Are you really a physics grad student? Because that didn't make any sense.
A radiation field can carry energy between two systems. That does not mean it has a temperature. No more than an electric current has a temperature just because you can use it to heat your house.
Furthermore, I can disprove your example with one simple counter-example. The Earth is not the same temperature as the Sun. Both are isolated systems whose only manner of exchanging heat energy is through radiation. (Well, actually there's some energy moving around the system in particle flows, but that is not why the Earth is cooler than the Sun.)
I'm not sure physicists refer to photons as having potential or kinetic energy. Better to say they carry electromagnetic force.
But otherwise you are right, temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of particles with mass. That energy can be converted to photons, which then radiate away until they are absorbed by other particles, which then heat up. None of that implies that photons have a temperature.
As far as your question goes, you can't stop a system from radiating, so at some level the outgoing radiation balances the incoming radiation and you reach a maximum temperature.
While you can infer the temperature of a blackbody from the radiation, the radiation itself does not have a temperature. And just because radiation can heat an object, does not mean the radiation itself has "heat". The radiation has energy... which when transfered to an object with mass results in that object heating up.
Temperature is a property that only applies to particles with mass. And really only applies to groups of particles. Hence heat (which is a more qualitative description of temperature or a change in temperature) only applies to particles with mass.
You are also wrong. Laser beams are neither hot nor cold. Those terms qualitatively describe temperature. Temperature, at least when used scientifically, refers to the average kinetic energy of mass particles within a given volume (as they bounce around). Electromagnetic radiation does not have a temperature.
They haven't banned the word bank. They've merely asked the registrar to highlight requests containing the word "bank" so that they can be checked for adherence to an existing law regarding portraying a company as a banking institution if it is not. Not how we would manage the system in the U.S. -- where consumer protection laws are more reactive than proactive compared to many European countries (not a judgment, just a fact) -- but hardly anything to get up in arms about.
And not even close to what the original post claims they are doing.
Name one prediction of string theory that could be tested with any technology. In other words, name one prediction of string theory that if found false (in any way) would disprove string theory. I'll give you a better one: name one prediction of string theory.
And just to cut short one level of string-theory silliness: "there might be 11 dimensions, but if there's not then we can still make the theory work with four" is not a prediction.
Because of theoretical advances and other sources of investigation, most physicists believe that LHC will do nothing more than confirm the current most accepted version of the Standard Model. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, but this is different than earlier experiments of this type, where physicists were more exploring than confirming. And LHC will not be exploring the energy levels that most string theorists say would actually provide them useful information for further developing the theory (e.g. will not allow us to differentiate between an 11 dimensional and 4 dimensional universe).
So, basically, I agree with any of the other comments here that what we have is a bunch of cosmologists running around doing very interesting math, but not doing any useful physics.
This article really is not about string theory. The article is really about the math developed as people have explored string theory. It is this math that has been applied in explaining "perfect liquid" experiments.
GameRanger works this way (or at least used to). When you start GameRanger, it checks the server for a new update, automatically downloads any new update, trashes the old version and restarts using the updated version. It tells the user that it is doing all of this, but the "transparent to the user" part is not a requirement of the patent, only a possibility. (That is, nothing in the patent actually bars the application from notifying the user that the update is occurring.)
Fair use provides a reviewer the right to use outtakes/quotes in his review. It does not allow him to download a full copy of the movie from the internet for his use.
Also, they should test this with different sized containers to see if it is the number of items or cumulative size of the items that they are reacting to.
I once saw a write-up where someone was testing (IIRC) dogs. Up to some number, dogs could recognize a number of objects. Above that, they went by area/volume. In other words, dogs could pick the picture that had the most items up to about seven, or something like that. For greater numbers of items, they tended to pick the picture in which the items took up the most area. Twelve big circles taking up more space than fourteen smaller circles, for instance.
It's not obvious to me from the description you linked to that it is at all a similar topology. To be similar to a neocortical column, there would still need to be thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of connections between adjacent chips. You still have the problem that the brain contains a much higher level of interconnection between regions than this chip structure would provide.
Think about the visual streams being processed through the visual cortex. Basically, streams of impulses propogate through various regions of the visual cortex. These streams are not discretely processed and then passed through narrow communication pathways to the next region. They propogate directly from one region to the next with input/output occuring along the entire boundary between regions.
