Comments of the Week https://scienceblogs.com/ en Comments of the Week: Final edition? https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/22/comments-of-the-week-final-edition <span>Comments of the Week: Final edition?</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>“You endure what is unbearable, and you bear it. That is all.” -Cassandra Clare</p></blockquote> <p>Well, the cat's out of the bag. A little over a week ago, Scienceblogs announced to us writers that they no longer had the funds to keep the site operational, and so they would be shutting down. They asked us to keep quiet about this, people didn't and now you know. As of the end of this month, there will be no new articles here on Scienceblogs, and hence, no more comments of the week or synopses, or a chance to interact <em>here</em>. So what can you do? Well, the top thing I'd like you to do is <a href="https://www.patreon.com/startswithabang">support me on Patreon</a>, where I can start posting all the same content I would normally post here, and you can:</p> <ul><li>comment,</li> <li>respond to one another,</li> <li>post your own inquiries,</li> <li>respond to one another's inquiries,</li> <li>and where I can respond to comments as I choose.</li> </ul><p>It's the best option I can offer, as I'm already on <a href="http://startswithabang.tumblr.com">Tumblr</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/StartsWithABang">Twitter</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/startswithabang/">Facebook</a>, and even <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/106562040211983246504">Google+</a>, and try to respond to as many comments in as many places as I can.</p> <div style="width: 560px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/02/BookCover_forStory.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-full wp-image-35809" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="550" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/02/BookCover_forStory.jpg" width="550" /></a> Book cover for my new book: Treknology. Image credit: Voyageur Press / Quarto Publishing Group. <p> </p> </div> <p>Also, for those of you who want to order an autographed copy of Treknology from me, I have the first copies of the book, mailers and other shipping materials are due to arrive on Tuesday, and then I can head to the post office for pricing on shipping. Expect US copies to run about $30, Canada copies to run about $40, and elsewhere in the world to be somewhere in the $50-$60 range. (Sorry, international folks!) Or, you know, just <a href="http://amzn.to/2gUIlcs">buy it now from Amazon</a> and don't wait! (But if you get it from a third-party seller, know that neither me nor my publisher makes any money.) If you want an unbiased opinion of the book, here is <a href="http://trekcore.com/blog/2017/10/review-star-trek-treknology/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">the official TrekCore review</a>. Either way, I'll have the full and final update next week. So I'm sorry to lose this forum and this archive of articles going back nearly a decade, and especially this bizarre and unique community we've built here. But like everything in the Universe, the past is gone and we can only move forward into the future as best we can.</p> <p>And now, for perhaps the final time, let's dive on into our <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/category/comments-of-the-week/">Comments of the Week</a>!</p> <div style="width: 460px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2015/02/1-NvLqPNPF7OgwYQoSLACELQ.gif"><img alt="" class="size-full wp-image-32409" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="451" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2015/02/1-NvLqPNPF7OgwYQoSLACELQ.gif" width="450" /></a> Image credit: Wikimedia Commons user Tomruen, via<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007_450px.gif">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007_4…</a>. <p> </p> </div> <blockquote><p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/15/comments-of-the-week-180-from-the-planets-kepler-missed-to-the-nasa-photos-that-changed-the-world/#comment-583026">Art Glick</a> on how the near side of the Moon never sees Earth rise or set: "If you were an observer on the Moon, the Earth would hang there eternally in the same exact location, day after day, year after year, century after century. It would never move!"</p></blockquote> <p>Yup. I have no disagreement with this, the mild, tiny effects of lunar libration (shown above) aside. In fact, many years ago, I wrote a piece entitled <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/08/02/its-never-night-on-the-moon/">It's never night on the moon</a>, where I talk about what you'll see from the lunar surface at various locations and under various conditions. In the end, however, I do mention the one reprieve you'd get from seeing the Earth all lit up:</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/08/20090218_kaguya_2L.jpeg"><img alt="Lunar eclipse" class="size-medium wp-image-19097" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="270" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/08/20090218_kaguya_2L-600x270.jpg" width="600" /></a> Image credit: JAXA / NHK, Kaguya / Selene, of a lunar eclipse as the Earth rises over the lunar limb. <p> </p> </div> <p>During a total lunar eclipse! Pretty beautiful, no matter how you slice it.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 398px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/04/krugeranddunningfig2.jpeg"><img alt="" class="size-full wp-image-17723" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="346" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/04/krugeranddunningfig2.jpeg" width="388" /></a> Perceived knowledge vs. actual knowledge. Image credit: Justin Kruger and David Dunning, 1999. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/15/comments-of-the-week-180-from-the-planets-kepler-missed-to-the-nasa-photos-that-changed-the-world/#comment-583073">Alan G.</a> on the fight club of reason: "The first rule of the Dunning-Kruger Club is that it’s members aren’t ware they are in the Dunning-Kruger Club."</p></blockquote> <p>You know, this is not only true, but I love the (sarcastic) way that John Cleese, who happens to be friends with David Dunning, puts it.</p> <p></p><center> <iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wvVPdyYeaQU" width="560"></iframe><p></p></center> <p>It isn't stupidity, <em>per se</em>, but rather expertise in any arena. For example, you may think you know all there is to know about cars, since how complicated could they possibly be? But then when your car fails to start, can you make it start immediately? On the first try? Do you know how to diagnose the problem, and which parts to check? Do you know whether it's a fuse or the starter or a problem with the ignition switch or a dead battery? And if you don't know, could you admit to yourself that you don't know, and that you need to take it to a professional? The lack of respect for those who are experts is a symptom of a larger problem, often on display here, that people think they know more than they do, and simultaneously think that bona fide experts know less than they do. So you pick the expert opinions you can find that agree with your opinions, and use that to justify your reasoning. That's thinking like a lawyer, and that approach is fruitless in science. The Universe is what it is. It's up to us to figure it out. If you want to learn, you must be humble before the Universe. Many of you do this; the rest of you can start today if you choose. It's up to you.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2015/05/Gaussian_curvature.jpg"><img alt="Image credit: Wikimedia Commons user Sam Derbyshire." class="size-medium wp-image-32889" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="448" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2015/05/Gaussian_curvature-600x448.jpg" width="600" /></a> The gaussian curvature in three dimensions can produce interesting two-dimensional effects. If we want our 3D space curved in a particular way, we'd need to look at it from a 4th spatial dimension. Image credit: Wikimedia Commons user Sam Derbyshire. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/14/ask-ethan-is-the-universe-finite-or-infinite-synopsis/#comment-583008">Frank</a> on the curvature of the Universe: "What if Universe is surface of a 4d sphere where 3d surface (space) curved in the 4th dimension (time)?"</p></blockquote> <p>Well, there is curvature in the fourth dimension, but the laws of relativity tell you how the relationship between space and time occur. There's no wiggle-room or free parameters in there. If you want the Universe to be the surface of a 4D sphere, you need an extra <em>spatial</em> dimension. There are many physics theories that consider exactly that scenario, and they are constrained but not ruled out.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/1-ZqMcmluZZUb255jY5A7Y-A-1200x833.jpg"><img alt="A Universe that expands and cools today, like ours does, must have been hotter and denser in the past. Initially, the Big Bang was regarded as the singularity from which this ultimate, hot, dense state emerged. But we know better today. Image credit: NASA / GSFC." class="size-medium wp-image-36649" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="416" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/1-ZqMcmluZZUb255jY5A7Y-A-1200x833-600x416.jpg" width="600" /></a> A Universe that expands and cools today, like ours does, must have been hotter and denser in the past. Initially, the Big Bang was regarded as the singularity from which this ultimate, hot, dense state emerged. But we know better today. Image credit: NASA / GSFC. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/14/ask-ethan-is-the-universe-finite-or-infinite-synopsis/#comment-583051">Steve Blackband</a> on other Big Bangs: "I am struggling with how to think about ‘other big bangs’. There is nothing, not even space or time, then there is our big bang, the expanding universe and outside of that no space and time."</p></blockquote> <p>You are thinking of the Big Bang as meaning "the birth of space and time." This is no longer the definition of the Big Bang, and it was always an assumption that turned out not to be very good. <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/02/04/the-two-big-bangs/">Here is an article I wrote years ago</a> (before you started reading me, I bet!) that might help clear things up.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2015/05/1-ubAcgBoHgEjkEZdkjGWBjw.jpeg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-32950" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="450" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2015/05/1-ubAcgBoHgEjkEZdkjGWBjw-600x450.jpeg" width="600" /></a> Image credit: © 2015 Shaper Helix — II Demo, via <a href="http://www.alevelsolutions.com/pure-mathematics">http://www.alevelsolutions.com/pure-mathematics</a>. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/14/ask-ethan-is-the-universe-finite-or-infinite-synopsis/#comment-583116">Michael Mooney</a> on a math lesson he's about to get: "So when there is no end to how close the repeating .999 decimal gets to 1, the convention is to call it 1. But no matter how close it gets to 1, it’s still not there yet. Like .999 % of a pie still has an ever-diminishing missing slice gap."</p></blockquote> <p>You know, I remember being unconvinced that 0.99999.... would equal 1, so I set out to test it out. Mathematics is a wonderfully self-consistent system, so you can do this experiment yourself. You don't need advanced math. In fact, consider this your very, very first algebra lesson. Imagine we have this repeating decimal, 0.99999...., and we're going to call that <strong>x</strong>. Okay? So we can write: <strong>x</strong> = 0.999999.... and so on. As many 9s as we can write, and then they go on forever. Now, let me ask you this: what if you had <em>ten</em> <strong>x</strong>s all together? In other words, multiply both side of that equation, above, by 10. What do you get? 10<strong>x</strong> = 9.999999..... and again, so on. So we have two equations: <strong>x</strong> = 0.999999.... and 10<strong>x</strong> = 9.999999.... Let's subtract the first equation from the second equation. Ready? 10<strong>x</strong> - <strong>x</strong> = 9.9999999.... - 0.99999999.... So we do the subtraction, and can you see what happens here? The left side just becomes 9<strong>x</strong>, but the right side becomes... just 9, all on its own! If 9<strong>x</strong> = 9, then <strong>x</strong> = 1. Now, I had the same question as you, once, but once I learned how to do this proof, there was no more questioning. I had proven it, just as countless others before me had, and countless others after me will. <strong>x</strong>, which we had defined as 0.99999.... is also provably equal to 1.