful beyond all the other insightful posts for this discussion. Communication is so often ignored by engineers and technical creatives. A blog post, article, whatever can be found by potential new employers or clients. This can pay off big, perhaps as income or perhaps as an excellent opportunity beneficial in other ways.
One time, I landed a key position in an exciting project because one decision-maker saw some of my paintings online. Another time, it was my web pages on some personal side projects in electronics (the OP's step 3).
OTOH, if you do something to satisfy curiosity and build skills, and only show it to some friends, your mom, and the cat, it's not going to pay off at all.
Spin zero = boson, just like photons which are spin 1. You can put any number of bosons you like into the same quantum state.
"... is coming from astrophysics these days..."
Especially from radio astronomy. They too have large expensive equipment, but in contrast to HEP they don't need miles of hard vacuum in a pipe, gigawatts of power, or detectors larger than a billionaire's mansion. They get a *lot* of science - and covering several different areas of science - per dollar/euro/yen spent. For example, one radio astronomer at NRAO showed evidence against the existence of strange matter (u+d+s quarks in about equal proportions) in neutron stars, and around the same time we learned something about magnetic fields of exoplanets, and the atmospheres of gas giants, and the motions and composition of gases in the interstellar medium. Very different topics, touching on nuclear physics, geology, atmospheric science, and of course plain vanilla astrophysics, all accomplished with data taken with the same few radio telescope arrays.
Fermilab, SLAC, CERN, and the other particle accelerators have pretty much single-purpose use. You could argue that for example lepton physics is a different specialty than QCD, but still, the range isn't like in radio astronomy. Either kind of facility produces many academic papers (via scientists and their students) but real additions to the body of scientific knowledge seems low in proportion to the costs of building and running the facility for HEP. So, let's find new uses for those accelerators! Hit the moon with a neutrino beam, or something. There is biophysics and material science research going on at SLAC and probably the others. We need to think up a wider variety of things to do with high energy particle beams, besides study the particles themselves.
Exactly. It seems only 0.1% of all people are smart enough to understand that.
The idea goes way back to Ben Franklin. I'm too lazy to look it up on Wikipedia, but I think his heyday was at least a few years before 1966.
So, what do the other 130 or so space shuttle missions show? Was it some amazing luck that they didn't crash or blow up?
don't you mean "wreck ignition"?
At least, when I was there, the NRAO facility in New Mexico had Zebra F-301 BP ball point pens in the stockroom for any sufficiently intelligent-looking person to use.
As an artist, I love doodling and sketching with ball point pens, wanting to vary from light fine details to a firmer line, and then write some math or a grocery list, then doodle more. I'm happy with 0.7mm lines from the F301, but Zebra probably makes other pens with skinnier lines.
I used to like one of the big brands because it used to be okay, but then their product seemed to go downhill, blobbing more than I like (zero).
Very good - this will make astrophysics more appealing to cats!
FWIW, I remember CyberCoin. I also remember vacuum tubes which pretty much died out long before CC was created. Interesting to note that, while rare, vacuum tubes still have use in the real world.
There are technical solutions to behavior problems. Example (a low tech one): jails keep troublemakers out of everyone's way.
I've been watching the very earliest Rod Serling's Twilight Zone episodes. Whew, talk about writers not having any scientific literacy!
Bad physics. You went 50 galaxy-frame light years in 10 ship-frame years, which when divided give only nonsense. To talk about the speed of some object, you must divide the distance as measured in one frame by the duration of the journey in the same frame.
Ship frame: you are in the ship the whole time. It's not moving relative to itself. Distance = zero. Time = 10 years ("proper time") as measured by your wristwatch, smartphone or wall clock on the ship. Speed = zero. An object does not move as measured in its own frame.
Galactic frame: Ship moved 50 LY. Everyone watched and waited 50 years (or 50.000001 years, whatever) for the ship to reach the destination (and actually didn't know until watching through their telescopes another 50 years later). 50/50 = one times the speed of light (actually a teeny bit less.)
Yes indeed, a *fool* can calculate 50/10 = faster than light. But we care not what fools think.