This does not merely provide high throughput communications, but the connections along the boundary itself are part of the processing system.
Did anyone else notice that their quoted 10^13 synapses can not be meaningfully compared to the number of synapses in the human brain. Each chip has lots of connections within it, but then limited connectivity to adjacent chips. While there are 50 million connections within a chip, there is little (comparatively) connectivity between chips. Some parts of the nervous system may work similarly -- e.g. sensory connections into the brain -- but connections between regions may be as complex as the connections within a region.
In other words, if they hook up 5,000 of these chips, they don't have 10% of a human brain. They have 5,000 chips each of which is.002% of a human brain and can share some data with its neighbor.
How many such pits does one expect to find in the plastic merely from background radiation in their lab? Radiation is everywhere. Finding some random, minor neutron flux is hardly proof of anything.
Drummers have been using triggered drums since the mid-80s. Neil Pert, famously, used them to avoid the difficulty of keeping drums in tune between recording sessions. For live play it is even more useful, especially for outdoor venues.
For rock musicians, the trick is that the triggered drums feed into a synthesizer that uses recordings of "perfect" drum hits. To use the same example, Neil Pert spent hours getting just the right sound from each drum. Then he triggered his drum set, with the triggers actuating those "perfect" drum recordings.
Personally, I don't see what's the matter with this. You could get the same effect by just spending a lot of extra time tuning drums. Other musicians use it to get effects you couldn't otherwise get from regular drums.
However, this is different from auto-tune, where singers sound more talented than they really are. In the case of triggered drums, drummers just sound like better drum tuners than they really are.
Slashdot Mirror
I checked the official MLB rules, and your understanding is correct.
All the proves is that defendents settle unless they have a case they believe has a 90% chance of winning.
Are you really a physics grad student? Because that didn't make any sense.
A radiation field can carry energy between two systems. That does not mean it has a temperature. No more than an electric current has a temperature just because you can use it to heat your house.
Furthermore, I can disprove your example with one simple counter-example. The Earth is not the same temperature as the Sun. Both are isolated systems whose only manner of exchanging heat energy is through radiation. (Well, actually there's some energy moving around the system in particle flows, but that is not why the Earth is cooler than the Sun.)
I'm not sure physicists refer to photons as having potential or kinetic energy. Better to say they carry electromagnetic force.
But otherwise you are right, temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of particles with mass. That energy can be converted to photons, which then radiate away until they are absorbed by other particles, which then heat up. None of that implies that photons have a temperature.
As far as your question goes, you can't stop a system from radiating, so at some level the outgoing radiation balances the incoming radiation and you reach a maximum temperature.
While you can infer the temperature of a blackbody from the radiation, the radiation itself does not have a temperature. And just because radiation can heat an object, does not mean the radiation itself has "heat". The radiation has energy... which when transfered to an object with mass results in that object heating up.
Temperature is a property that only applies to particles with mass. And really only applies to groups of particles. Hence heat (which is a more qualitative description of temperature or a change in temperature) only applies to particles with mass.
You are also wrong. Laser beams are neither hot nor cold. Those terms qualitatively describe temperature. Temperature, at least when used scientifically, refers to the average kinetic energy of mass particles within a given volume (as they bounce around). Electromagnetic radiation does not have a temperature.
Blackberry's browser sucks.
And I don't mean it is "not that good". It is barely useable.
Blackberry 6.0 will use WebKit, so should pretty much catch up, but any version below that is an excercise in frustration.
Blackberry data flows through RIM servers, but does not reside there.
You'd be hard pressed to measure the line loss of a standard copper wire over two feet. It's probably like 99% efficient, if not higher.
First, it's not clear to me that "fluid" and "liquid" have different meanings.
Second, glass is actually a solid. Flowing glass is a persistent, but untrue, urban myth.
They haven't banned the word bank. They've merely asked the registrar to highlight requests containing the word "bank" so that they can be checked for adherence to an existing law regarding portraying a company as a banking institution if it is not. Not how we would manage the system in the U.S. -- where consumer protection laws are more reactive than proactive compared to many European countries (not a judgment, just a fact) -- but hardly anything to get up in arms about.
And not even close to what the original post claims they are doing.
Name one prediction of string theory that could be tested with any technology. In other words, name one prediction of string theory that if found false (in any way) would disprove string theory. I'll give you a better one: name one prediction of string theory.