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/USD.jpg"><img alt="The USS Discovery, NCC-1031, is perhaps a very thinly-veiled reference to Star Trek's 'Section 31,' and things could get a lot darker before anyone goes back to being an explorer. Image credit: Star Trek / CBS Press Kit." class="size-medium wp-image-36752" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="298" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/USD-600x298.jpg" width="600" /></a> The USS Discovery, NCC-1031, is perhaps a very thinly-veiled reference to Star Trek's 'Section 31,' and things could get a lot darker before anyone goes back to being an explorer. Image credit: Star Trek / CBS Press Kit. <p> </p> </div> <blockquote><p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/16/science-whoascience-oct-16-2017-0600-am-edit-post-the-little-black-book-of-billionaire-secrets-star-trek-discoverys-choose-your-pain-finally-feels-like-star-trek-season-1-episode-5-syno/#comment-583041">Sinisa Lazarek</a> on Swear Trek: "– we get a first ever “FUCK” word in Star Trek… ever. And that by a Cadet in front of officers. Not only is phrase never spoken in ST universe… but we even get more fucks with 2 other people there. Like ST script was only missing that word, and now we’ll multiply."</p></blockquote> <p>Yeah, Tilly swears. And then others do it, too. Honestly, I didn't even notice until someone I was watching it with pointed it out. But Tilly is pretty much the audience surrogate: an awkward superfan of everything in the show who gets to be roommates with Michael Burnham. I seriously think Burnham could blow up the entire Earth and Tilly would still be her fan. I am doing my best with this show to "chew on the meat and throw away the bones," otherwise I think, like many others, I'll wind up disappointed.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/Like-a-Death-Yell-for-Sto-vo-kor.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-36666" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="349" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/Like-a-Death-Yell-for-Sto-vo-kor-600x349.jpg" width="600" /></a> The warrior that Burnham kills is given the traditional Klingon death ritual... and then predictably used as a political tool to start a war. Image credit: Jan Thijs/CBS © 2017 CBS Interactive. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/16/science-whoascience-oct-16-2017-0600-am-edit-post-the-little-black-book-of-billionaire-secrets-star-trek-discoverys-choose-your-pain-finally-feels-like-star-trek-season-1-episode-5-syno/#comment-583042">Denier</a> on the role of the Klingons in episode 5: "Klingons were back to being one dimensional villains who all spoke English and served their regular role to move the plot along. That, more than anything else, made this episode better."</p></blockquote> <p>You know, I <em>did</em> notice this change, and I liked it very much. Hopefully, we'll see less of the fundamentalist theocrat Klingons speaking Klingon and a lot more of... well, everything else.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/Sonequa-Martin-Green-as-First-Officer-Michael-Burnham.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-36665" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="404" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/Sonequa-Martin-Green-as-First-Officer-Michael-Burnham-600x404.jpg" width="600" /></a> Burnham, in the first two episodes alone, gets a fatal dose of radiation poisoning, activates a Klingon probe and kills its guardian, mutinies against and knocks out the Captain, and then kills the Klingon leader. Image credit: Jan Thijs, © 2017 CBS Interactive. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/16/science-whoascience-oct-16-2017-0600-am-edit-post-the-little-black-book-of-billionaire-secrets-star-trek-discoverys-choose-your-pain-finally-feels-like-star-trek-season-1-episode-5-syno/#comment-583070">Anonymous Coward</a> on the end of Scienceblogs: "Ethan, I read both you and Orac here on ScienceBlogs and Orac has just mentioned that ScienceBlogs will soon be shutting down for good at the end of the month. There going to be another place where we can see your article summaries and make discussion like this, other than on Forbes itself?"</p></blockquote> <p>Unfortunately, unless you come and <a href="https://www.patreon.com/startswithabang">join my Patreon</a> (asking at least $1 a month is a lot, I know), there's nothing else quite like what we've been doing here. I used to run startswithabang.com and would consider it again, but I simply don't have the time to run my own blog and deal with all the hacks and updates that routinely happen on top of all the things I'm creating at this time.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/garlick_bread.jpg"><img alt="In the final moments of merging, two neutron stars don't merely emit gravitational waves, but a catastrophic explosion that echoes across the electromagnetic spectrum. Image credit: University of Warwick / Mark Garlick." class="size-medium wp-image-36756" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="398" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/garlick_bread-600x398.jpg" width="600" /></a> In the final moments of merging, two neutron stars don't merely emit gravitational waves, but a catastrophic explosion that echoes across the electromagnetic spectrum. Image credit: University of Warwick / Mark Garlick. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/16/astronomys-rosetta-stone-merging-neutron-stars-seen-with-both-gravitational-waves-and-light-synopsis/#comment-583043">Michael Tiemann</a> on neutron star collisions: "When two neutron stars have been circling each other for 11 billion years, what is the relative velocity of their “collision” when they do collide?"</p></blockquote> <p>About a third the speed of light. Pretty impressive, don't you think?</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/I-wish-I-were.png"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-36774" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="314" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/I-wish-I-were-600x314.png" width="600" /></a> Geordi's VISOR from Star Trek: TNG. Image credit: Memory Alpha. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/16/astronomys-rosetta-stone-merging-neutron-stars-seen-with-both-gravitational-waves-and-light-synopsis/#comment-583050">Gail Farley</a> on a new <em>Treknology</em> that's been developed quite recently: "Thank you for educating people about technology on Coast to Coast last night and in your book. You stated last night that you were concerned about a technology that can implant memories, and effect the body, including the loss of sight. Please tell me what kind of technology that is, so that I can research it further."</p></blockquote> <p>In 2012, a group at Monash University build a working device to transmit optical information directly to the wearer's brain, through an implant in the visual cortex. If you want to get even deeper into the real-life science than my book does, you can read the 2016 article: <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-41876-6_17">Monash Vision Group’s Gennaris Cortical Implant for Vision Restoration</a>.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/SWAB4-1200x786-1.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-36770" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="393" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/SWAB4-1200x786-1-600x393.jpg" width="600" /></a> We knew that when two neutron stars merge, as simulated here, they create gamma-ray burst jets, as well as other electromagnetic phenomena. But whether you produce a neutron star or a black hole, as well as how much of a UV/optical counterpart is produced, should be strongly mass-dependent. Image credit: NASA / Albert Einstein Institute / Zuse Institute Berlin / M. Koppitz and L. Rezzolla. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/16/astronomys-rosetta-stone-merging-neutron-stars-seen-with-both-gravitational-waves-and-light-synopsis/#comment-583065">Omega Centauri</a> and <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/16/astronomys-rosetta-stone-merging-neutron-stars-seen-with-both-gravitational-waves-and-light-synopsis/#comment-583066">Michael Kelsey</a> on the newest LIGO/Virgo/EM discoveries: "(1) What is the estimate of the NS masses? (2) How did they come up with the age of the NS system? (3) What is the estimated rate of mergers per cube a billion light years on a side? (4) If both NS are near the minimum mass of a NS, can we get a NS rather than BH. (5) Do we expect of significant gamma-ray burst from a BH NS merger? 1) About a solar mass each. 2) Use PSR B1913+16. 3) Not as high as for BH mergers. 4) Yes. 5) Yes."</p></blockquote> <p>You may also really, really appreciate the information I gleaned from the theoretical end from an interview a few days ago with Chris Fryer at Los Alamos. That article, in case you missed it, <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/10/20/seeing-one-example-of-merging-neutron-stars-raises-five-incredible-questions/">is here</a>.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2016/04/1-5uje_JzSxV93nedWdky_VA.gif"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-34549" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="750" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2016/04/1-5uje_JzSxV93nedWdky_VA-600x750.gif" width="600" /></a> The quasar QSO J0842+1835, whose path was gravitationally altered by Jupiter in 2002, allowing an indirect confirmation that the speed of gravity equals the speed of light. Image credit: Fomalont et al. (2000), ApJS 131, 95-183, via <a href="http://www.jive.nl/svlbi/vlbapls/J0842+1835.htm">http://www.jive.nl/svlbi/vlbapls/J0842+1835.htm</a>. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/17/why-neutron-stars-not-black-holes-show-the-future-of-gravitational-wave-astronomy-synopsis/#comment-583080">CFT</a> on the speed of gravity: "IF gravity traveled at the speed of light, how do you explain the actual orbits of planets around the sun?"</p></blockquote> <p>Not that <em>you'll</em> learn anything from this, but the actual answer is that, in the context of General Relativity, if gravity moved at any other speed, we wouldn't get the orbits that we see! I <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/04/28/why-does-gravity-move-at-the-speed-of-light/">wrote an article on the indirect evidence</a> (independent of any gravitational wave detections) that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light some time ago, and all that analysis is still valid today. Since, CFT, you're such a fan of getting info from "real" experts, you know, experts not named Ethan, maybe you'll listen to the research of the awesome GR expert Steve Carlip, who wrote up <a href="https://johanw.home.xs4all.nl/PhysFAQ/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html">this account</a> of the actual evidence you claim is missing?</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/SCaRS.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-36759" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="437" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/SCaRS-600x437.jpg" width="600" /></a> The soft capture mechanism installed on Hubble (illustration) uses a Low Impact Docking System (LIDS) interface and associated relative navigation targets for future rendezvous, capture, and docking operations. The system’s LIDS interface is designed to be compatible with the rendezvous and docking systems to be used on the next-generation space transportation vehicle. Image credit: NASA. <p> </p> </div> <blockquote><p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/18/the-hubble-space-telescope-is-falling-synopsis/#comment-583107">Elle H.C.</a> on kickstarting the saving of Hubble: "Get a Kickstarter-thingy and you might get enough funding by the end of the month."</p></blockquote> <p>Well, let's do the math on that. The <a href="https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/235313#">most Kickstartered-thing ever</a>, as far as I know, is Pebble Time, which is a smartwatch company that had a couple of successful Kickstarters. They raised just slightly north of $20 million. Only three things (two of which are Pebble) have crested the $10 million mark, and there are only about a dozen more that are over $5 million. On the other hand, to boost Hubble would require approximately $500 million, if I'm ballpark-estimating appropriately. You are way better off going to an Elon Musk or a Richard Branson or Roscosmos if NASA won't do it. That sort of money just doesn't seem feasible.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/The_optical_system_of_the_ELT_showing_the_location_of_the_mirrors-1200x801.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-36685" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="401" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/The_optical_system_of_the_ELT_showing_the_location_of_the_mirrors-1200x801-600x401.jpg" width="600" /></a> This diagram shows the novel 5-mirror optical system of ESO's Extremely Large Telescope (ELT). Before reaching the science instruments the light is first reflected from the telescope's giant concave 39-metre segmented primary mirror (M1), it then bounces off two further 4-metre-class mirrors, one convex (M2) and one concave (M3). The final two mirrors (M4 and M5) form a built-in adaptive optics system to allow extremely sharp images to be formed at the final focal plane. Image credit: ESO. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/18/the-hubble-space-telescope-is-falling-synopsis/#comment-583120">lyle</a> on the oversimplified joke-science that is IFLS: "Further if this article is correct : <a href="http://www.iflscience.com/space/telescopes-ground-may-be-cheaper-hubble-shows-why-they-are-not-enough/" rel="nofollow">http://www.iflscience.com/space/telescopes-ground-may-be-cheaper-hubble-shows-why-they-are-not-enough/</a> “When E-ELT observations start in 2024, the state-of-the-art correction for atmospheric distortion will allow it to provide images 16 times sharper than those taken by Hubble."</p></blockquote> <p>This is the big problem you get when you get your science from not only non-scientists, but non-journalists. They are, over at IFLS, basically news readers and re-writers, and they rarely know (or care) enough to put it in context. I've written, recently, <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/13/a-new-record-nears-the-worlds-largest-telescope-prepares-for-completion/">about the ELT at length</a>, and it's true that it will have 16 times the resolution of Hubble <em>at certain wavelengths</em> and <em>for certain classes of observations</em> in the cases where <em>atmospheric distortion can be 100% removed</em>, which is never. The scientific fact is there are a whole slew of observations, including UV observations and IR observations, that Hubble can make that no ground-based observatory can. Hubble's lack of atmospheric distortion is incredible, and something no ground-based observatory, even with the best AO there is, can match. In summary, F IFLS, and please don't ever expect anything beyond superficial, partially correct information from them.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/anti-gravity.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-36762" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="358" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/anti-gravity-600x358.jpg" width="600" /></a> The possibility of having artificial gravity is tantalizing, but it is predicated on the existence of negative gravitational mass. Antimatter may be that mass, but we don't yet know, experimentally. Image credit: Rolf Landua / CERN. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/19/why-dont-we-have-artificial-gravity-in-space-synopsis/#comment-583152">Omega Centauri</a> on the problem of artificial gravity: "Even if anti-matter produces anti-grav, you would need a heck of a lot of it to get 1G. How much mass is needed to create 1G (depends on density, at the average density of about 5 the mass of the earth is needed. Denser matter, and you could get by with less. But, its a huge amount no matter how you do it, and presumably it is also inertial mass, which kind of makes spacecraft difficult to accelerate."</p></blockquote> <p>All true. But I will say that I am much more excited about a problem that it is physically possible to solve than one that isn't, and antigravitating antimatter would enable that transformation when it comes to artificial gravity. Now, who has the stable white dwarf matter to build your spaceship out of... and the anti-white-dwarf antimatter, too?</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/Lorca-Bridge-Crew.jpg"><img alt="Captain Gabriel Lorca aboard the bridge of the Discovery, during a simulated combat mission with the Klingons. Image credit: Jan Thijs/CBS © 2017 CBS Interactive." class="size-medium wp-image-36721" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="400" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/Lorca-Bridge-Crew-600x400.jpg" width="600" /></a> Captain Gabriel Lorca aboard the bridge of the Discovery, during a simulated combat mission with the Klingons. Image credit: Jan Thijs/CBS © 2017 CBS Interactive. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/19/why-dont-we-have-artificial-gravity-in-space-synopsis/#comment-583184">Douglas Robertson</a> on artificial gravity vs. life support: "What I find funny about fictional artificial gravity is when they are experiencing an emergency. All life support is shut down, but they still have gravity."</p></blockquote> <p>Must be a passive system, then. See, not so hard to explain!</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/SWAB1.jpg"><img alt="Neutron stars, when they merge, can exhibit gravitational wave and electromagnetic signals simultaneously, unlike black holes. But the details of the merger are quite puzzling, as the theoretical models don't quite match what we've observed. Image credit: Dana Berry / Skyworks Digital, Inc." class="size-medium wp-image-36772" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="321" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/SWAB1-600x321.jpg" width="600" /></a> Neutron stars, when they merge, can exhibit gravitational wave and electromagnetic signals simultaneously, unlike black holes. But the details of the merger are quite puzzling, as the theoretical models don't quite match what we've observed. Image credit: Dana Berry / Skyworks Digital, Inc. <p> </p> </div> <p>And finally, from <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/20/seeing-one-example-of-merging-neutron-stars-raises-five-incredible-questions-synopsis/#comment-583185">Adam</a> on the origin of gamma rays from the NS-NS merger: "Could the omnidirectional gamma ray bursts be coming from the ejecta themselves? It seems like the process of going from a lump of neutronium to all those heavy elements is a lot like the fission reaction of an atomic bomb – just one the with the mass of 30 to 40 Jupiters."</p></blockquote> <p>I doubt it. The ejecta occur on the timescale of hundreds of milliseconds, but the gamma ray burst occurred 1.7 seconds after the gravitational wave signal arrived, so I don't think that's a dealbreaker but I also don't think that lines up. Moreover, the ejecta come mostly from wind interactions in a disk surrounding the neutron stars, so I also don't think that's as likely a source as the ultra-high energies released in the star-star collision. I think it's likely where the surfaces collide that produces such a high-energy, transient burst, but as with all things science, it's going to take some additional evidence to know for certain! Thanks for a great everything, everyone, and we'll have one final just-for-you article next weekend. See you then!</p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/startswithabang" lang="" about="/startswithabang" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">esiegel</a></span> <span>Sun, 10/22/2017 - 02:01</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/comments-week" hreflang="en">Comments of the Week</a></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-categories field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Categories</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/channel/free-thought" hreflang="en">Free Thought</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547189" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508654074"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"Now, I had the same question as you, once, but once I learned how to do this proof, there was no more questioning. I had proven it, just as countless others before me had, and countless others after me will. x, which we had defined as 0.99999…. is also provably equal to 1."</p> <p>That proof assumes the existence of limits and the convergence issues of the decimal, but it is a good demonstration. The problem is with the lack of knowledge of the targets who don't believe the equality. There is too much lack of understanding of mathematics to get past. I don't think it's simple coincidence that people who won't take the time to learn the math also won't take the time to learn anything about science (or, more commonly here in West Michigan, vaccine safety). </p> <p>Best of luck in your future endeavors. Will there ever come an explanation for why the overlords here decided to shut down everything?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547189&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="cI9CjeTufHuhnrFz90uslsfuKBB9-x2e2Tw1gn-urUg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">dean (not verified)</span> on 22 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547189">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547190" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508656817"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><i>So you pick the expert opinions you can find that agree with your opinions, and use that to justify your reasoning. </i></p> <p>Or, quite often, you find those with opinions that you find appealing or subversive, and that's how you decide they're an expert.</p> <p><i>Must be a passive system, then.</i></p> <p>Pretty much. The TNG Technical Manual writers addressed that by inventing devices that produce pseudo-gravitons by spinning at several tens of thousands of revolutions per minute, suspended magnetically inside their containers. They don't need to be fed power continuously and will produce synthetic gravity for several hours after last receiving a "kick" from the power grid.</p> <p>Of course, I've always been dubious of how much power the life support systems could even be using compared to stuff like the engines or shields. It seems a bit like a nuclear aircraft carrier captain trying to squeeze out more speed by turning off the freezers where they store the food. But, drama.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547190&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="9ECuLUe1_bUu9sG3EhqCzIexgjW4c4KbM54VB8tOpQ0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="Naked Bunny with a Whip">Naked Bunny wi… (not verified)</span> on 22 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547190">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547191" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508657106"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@dean: Ad revenue has imploded this past year, so I assume the site is just broke. At least one site I frequent gave up on ads entirely because they were no longer worth the hassle for how little money they were bringing in, and it now depends on subscriptions and donations to pay for hosting and writers.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547191&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="_aKBLxtV6gh4ea7IwBr2nBCBUUOMCvQPFIXLjHb9FBQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="Naked Bunny with a Whip">Naked Bunny wi… (not verified)</span> on 22 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547191">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547192" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508659456"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>The mathematical sleight of hand in the proof is saying 10x = 9.99999...<br /> You have not exactly defined how multiplication works on non-terminating numerical representations, and instead used the tradition of 'shifting the decimal point'.</p> <p>But as a general illustration of the point, it will do.</p> <p>#mathpedant</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547192&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="eSB0-vaRwbxYFd8t02LsDOfuYxRff8VT4vqUxWOZ6Uw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">MobiusKlein (not verified)</span> on 22 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547192">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547193" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508661370"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I am familiar with limits in calculus, and No, I don't agree with certain assumptions being made about them in the name of convention and how they are used. Calculus wants it both ways, it wants to expand something small and straighten it out for ease of computation to discern difference (a la .999 vs .99999 or 1), then pull back and claim there is no difference, they are a point, you can't actually have it both ways except as an illusion of perspective and convenience. If two points appear close, you can pretend they are the same, but they aren't. It does not matter how far you pull back, they still aren't. For the sake of pushing your calculation (good enough for union work) you can treat them that way, but that changes nothing. If I pull away from the earth by a billion light years and then observe how our entire solar system appears, I could call it a point. It still isn't.<br /> .