There is no lower limit of necessary rotational speed for a space elevator to work. But the slower the body spins, the longer the elevator cable must be. For the moon at one turn per about 27 days, it's roughly 90,000 km (55,000 miles) but this isn't a great answer. The Earth's gravity is more than a small perturbation; the elevator must be designed with ideas of Lagrangian points in mind not just a simple Kepler's law. L1 and L2 are around 60,000 to 70,000 km from the Moon, and the elevator would have to extend well beyond that range with a counterweight at the end.
Earth's geostationary orbit is about 36,000 km up from Earth's center, about half the distance from the moon to L1 or L2. Only a factor of two? The Moon has much less mass than Earth, so an object in circular orbit at some given radius moves much slower as compared to the same radius orbit around Earth, but the Moon also rotates much slower, so it's closer to matching that object in orbit.
Note that the Lagrangian points are determined only by the masses of Earth and Moon, and the Moon's orbit about Earth, and have no relation to the rotation of the Earth or Moon. We are lucky to have the Moon's rotation tidally locked, otherwise a lunar space elevator might be impossible.
The wikipedia articles for "lunar space elevator" covers the details fairly well, and "space elevator" shows a little bit of math, with links to references. An online calculator at http://www.1728.org/kepler3a.htm might be worth playing with, but only for the simple Keplerian situation - a lone planet or one with small moons.
The beige box era is over. We are glad for that. Now we're in the black (or dark gray) box era. Just as boring! Where is the creativity in styling?
The car companies are always fussing with their styles, having multiple lines of products to cater to different tastes, lifestyles, and levels of desire to show off. Could the PC makers do something like that, despite their product being an order of magnitude or two lower in price? Could they put out some flashy upscale models for trendy people, understated elegance for the conservative wealthy, jazzy colorful cabinets for those whole like their immediate surrounding to be visually busy, and so forth, along with low cost beige or black bland boxes for the budget squeezed and casual users.
Is there something about the desktop computer market that forces it to be entirely aimed at the low end? Surely at least some customers would be willing to pay more $$$ for more fun and style. I mean, Patek Philippe seems to be surviving somehow with absolutely no products within a factor of ten of the low end, or all plain ol' beige. Maybe there are some upscale PC makers out there, but do they have any status or brand recognition, the way Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Aston Martin and the like do? Only the upper 0.001% can afford such products but many in the upper few % lust for these. The hoi polloi portion of the market will be the same, mostly, but perhaps would feel an upward pull to be like the upper few %. Tricke-down economics failed, but trickle-down glamour and prestige seem to be pretty common in many things. This is where PC makers could innovate.
I babble on with so many questions, but I don't care as long as next year I can find something that isn't bland black or beige.
Absolutely!
I'm voting for all Mathematics Party candidates this next election.
After reading about someone not permitted to be in their own house, which got my blood boiling, this excellent creative writing got me back to clear thinking.
(Hoists beer mug) To all the real and fake farmers!
Indeed. It's more a matter of finding at what pitch an object resonates, like the opera singer and the wine glass. Er, wait, no, that's still breaking things...
It's like launching a rocket at the right speed and direction to get to Mars, or cooking food at the right temperature for best results, or leaning a two-wheeled vehicle just right to go around a curve, or tuning a musical instrument to blend in with the band to make a smoother sound. Something has to be adjusted to achieve a certain condition. Then, when things are in that condition, it's about transformation not breaking.
A cell phone (it was a wristwatch in the old days) is made out of many parts which come apart and themselves can break, while a Higgs boson (or any other particle found by tuning beam energy) isn't made out of anything but itself, but given the right conditions may replace itself with a any set of particles that add up to the right energy, momentum, spin, charge and other quantum numbers.
Your bad puns have distracted my cat, who was working on Furrier transforms.
Based on what I observe, it's a grandparent's duty to be run by the little children.
The inexpensive stuff looks awful, but the good stuff is priced way too high still.
How much of a middle choice is there? I'm willing to pay some more for reliability and CRI, but not as much more as for the best.
Breaking Bad: The Next Generation
In some ways, the world was more fun with two "superpowers". One superpower is no good due to lack of high-level high-stakes competition. Currently we have don't have any superpowers, but several powerful nations, just none that are "super" powerful.
The Interstellar Medium (ISM) is all over the spaces between stars, and is of great interest to several kinds of astronomers. It's frequently mentioned in talks at NRAO. A few "on-site" measurements would be of great value to astrophysicists. If only it weren't so far...
Dang, your good! I poop out after 34.75 hours/wk.