And just to cut short one level of string-theory silliness: "there might be 11 dimensions, but if there's not then we can still make the theory work with four" is not a prediction.
Because of theoretical advances and other sources of investigation, most physicists believe that LHC will do nothing more than confirm the current most accepted version of the Standard Model. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, but this is different than earlier experiments of this type, where physicists were more exploring than confirming. And LHC will not be exploring the energy levels that most string theorists say would actually provide them useful information for further developing the theory (e.g. will not allow us to differentiate between an 11 dimensional and 4 dimensional universe).
So, basically, I agree with any of the other comments here that what we have is a bunch of cosmologists running around doing very interesting math, but not doing any useful physics.
This article really is not about string theory. The article is really about the math developed as people have explored string theory. It is this math that has been applied in explaining "perfect liquid" experiments.
Same way Geckos do.
GameRanger works this way (or at least used to). When you start GameRanger, it checks the server for a new update, automatically downloads any new update, trashes the old version and restarts using the updated version. It tells the user that it is doing all of this, but the "transparent to the user" part is not a requirement of the patent, only a possibility. (That is, nothing in the patent actually bars the application from notifying the user that the update is occurring.)
Fair use provides a reviewer the right to use outtakes/quotes in his review. It does not allow him to download a full copy of the movie from the internet for his use.
Exactly what I was thinking.
Also, they should test this with different sized containers to see if it is the number of items or cumulative size of the items that they are reacting to.
I once saw a write-up where someone was testing (IIRC) dogs. Up to some number, dogs could recognize a number of objects. Above that, they went by area/volume. In other words, dogs could pick the picture that had the most items up to about seven, or something like that. For greater numbers of items, they tended to pick the picture in which the items took up the most area. Twelve big circles taking up more space than fourteen smaller circles, for instance.
It's not obvious to me from the description you linked to that it is at all a similar topology. To be similar to a neocortical column, there would still need to be thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of connections between adjacent chips. You still have the problem that the brain contains a much higher level of interconnection between regions than this chip structure would provide.
Think about the visual streams being processed through the visual cortex. Basically, streams of impulses propogate through various regions of the visual cortex. These streams are not discretely processed and then passed through narrow communication pathways to the next region. They propogate directly from one region to the next with input/output occuring along the entire boundary between regions.
This does not merely provide high throughput communications, but the connections along the boundary itself are part of the processing system.
So why not use iron phosphate to encourage cyanobacteria and kill everything in the water? You wouldn't have to worry about predators...
Did anyone else notice that their quoted 10^13 synapses can not be meaningfully compared to the number of synapses in the human brain. Each chip has lots of connections within it, but then limited connectivity to adjacent chips. While there are 50 million connections within a chip, there is little (comparatively) connectivity between chips. Some parts of the nervous system may work similarly -- e.g. sensory connections into the brain -- but connections between regions may be as complex as the connections within a region.
In other words, if they hook up 5,000 of these chips, they don't have 10% of a human brain. They have 5,000 chips each of which is .002% of a human brain and can share some data with its neighbor.
Um... what's their control?
How many such pits does one expect to find in the plastic merely from background radiation in their lab? Radiation is everywhere. Finding some random, minor neutron flux is hardly proof of anything.
The real lesson here is to not post anything on the internet that could even remotely come back to haunt you.
Stupid, stupid, stupid for a cop to post a wisecrack about Training Day, even if he's the most honest cop on the force.
According to Webster it happened in about 1600 AD.
So your lawn must be pretty old. ;)
Drummers have been using triggered drums since the mid-80s. Neil Pert, famously, used them to avoid the difficulty of keeping drums in tune between recording sessions. For live play it is even more useful, especially for outdoor venues.
For rock musicians, the trick is that the triggered drums feed into a synthesizer that uses recordings of "perfect" drum hits. To use the same example, Neil Pert spent hours getting just the right sound from each drum. Then he triggered his drum set, with the triggers actuating those "perfect" drum recordings.
Personally, I don't see what's the matter with this. You could get the same effect by just spending a lot of extra time tuning drums. Other musicians use it to get effects you couldn't otherwise get from regular drums.
However, this is different from auto-tune, where singers sound more talented than they really are. In the case of triggered drums, drummers just sound like better drum tuners than they really are.
Trees leaves may be flat, but trees aren't. They arrange their individual leaves in tall towers.