<br /> Anyone who has played with several different calculators and computers also knows that different systems have different numbers of decimal point accuracy. This can become a problem in math classes especially when in relation to how numbers are rounded or handled in calculation, and is a huge problem in reiterative calculation where the limitations of decimal approximation can become quite large. Calling .999... =1 is an approximation as far as computation goes. Hackers and accountants have been playing with loopholes in these discrepancies in actual computations for decades and they aren't trivial. The thing I love about computation is that it demonstrates where the edges of human mathematical assumptions of convenience part ways with what the actual operation of the computation is itself. To a calculator or computer, calculation is never abstract, there is no such thing inside a computer, it is always finite. .9999... is an abstraction because it actually isn't a fixed number at all, its actually a repeating process that keeps getting longer forever, that's what 'infinitely repeating' means, you can talk about it, but you can't actually do it, it's equivalent to 'keep going that a-way!' and pretend it's a finite set amount or set length. In practice, you can use the first tiny part of PI, but NO, you can't actually use the entire number, you will only approximate it in calculation, and YES, that is a big deal, you can read up on how many digits you calculate PI to IS important to various scientific calculations, especially reiterative calculations (rinse, repeat 10 billion times, etc) which are things computers excel at.<br /> .<br /> .99 =/= .999, .999=/= .9999, .9999=/= .99999 . You can have your .999 etc approximated by any FINITE number of 9s, and then someone else comes along and makes the calculation with one more decimal place of accuracy with another 9, and there would be a difference. Ethan is also sidestepping the entire issue with what he is actually doing, if you don't have the infinite time to add up each of the '9s' in your infinite series, you certainly don't have time to subtract them or multiply them either, except as hand waved shorthand inference, which is where he was in the first place with summing over an infinite series, sleight of hand by moving a decimal is all he did and called it proof. You can infer and assume, but you can't actually do an infinite number of operations in a proof, neither can a computer, eventually it too is limited to what it can do in a finite amount of time with a finite number of decimal spaces with a finite amount of memory.<br /> .<br /> In answer to question #2,<br /> I tried looking into this. It's messy. The site was started with a grant from SEED media group by a man named Adam Bly. There are a lot of organizations involved with SEED media group, and it does explain a lot about the left leaning political social-engineering undercurrents of many of the sections. ScienceBlog.com was involved in a scandal of sorts in 2010 when it was being accused of outright propaganda due to some corporate sponsored articles involving PesiCo. I don't think it ever fully recovered.<br /> .<br /><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScienceBlogs">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScienceBlogs</a><br /> .<br /> Since then, it would appear there might have been some sort of financial damage done, and advertising revenue wasn't enough.<br /> Long story short,<br /> .<br /> They ran out of money.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547193&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Y8Awg016iGNFwVjwM1XB71D-cyxqso_DdEzFkAx_c9U"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CFT (not verified)</span> on 22 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547193">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547194" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508662221"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Ok, as to whole Gravity plate in the deck thing, what happens when you stand on a diving board? You are pushing down on it with your weight. If I could some how make the decking pull you down to it using gravity, why would this not in turn push against the deck? This is what you are doing. Gravity is not magnetism. You would actually start to propel your ship in the direction of the gravity drive pulling or pushing you (this trick can actually be exploited in Space engineers, you merely orient a mass block below your gravity generator, and it falls, pulling your ship with it. If this was intentional and you want to go that direciton, great, otherwise, it might make steering a wee bit difficult if your ship is always having to correct for all the mass pushing in one direction (relatively downwards to the decking). I'm thinking of Star Trek, Star Wars horizontal deck layouts in this scenario</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547194&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="I2PVxUj_0DRKtJmUP97crl6hvPSQiwcRNPABs1fpbdI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CFT (not verified)</span> on 22 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547194">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547195" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508662342"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>CFT, you contradict yourself immediately. You clearly don't have any understanding of limits or calculus in general. We do not make any distinction between the non-terminating decimal of 9s and 1. That is simply your failure to understand. </p> <p>"No, I don’t agree with certain assumptions being made about them in the name of convention and how they are used. "</p> <p>That simply means you are wrong. How did you fail so monumentally at so many areas of educationm</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547195&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="oQf2DHc5nC9QIhnY3iljW_jSa7pnMevZhyry4A82UOA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">dean (not verified)</span> on 22 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547195">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547196" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508662902"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Ethan,</p> <p>Mh, it's a numbing feeling to hear that your blog is going to stop (here). I had some great times and learned a lot, you're quite unique!</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547196&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Q7U6E9Mvng1sk-XbSG-tSqJ3FCdbyon_tF_8aa6yvZo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 22 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547196">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547197" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508664218"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Mathematicians often forget that even abstract operations imagined outside of time are not possible in actual calculations. Every mathematical operation ever done takes some non zero amount of time to perform. There are no exceptions, unless the mathematician is going to delve off into the pure fantasy of meta time, sequentially observing time outside of time, which is just an attempt to evade the issue.<br /> .<br /> When you multiply a .999 by 10, logically and mechanically, you aren't just moving one decimal point, you are moving every single number in the series one decimal place to the right. The visible shorthand convention is not what is actually happening (the movement of one "."), you have to analyze the change that is occurring to each and every decimal place in the series. If you were to actually multiply an infinitely repeating number by 10, you would also be moving an infinitely repeating number of decimal places. In fact this is just sleight of short-hand, it's the same issue as before with the summing over problem, just with rearranged terms (he's just surreptitiously moved the ball from one hand to the other and claimed it disappeared). This is why I eschew operations involving infinity in actual calculations, as any good programmer should, it's considered a no-no, an infinite loop error, and it really mucks things up with memory and gets your boss mad at you.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547197&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="k10-KlA6fnadSfYmI9LotAkCQmhAWSbynuyrZ753I3M"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CFT (not verified)</span> on 22 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547197">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547198" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508664859"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Ethan: " In fact, consider this your very, very first algebra lesson."<br /> How utterly, presumptuous and condescending! I said I am not a mathematician, not that I never took a class in algebra.<br /> See my comments in the "Finite or Infinite" post, #79 for a reality check outside the games mathematicians play.</p> <p>Note: It figures that your new propaganda platform for fame, fortune and fantasy/ opinion (presented as established science) will require payment for membership. Count me out.<br /> I imagine a sigh of relief. You sure don't tolerate criticism, which makes you a very biased non-scientist.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547198&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="CiElqDtj2MDtqOlyMgMdTkBSkj6-inXPKjjrcYQITIA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 22 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547198">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547199" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508665163"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>CFT, the issue with the changing decimals is what the details if limits and series explains. Study it.</p> <p>Mooney, your outrage is false. Your comments in the math have never been a reality check -- they've always been the rants of a person who took trivial and non-substantive classes in areas not related to science but pretends to know something useful.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547199&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="P_-fsHt-3DCDHAySv99-etmZiZKALEpudEo6NBAHlVs"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">dean (not verified)</span> on 22 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547199">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547200" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508669996"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@CFT: the mathematical underpinning for the real numbers is a wonderful course to take in college, and one I loved in my Math degree.<br /> Taking such a course would help you understand exactly how real numbers make sense, and what mathematicians use to justify it all. </p> <p>For example, the square root of 2 can be represented by an equivalence group, 'all series of positive rational numbers that converge to a value, that squared equals 2'<br /> And yes, by this point, we are no longer talking about concrete number values, but things that behave so much like numbers that well, let's just treat them as actual numbers.</p> <p>And when you complain about abstraction vs reality, you may as well throw out all of Euclidean geometry, since in real life, no two physical lines are precisely parallel. Or even infinitely thin!</p> <p>And yes, I say this a a computer programmer who strives to avoid dumping infinite loops on my users.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547200&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="_LIBdmNHxWgbACTjIN0skfSjGzK7U9ciThdgxxrBwbs"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">MobiusKlein (not verified)</span> on 22 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547200">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547201" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508670458"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Michael Mooney,<br /> Like many experts, he thinks because he knows something others don't, that he's been elevated to the elite peerage and doesn't have to watch his tone. I beg to strongly differ. Ethan has a nasty habit of glossing over truth in favor of his questionable 'narrative':<br /> .<br /><a href="http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/10/i-totally-mean-it-inflation-never.html">http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/10/i-totally-mean-it-inflation-ne…</a><br /> .<br /> Simple rule of thumb, when your 'brilliant' expert is condescending and insults you:<br /> 1.) Ignore/Fire them, they are just like light bulbs, they are replaceable and there's more than one that shines just as brightly, and...<br /> 2.) Get another expert who understands that 'arrogance' is not an irresistible cologne from France.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547201&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Dq97rTi1A0BpzPSbLdrSn87K0vEsy07rPXcREGTfWKw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CFT (not verified)</span> on 22 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547201">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547202" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508675013"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>I’m sorry to lose this forum and this archive of articles going back nearly a decade</p></blockquote> <p>You're not even going to archive the data?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547202&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="h4hZ4pfPvG9gyH_h3fDTvdhbSFOAwrb4rDsuR1tipIo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Narad (not verified)</span> on 22 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547202">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547203" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508675756"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@MobiusKlein #10,</p> <p> I have never claimed Euclidean Geometry was reality, or even any other abstraction for that matter, quite the opposite , as it contains no time, which is actually one of the greatest problems with importing time into geometry, it wasn't designed for it. I have also been very vocal about the misuse of points, lines and planes, (infinitely thin or otherwise, makes no difference), and other geometrical constructs having their definitions ignored and being misused as magically reified physical objects imported into physics to carry mass or represent indestructible substances (like point masses and super strings) without even having volume. It even gets more complicated where circles are concerned, as movement in a circular motion has very different constraints than a static fixed circle diagram.<br /> .<br /> There are uses of geometry that overlap in places with reality, obviously, but that does not make one system equivalent to the other any more than two intersecting lines being called congruent because they occasionally intersect at several points.<br /> .<br /> I'm not going to play the 'what is a number game', it has become an unworkable mess of obfuscation that seems to designed just to say "I gotcha!" and count coup. Any time I can attempt to define how a number is used in computation, a mathematician can create yet another abstract layer of manipulation on top of that which skirts it. It goes nowhere fast, like an existentialist discussion about meaning, EVERY SINGLE TIME. So No, I'm not going to conflate things which aren't numbers but some insist treating like numbers in yet another form of highly abstract circular numerical onanism.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547203&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="nbCnoZ3DmWB9-1b9KkbLz6q_QrbBvruzb6IIPfE34ko"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CFT (not verified)</span> on 22 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547203">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547204" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508676946"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>CFT, I think your error is in looking at the discussion as an opportunity to count coup, rather than explore ideas.</p> <p>I play with the concepts of numbers not to find the True Meaning Of Number, but to explore and expand my mind a bit. </p> <p>I utilize concepts of numbers in the discrete math world of computer science as part of my day job. Which is a different world than quantum mechanics. Could we invent FFT without the mathematical rigor of Real &amp; Imaginary Analysis? nope.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547204&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="xQ_aPeU796wbWb6rp5pdg0Uo6kwh7_QHhbob-AuVAmA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">MobiusKlein (not verified)</span> on 22 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547204">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547205" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508678820"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@MobiusKlein,<br /> You can play with numbers as much as you like, but with each layer of abstraction you add, you are actually moving further from not closer to the subject you would model with them.<br /> .<br /> Quantum mechanics is a statistical gloss of some underlying system that really isn't understood, much like trying to understand the roll of a couple of six sided dice by using statistical outcomes, without knowing what dimensions the dice have or what a physical motion like rolling was, and what other things would be involved for that to even happen, i.e. a hand to roll the dice, a surface for the dice to roll on, a certain amount of friction, the construction of the dice and how much they weighed, the air the dice travelled through, the aspect of gravity allowing the dice to be rolled and come to a halt.<br /> .<br /> However things work on a small scale, it isn't statistical math and blatantly fudged solutions like renormalization in QED.<br /> There is something there, it just isn't known. I'm fine with working with QM until a better understanding arrives, But I'd be delusional to think QM is a complete (or coherent) explanation or the best that we can do.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547205&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Vzl8LLf7wGS9hwttiit1JvbrTqe7SuNw5mSkQvm4Wts"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CFT (not verified)</span> on 22 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547205">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547206" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508681198"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@CFT #13<br /> " I have also been very vocal about the misuse of points, lines and planes, (infinitely thin or otherwise, makes no difference), and other geometrical constructs having their definitions ignored and being misused as magically reified physical objects imported into physics to carry mass or represent indestructible substances (like point masses and super strings) without even having volume."</p> <p>Me too. (I have been very vocal, as you said.)</p> <p>I like the head game where an "unstoppable object" collides with an "immovable object."</p> <p>Of course, neither exist.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547206&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="dw1A0Aa1vAIN3Z4NmGYw-6PlPV7tkPMej8DivipAC0o"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 22 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547206">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547207" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508683879"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Ethan wrote:</p> <p>"From Frank on the curvature of the Universe: “What if Universe is surface of a 4d sphere where 3d surface (space) curved in the 4th dimension (time)?”"</p> <p>"Well, there is curvature in the fourth dimension, but the laws of relativity tell you how the relationship between space and time occur. There’s no wiggle-room or free parameters in there. If you want the Universe to be the surface of a 4D sphere, you need an extra spatial dimension. There are many physics theories that consider exactly that scenario, and they are constrained but not ruled out."</p> <p>Then what if I propose, gravitational field across the Universe is the fifth dimension (for the Universe to be the surface of a 4D sphere)? (And also think about why it seems gravity is the only fundamental force that effects all dimensions. Couldn't it be because gravity itself is a dimension, so it must be included together with other dimensions (of spacetime) in physics calculations.)</p> <p>More speculations from me if Ethan or anyone interested:<br /><a href="http://fb36blog.blogspot.com/2017/10/geometry-of-our-universe-2.html">http://fb36blog.blogspot.com/2017/10/geometry-of-our-universe-2.html</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547207&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ThvzYHMfD0Pcfty2jYc_CpQwjaQ7R3JMuPi7h16Nblc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Frank (not verified)</span> on 22 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547207">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547208" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508691190"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@CFT: abstractions, when done right, let us peer deeper into the structure of numbers and systems. </p> <p>The Fast Fourier Transform would never have been created without imaginary numbers, irrational numbers, and many other high level abstractions.<br /> But damn, it's some awesome code when you turn it into some reality. </p> <p>And yes, there is some high level wankery you can get lost in, on the math side. That's life, though.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547208&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="UaCYz3i-d3LV2jCH_dRVNKHDykhYBFzeWSHg2RhcA7k"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">MobiusKlein (not verified)</span> on 22 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547208">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547209" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508697730"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@MobiusKlien #18,</p> <p>I can appreciate that math has uses, but, and there is a 'but', there is a point where you have to just stop and take a look at where things are actually going.<br /> .<br /> The last I knew, Superstrings theory predicted there might be around 10^500 possible geometries, or landscapes they would have to sift through to get to one that MIGHT be a description of our universe. That number is now, very conservatively calculated to be about 10^272755, that is 10 to the 272,755th power. That is a level of numerical wankery I don't even pretend to consider seriously anymore. As Lana Kane on Archer would say, "NoooooOPE".<br /> .<br /> At some point someone is going to have to set down the bong and sober up. This is not new physics. This Is what being lost looks like. This is NOT abstraction done right. This does NOT lead to 'insights', this is throwing money, resources, and people's entire professional lives down into an abyss no one can ever dig out of.<br /> .<br /><a href="http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9649">http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9649</a><br /> .<br /> Occam's razor should have killed this undead mathematical turd of a theory a long time ago. The fact that the highest levels of the physics community still strongly support it tells me:<br /> 1.) They are utterly desperate, and as Peter Woit warned,<br /> 2.) They have no plan B, and no plan to have a plan B.<br /> 3.) They intend to keep digging themselves deeper until they a.) reach China or even better, b.) get lucky and run across a Balrog, at which point they will c.) claim success and write many fine papers about how they predicted that we actually live in the Middle-Earth universe and that this would happen.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547209&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="JSMdNvGedkkaLnK7toQ8CWZDS1Fhrj5u_1WTXHafTA0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CFT (not verified)</span> on 22 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547209">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547210" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508698373"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@CFT: Goal post shifting noted.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547210&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="GHXhheYU3d5LI4L97HKlfa7-f2n1KeemyALGv_uMHLI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">MobiusKlein (not verified)</span> on 22 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547210">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547211" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508709762"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I take it that you will still be posting on Forbes.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547211&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="xLxN8RXCoMicfBtL1KQv4jA5XaFrAuCKdHNeB9rRWuc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Julian Frost (not verified)</span> on 22 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547211">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547212" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508719911"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>CFT,<br /> If you follow the link below and read what Ethan posted, you'll see Ethan's opinion about String Theory.<br /><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2008/04/18/on-string-theory-from-a-string-theorist/">http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2008/04/18/on-string-theory-fro…</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547212&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="dVKuxUFvOePNWI0GuA8uoacgPcWlmnBToD5Bd4Aid4U"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John (not verified)</span> on 22 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547212">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547213" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508735938"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@John,<br /> I don't think Ethan is responsible for SuperString theory, (his albatross is inflation), I blame the physics community and academia for that monstrosity. Superstrings has been very good for them financially, it pulled in a lot of money, government support, and public interest...despite the fact it was bunkum. Super Strings are good to bring up because it is a living demonstration of how the scientific community doesn't self correct very well when it is being paid handsomely not to. It has become a big business with an insular tone deaf culture more concerned about continued funding than discovery.<br /> .<br /> I do think Ethan and most anyone else in the physics community with any sanity left should be very actively speaking up and trying to shut this train wreck down instead of just raising their eyebrows, and passively watching it crash and burn. Professional courtesy should have its limits.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547213&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="W-YnHgIPUAKo4tJL1ZUEjnNwrqVJKNz0CpNbSusiraQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CFT (not verified)</span> on 23 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547213">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547214" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508736372"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@MobiusKlien #22,<br /> By shifting the goal posts do you means changing the subject? I don't have any problem whatsoever with Fourier Transforms, they have a lot of applications in technology and signal processing and are highly useful. I simply don't equate them with 'too big to fail' theories which make no testable predictions about the entire universe we live in, making them de facto 'useless' as science.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547214&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="1J3knWpD6Oe30gaqjolHqhPGhXoFtbzqS1jUs6D5yrU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CFT (not verified)</span> on 23 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547214">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547215" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508746194"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>The last I knew, Superstrings theory predicted there might be around 10^500 possible geometries, or landscapes they would have to sift through to get to one that MIGHT be a description of our universe. That number is now, very conservatively calculated to be about 10^272755, that is 10 to the 272,755th power.</p></blockquote> <p>Congratulations, you can blindly cut and paste from Peter Woit's joint. I don't imagine that you can comment there.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547215&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="USYGbtxqtqwRr3iOsriCznjCp74C-UREebxIiNYGh6M"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Narad (not verified)</span> on 23 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547215">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547216" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508746453"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>Quantum mechanics is a statistical gloss of some underlying system that really isn’t understood</p></blockquote> <p>All this bloviation and general asshurt about not being treated with the respect that you think you deserve, and you barf up <i>hidden variables?</i> This is just sad.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547216&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="hXf_nRkKT8d5wZJIJs84e5BflCqa6lYnQYxC5AuErXw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Narad (not verified)</span> on 23 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547216">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547217" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508748159"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>I don’t think Ethan is responsible for SuperString theory</p></blockquote> <p>Witten seems to be responsible for the name (sans erratic capitalization), but I didn't realize that it was ever much in currency, and certainly not at this late date.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547217&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="JEDvQKoXHhFuYFQ_OCuNU_TRBAkIigiQLfYKaLPgDlM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Narad (not verified)</span> on 23 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547217">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547218" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508770169"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Narad 28,<br /> No, I did not piss in your Wheaties.<br /> No, I also didn't 'cut and paste', blindly or otherwise, but I did do several double takes when I saw the size of the number I was transcribing for the new calculated size of the multiverse landscape. I actually thought Woit was trying to be funny by gross exaggeration, but no, that is the actual estimate. If you don't like it, feel free to clutch your pearls in indignation, and then gloss over it.<br /> .<br /> "When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail."<br /> .<br /> Since I don't respect bitter harridans much, forgive my bluntness, but your snarky comments sound more like a particular conceited mainstream 'interpretation' than actual understanding. Hidden variables have been considered and examined by folk far more informed than you, If any of numerous 'interpretations' turns out to be wrong, the whole game changes, so save your 'barf' outrage. All you have is a black box (or, Chinese box if you like) with a heuristic solution slapped on it, and no internal mechanics for causation, just outcomes expressed in probabilities that magically coalesce...or not into reality. Did it occur to you that you can do the exact same thing to almost any system, deterministic or not, and be completely ignorant of how it works? Even Feynman knew there were problems, Dirac as well, short cuts had been taken that merely pushed math. Next to their not so ignorant concerns, your smug conceit is what's pathetic. Listening to you squeal indignantly about hidden variables when your entire quantum theory has no actual mechanics to assign your numbers to, (everything but the outcomes is hidden) is the real tragedy.<br /> .</p> <p>I actually stopped trying to comment on Peter's site after the last election when his personal political bias filter broke down entirely and he slid hysterically into Trump derangement syndrome... with a passion. When you start insulting everyone who didn't vote for your candidate, and are calling over half the nation racists, sexists, deplorables, etc, you need to get a grip, stop and calm down. Mr. Woit didn't take kindly to this advice. Peter has his own hang-ups, much the same as Ethan in some ways. I've come to expect it from academics who don't live in the real world and have no real interest or clue where money comes from and what economics is or how it works to fund their little activities. Very unlike Ethan however, Peter is very strongly against using bogus science PR propaganda to advance or popularize 'understanding' of big science (a thinly disguised vehicle for convincing people to fund, er, support certain enterprises).</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547218&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="5Fdvvxtpb1PNoZatVbuy1TuaByG4Cls1DY_n2vk-DrE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CFT (not verified)</span> on 23 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547218">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547219" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508776186"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>I actually stopped trying to comment on Peter’s site after the last election when his personal political bias filter broke down entirely and he slid hysterically into Trump derangement syndrome</p></blockquote> <p>I am mildly amused.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547219&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="nzTZdV0UqgtBifu8rDER915sutO6MSjzzWce-ZwqIuw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Narad (not verified)</span> on 23 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547219">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547220" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508777132"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Thanks Ethan the Atheist for explaining to me awesome stories about our universe and putting up with my differing opinions.<br /> You are a great American.<br /> Here:<br /><a href="http://fanbrowser.com/groups/starts-with-a-bang/">http://fanbrowser.com/groups/starts-with-a-bang/</a><br /> I made a section on a site that I am a developer of that compiles all your work that is publicly available along with what you wish to publish. No Fees, no Charge nothing, nada..<br /> I pay for the server time<br /> So all your facebook, twitter, will be there and there is a chat room/ comments section. I can make you an admin and give you the keys if ya wish..<br /> There are so many options<br /> Just my simple way of saying thanks to an Atheist science teacher that has shown respect and decency to us believers.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547220&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="UiEg-Rozmhd66M1ALV0X5UiliCvXjsqkPmjKTh16Pkg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Ragtag Media (not verified)</span> on 23 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547220">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547221" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508777230"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>^ <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.math.columbia.edu%2F~woit%2Fwordpress%2F+%22cft+says%3A%22+-%22ads%22">Oh, dear L-rd.</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547221&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="pdODi1nTqgkpZTgWwu8kx-DFXOxxL-15ugf_kBxJeyU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Narad (not verified)</span> on 23 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547221">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547222" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508778989"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>I made a section on a site that I am a developer of</p></blockquote> <p>I suppose that explains the nested scroll bars.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547222&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="x6WaFZnf6hu03g6lfKnQSdxSeMbDOLN_RKlpQUPvgyo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Narad (not verified)</span> on 23 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547222">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547223" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508783056"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Narad #33,<br /> Interstellar had great music, a good director, top notch actors, cool special effects, contained almost as many plot-holes as 'Plan 9 from Outer Space', and a story that was almost but not quite as scientific as 'Attack of the 50 foot tall Woman', but not quite as 'science-y' as Disney's "The Black Hole"...which is kind of sad...yet at the same time terribly funny for some reason.<br /> .<br /> I'll proudly stand by that particular post you linked to. Du jour science literally IS magic in the movies and television, and it is responsible for a tremendous amount of outright hilarity and confusion of the human race.<br /> .<br /> MILHOUSE: 'I thought radiation causes cancer, not superpowers...'<br /> BART: 'Well, now you know better.'</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547223&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="z2pTGddPFK2gDUff1yS7yKyRvNpA9UvMtVqBHae_hjQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CFT (not verified)</span> on 23 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547223">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547224" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508783154"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ Nared #34<br /> Well MORON WTF can you contribute???<br /> NOTHING,ZERO,NADA...<br /> At least I am putting my money where my mouth is and offering up.<br /> What The fk are you doing?<br /> RETARD!!!!!!!!</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547224&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="sPJ91-mYcDkMdollvo3MRdD5x7KODbnyJrUtmKRBufw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Ragtag Media (not verified)</span> on 23 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547224">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547225" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508783848"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ cft #5 rounding works for finite calculations, not so much for infinite calculations</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547225&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ya1nXiwsJaAtMalUDiYC9ydqcLfeNDud6Vfzmsa7dhU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gahermit (not verified)</span> on 23 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547225">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547226" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508784627"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@cft #25 consider continous multiple big bangs</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547226&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="5Gvk4pfgQ79thWuE7hXPa5FT8Ag3pf_DyLgQ645tgoU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gahermit (not verified)</span> on 23 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547226">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547227" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508785750"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>oh no, don't close down, where else can an amateur (me) get involved in a scientific explanation of the mysteries of the universe with actual physicists and mathematicians</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547227&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="_9MdMRxNxCWXc7iTFd9F5KgH9Tld0sA-iOw6RyLPfpI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gahermit (not verified)</span> on 23 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547227">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547228" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508789322"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@gahermit,<br /> At any give time, we know parts of the universe are exploding, supernova are everywhere, Nebulae are spewing out stars. As to whether the whole shebang is from one bang, you have to pull a lot of interstellar taffy to make that work in the allotted time, they call it inflation, granting intrinsic material properties to empty space itself by reifying mathematical spaces. I call it desperation trying to prop up the big bang by coming up with a stop-gap explanation borderlining on unfalsifiable when they try and squeeze everything we can now observe into roughly 14 billion years of time.<br /> .<br /> I'd rather they just say they don't know for sure than tortured explanations that give rise to more problems than they resolve.<br /> .<br /> As for physics forums,<br /> Look around, there are many other physics sites. Many do not welcome non-experts, some are far more friendly, a lot of them will have differing internal politics of what they do or do not favor in physics, ie. Lubos Motl (a very difficult person to agree with) has physics blog that is very harsh to anyone who does not completely support Superstrings as de facto truth. Another site called Not Even Wrong is coming from the opposite direction, and pushes the idea that superstrings aren't even science at all and should be jettisoned into the math departments. Ethan on the other hand was pushing the very observably inaccurate view that there is some kind of super majority or consensus about what is and isn't going on, which is just wishful thinking on his part. High energy physics is having an identity crisis right now, trying to decide if it wants to remain testable science or become a new branch of purely mathematical metaphysics, so you are going to see a wide spectrum of opinion even among the 'experts'.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547228&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ZII1TEauzegMBCIp-lBWAYQ4UYFgC9tZTrzDOhSQPCY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CFT (not verified)</span> on 23 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547228">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547229" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508806825"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>CFT,</p> <p>As the social portion of the Natural Sciences is inseparable from the rest, I suggest there was, is, and always will be a consensus view on most, if not all, of them.</p> <p>They are, after all, practiced by humans.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547229&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="daNccI5epi_qwaOIio2xno_n6r1xQd-YFFuEefu2PDw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John (not verified)</span> on 23 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547229">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547230" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508807256"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Ragtag Media,</p> <p>Your site is a very useful resource. Thank you.<br /> I hope it does not go to waste.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547230&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="zRnN5Su4phEBt5UgI-Cqtd2m2iGuEZUWdtWuJy2QQB4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John (not verified)</span> on 23 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547230">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547231" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508859872"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Thanks John, it's a heck of a lot of work and money.. things are still a bit janky and glitchy. I just need a few million dollars to hire a real tech team in the U.S. The indie and paki coders are killing me LOL...<br /> Here is a ravens section for ya:<br /><a href="http://fanbrowser.com/groups/baltimore-ravens/">http://fanbrowser.com/groups/baltimore-ravens/</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547231&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="IwzdsjgPIEvAdJPrkPl3MzTqgBzh2crfhVvql4TUxxA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Ragtag Media (not verified)</span> on 24 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547231">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547232" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508864122"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@CFT #15: "... a mathematician can create yet another abstract layer of manipulation on top of that which skirts it. It goes nowhere fast, like an existentialist discussion about meaning, EVERY SINGLE TIME."</p> <p>Mathematicians can create whatever they want as long as the math is internally consistent, following the rules of math.<br /> Super-strings, malleable spacetime, shrinking objects and distances, new names for unknown particles, fields and forces... with math to make it sound like science.</p> <p>Existentialism was my favorite philosophy to apply to counseling psychology. It wasn't so much about the cliche' search for the "meaning of life." It is about a radical philosophy of freedom which can inform the "therapist"... to be passed on to the client/patient to help free him/her from whatever dilemma, anxiety or neurosis which brought him to seek help. Of course it's all just talk until the patient realizes the potential for a greater "degree of freedom" in his life.<br /> That's not science either, nor on a particular topic but what the hell!<br /> One must study existentialism before one criticizes it. It's "hard work," but the reward is a "new dimension of freedom."</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547232&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="kC1rsIfmTdCFe6eSJuw37sALG1jQvqyOpUbucK8dDQ4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 24 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547232">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547233" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508874346"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>Well MORON WTF can you contribute???</p></blockquote> <p>"Don't use nested scroll bars."</p> <blockquote><p>RETARD!!!!!!!!</p></blockquote> <p>Once again, an epithet the use of which immediately designates someone as not being worth the time of day.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547233&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ZJ7dXB4hSkcgyaVpDLUjb5Vw3k6lefnWIsmC6S78paA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Narad (not verified)</span> on 24 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547233">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547234" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1509259830"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Ragtag Media #32:</p> <p>Is your site have all posts together with the comments since the beginning of this blog?</p> <p>Because if so or you can make it so then it is or would be a really great reference for Ethan and all of us commenters here. </p> <p>Even with what I saw so far thank you very much pal.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547234&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="N-eI7qKHDVhqTd5hXlVHkfhAe34jjEJzJjaqOoKDeNY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Frank (not verified)</span> on 29 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547234">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547235" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1509260982"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>as far as I can see, rag hasn't actually mirrored science blogs, he just placed it inside his site. When science blogs goes down, so will his "project". </p> <p>if you want to back-up starts with the bang, I suggest booting your favorite linux distro and go wget on it. SWTB is about 12 gigs.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547235&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="nmijHx3COJrbrD63MF36o1yOsNv7v7YHV0NfPG0GNeM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 29 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547235">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547236" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1509429350"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Sometime ago Ethan used something I said to make sense of something else . Like an analogy sort of .<br /> I have never felt so honoured in an academic way and was amazed Ethan had even read my blatherings.<br /> I just wanted to thankyou and am very sorry to see Scienceblogs possibly folding.<br /> Dialog and interaction between laypeople and academics is a<br /> wonderful thing.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547236&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="DkIf-BuU1n4d6A2hmxiDjZ3-uU5bIGygPiwMZpDxM0M"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Li D (not verified)</span> on 31 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547236">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/startswithabang/2017/10/22/comments-of-the-week-final-edition%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Sun, 22 Oct 2017 06:01:53 +0000 esiegel 37140 at https://scienceblogs.com Comments of the Week #180: From the planets Kepler missed to the NASA photos that changed the world https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/15/comments-of-the-week-180-from-the-planets-kepler-missed-to-the-nasa-photos-that-changed-the-world <span>Comments of the Week #180: From the planets Kepler missed to the NASA photos that changed the world</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>“We do not realize what we have on Earth until we leave it.” -Jim Lovell</p></blockquote> <p>Well, the Scienceblogs comments are still on the fritz, requiring me to manually un-spam them one-at-a-time, but Starts With A Bang! is still going strong with some fabulous stories based on the best knowledge we have! This next week is poised to be a doozy of a fantastic one, as <a href="http://amzn.to/2wX6B3Y">Treknology</a> is out at last (<a href="http://amzn.to/2yoxcIu" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Amazon is having a sale on it today</a>, and my copies arrive on Wednesday), so next weekend I'll have special instructions for you on how to order autographed copies from me. Also, check out Starts With A Bang on Forbes at 10:01 AM Eastern Time on Monday for the scoop on what promises to be the astronomical story of the year, I promise! Now, let's take a look back at our stories from the past week:</p> <p>For those of you who like radio, get up very, very early tomorrow (Monday) morning, and tune into Coast-to-Coast AM at 3 AM EDT / 12 AM PDT, where I'll be their special guest to talk about science, astrophysics, and of course about the science of Star Trek! With all that on our plate, what more could you ask for? How about our <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/category/comments-of-the-week/">comments of the week</a>!</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/barishthorneweiss-1.jpg"><img alt="Rainer Weiss, Barry Barish and Kip Thorne are your 2017 Nobel Laureates in physics. Image credit: © Nobel Media AB 2017." class="size-medium wp-image-36699" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="324" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/barishthorneweiss-1-600x324.jpg" width="600" /></a> Rainer Weiss, Barry Barish and Kip Thorne are your 2017 Nobel Laureates in physics. Image credit: © Nobel Media AB 2017. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/08/comments-of-the-week-179-from-mirrorless-telescopes-to-the-physics-ideas-that-must-die/#comment-582855">Sinisa Lazarek</a> on the spirit of the Nobel Prize: "I’m actually extremely happy that the Nobel prizes in science are still being given to actual people who are doing something worthwhile and still keeps the spirit of Nobel."</p></blockquote> <p>I think they made a slam-dunk good decision this year as far as the physics prize goes. The whole idea of the Nobel Prize is for the person, people, or discovery that did the most to advance a particular discipline of science/humanities for the good of all people on Earth. It's very, very hard to argue that the advances made in physics from being able to detect gravitational waves won't be the greatest advance in astronomy since, perhaps, the launch of Hubble, the first use of multiwavelength astronomy, or even the invention of the telescope. This is truly a game-changer. And if you're still a doubter, I very much encourage you to pay <em>extremely </em>close attention to Monday's news. Seriously.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/03/argue.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-35944" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="456" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/03/argue-600x456.jpg" width="600" /></a> Graham's hierarchy of how to argue. (Pyramid format.) Image credit: Paul Graham. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/08/comments-of-the-week-179-from-mirrorless-telescopes-to-the-physics-ideas-that-must-die/#comment-582859">Michael Mooney</a> on what I find offensive: "Well at least I know now that you rank criticism of your science, as I do, as more offensive than Elle H.C.’s straight out nasty personal insults."</p></blockquote> <p>So we are all free to decide what we find more offensive. On the one hand, we have name-calling. You know, the kind of stuff we were all subject to when we were prepubescent kids and teenagers; the lowest ranks on the pyramid. Sure, it's the lowest form of argument and the least able to refute an actual argument. But then there's what you do. You waltz into a science blog, written by a bona fide scientist, one who is legitimately and independently regarded as one of the best in the world at science communication when it comes to physics, astrophysics, cosmology, and astronomy. And you babble on nonsensically about how it's all wrong, how we're all believing in this house-of-cards hoax, and that we don't know what science is. How we've got everything from relativity to quantum physics to astrophysics wrong, and how <em>you know better</em>. With no substance to anything you say, just confident, uneducated, loud ignorance. And when your folly is explained to you, it never occurs to you that the time for you to talk is over, and the time to listen is at hand. Yes, I get it, physics doesn't jibe with your way of making sense with the world. Therefore, you think physics is wrong. But it's not wrong. You are. And although I quite gracefully allow you to shout into the void, you continue to say nothing that contributes productively in any manner, here or anywhere, as far as I can tell. So keep shouting into the void. But every time you threaten to leave, all I do is hope. Because the ship has sailed on me believing you'll ever be humble enough to question your own ideas and actually learn something. But every day is a new chance to get it right. Maybe today will be your lucky day. It's up to you. Good luck. We're headed into the science thicket now; maybe you'll enjoy the journey.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/12/keplerexoplanetorbitdays.jpeg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-26609" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="450" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/12/keplerexoplanetorbitdays-600x450.jpg" width="600" /></a> Candidate planets from Kepler as of early 2011. Image credit: NASA / Kepler Science Team. <p> </p> </div> <blockquote><p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/07/ask-ethan-how-many-planets-did-nasas-kepler-miss-synopsis/#comment-582853">Another Commenter</a> on the number of planets Kepler missed: "It was a very good start."</p></blockquote> <p>And this is a point that cannot be overstated. Take a look at the image above. Prior to Kepler, those purple points you see the ones up by the "Jupiter" line, were the only types of points we had, for the most part. Thanks to Kepler, we've discovered:</p> <ul><li>Planets down to smaller than Earth-size,</li> <li>Around all types of stars in the Universe,</li> <li>Orbiting quickly and closely,</li> <li>And in a huge number of places.</li> </ul><p>The majority of planets appear to be peaked at sizes just a bit larger than Earth (but smaller than Neptune), but that's also where Kepler was most sensitive. We basically know more about the inner solar systems of all star-types in the Universe than ever before, and Kepler was that tremendous first step in that regard. There is more to find, like medium-sized planets around large stars, the middle-to-outer solar systems, and the smallest, Mercury-sized planets and smaller around everyone. But that takes nothing away from the spectacular science that Kepler actually undertook!</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/Lorca-Bridge-Crew.jpg"><img alt="Captain Gabriel Lorca aboard the bridge of the Discovery, during a simulated combat mission with the Klingons. Image credit: Jan Thijs/CBS © 2017 CBS Interactive." class="size-medium wp-image-36721" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="400" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/Lorca-Bridge-Crew-600x400.jpg" width="600" /></a> Captain Gabriel Lorca aboard the bridge of the Discovery, during a simulated combat mission with the Klingons. Image credit: Jan Thijs/CBS © 2017 CBS Interactive. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/09/star-trek-discovery-is-smart-sounding-scientific-nonsense-season-1-episode-4-recap-synopsis/#comment-582860">eric</a> on the reviews of the new Star Trek: "“Black Alert” sounds like something the Wayans Brothers would put on a Star Trek send up."</p></blockquote> <p>I would watch the hell out of that.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/Yeoh_Green.jpg"><img alt="In an action-packed first two episodes, Captain Georgiou (Michelle Yeoh) and Commander Burnham (Sonequa Martin-Green) have the fight of their lives in the debut of Star Trek: Discovery. Image credit: Jan Thijs/CBS © 2017 CBS Interactive." class="size-medium wp-image-36664" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="400" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/Yeoh_Green-600x400.jpg" width="600" /></a> In an action-packed first two episodes, Captain Georgiou (Michelle Yeoh) and Commander Burnham (Sonequa Martin-Green) have the fight of their lives in the debut of Star Trek: Discovery. Image credit: Jan Thijs/CBS © 2017 CBS Interactive. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/09/star-trek-discovery-is-smart-sounding-scientific-nonsense-season-1-episode-4-recap-synopsis/#comment-582886">Steve Blackband</a> on his level of Star Trek fandom: "I am the physicist/astronomy nutcase that pushed Neil Armstrong out of the way to get to Nichelle Nichols after all. Very embarrassing."</p></blockquote> <p>This is a story I would actually love to hear. The self-flagellation you must feel you deserve ought to be tremendous... and yet you're secure enough to own up to it. That's incredible to come to terms with that. Good on you!</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/SEM_image_of_Milnesium_tardigradum_in_active_state_-_journal.pone_.0045682.g001-2.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-36473" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="460" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/SEM_image_of_Milnesium_tardigradum_in_active_state_-_journal.pone_.0045682.g001-2-600x460.jpg" width="600" /></a> A scanning electron microscope image of a Milnesium tardigradum (Tardigrade, or 'water bear') in its active state. Tardigrades have been exposed to the vacuum of space for prolonged periods of time, and have returned to normal biological operation after being returned to liquid water environments. Image credit: Schokraie E, Warnken U, Hotz-Wagenblatt A, Grohme MA, Hengherr S, et al. (2012). <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/09/star-trek-discovery-is-smart-sounding-scientific-nonsense-season-1-episode-4-recap-synopsis/#comment-582927">Adam</a> on why the spore technology never shows up in Star Trek: "The more I think about the spore drive and the lack of spore drive in any other Star Trek show, the more it feels like a huge plot hole for the series. I’m guessing that the tech is going to be lost at some point, because it’s never seen again, and since all the info for it is self contained on the star ship Discovery. However, we’ve seen countless other civilizations over the various shows, and none of them have this tech either."</p></blockquote> <p>So I've got two theories on that: the Orson Scott Card theory and the Wesley Crusher theory. The OSC theory is based on the descolada/recolada storyline from his Ender's Quartet series. That these spores exist throughout the galaxy, but they are biologically dangerous and need to be modified. We use genetic modification to silence the dangerous part of their genetic makeup, but it renders the "spore drive" unusable. The Wesley Crusher theory is that the "spore drive" is what the Traveler uses to go throughout space and even time, and when Wesley goes to apprentice for him, that's what he learns to connect with as well. But it's a lost art (and science) that only a select few can still connect with. More likely, it's just a giant plot hole that they're digging, and they're going to need a <em>deus ex machina</em> to get out of it.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/Panel.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-36640" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="400" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/Panel-600x400.jpg" width="600" /></a> Executive producers and actors from'Star Trek: Discovery' speak onstage during the CBS portion of the 2017 Summer Television Critics Association Press Tour. Image credit: Frederick M. Brown/Getty Images. <p> </p> </div> <blockquote><p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/09/star-trek-discovery-is-smart-sounding-scientific-nonsense-season-1-episode-4-recap-synopsis/#comment-582933">Denier</a> on the end of Commander Landry: "In all seriousness, there was a moment in ST:D when the chief of security was working with Michael to drop the force field to the tardigrade pen, and I thought for half a second: “No big deal. The Chief of Security is far and away the strongest person on board”."</p></blockquote> <p>And after half a second, you realized that you misspelled "dumbest," which is a pretty high bar considering the level of crazy aboard that ship in general. Clearly nobody cared; she didn't even get a funeral. You always hate to see a character that you're told is smart, capable, competent, and so on, act in a way that's antithetical to that. I personally cringe even more when it's an underrepresented character, as I feel that's just supporting the stereotype that, in this case, "women are no good at X." It's like <a href="https://xkcd.com/385/">the old xkcd comic</a>:</p> <div style="width: 420px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/how_it_works.png"><img alt="" class="size-full wp-image-36746" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="211" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/how_it_works.png" width="410" /></a> 'How it works' by Randall Munroe at xkcd. <p> </p> </div> <p>And that's just too bad. It wouldn't have been hard to substitute some dumb, disposable redshirt, and keep one of the three major women characters alive, considering another one (Michelle Yeoh's Captain Georgiou) was killed just two episodes ago. So we've got Lilly and Burnham, and they're roommates, and that's it for major women aboard the show now. The worst part? I didn't even notice that, until a woman I was watching with pointed it out to me.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/MasterSituationMonitor-1200x900.jpg"><img alt="The warp drive system on the Star Trek starships was what made travel from star to star possible. Image credit: Alistair McMillan / c.c.-by-2.0." class="size-medium wp-image-36638" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="450" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/MasterSituationMonitor-1200x900-600x450.jpg" width="600" /></a> The warp drive system on the Star Trek starships was what made travel from star to star possible. Image credit: Alistair McMillan / c.c.-by-2.0. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/09/star-trek-discovery-is-smart-sounding-scientific-nonsense-season-1-episode-4-recap-synopsis/#comment-582945">Dunc</a> on whether Star Trek is scientific nonsense or not: "So, <i>exactly</i> like <i>every</i> other Star Trek then? ST has never really been hard sci-fi – it’s always been filled with sciency-sounding bafflegab and magical technology that has exactly whatever capabilities and limits the writers require at that moment in time (and change wildly from episode to episode). I mean, I love Star Trek, and I’ve been (re)watching its different incarnations on a more-or-less continuous loop for almost my entire life, but let’s not pretend that this is a radical departure."</p></blockquote> <p>There's something different about Discovery, though. I'm still struggling to put my finger on it, but the best I've got goes something like this:</p> <ul><li>In previous incarnations of Star Trek, there was a new technology that was indistinguishable from magic that worked.</li> <li>The science behind it was vague, loosely-based in what we knew, and not enunciated very clearly or with certainty.</li> <li>The tech then made up new words to indicate that there were additional advances that included information that's well beyond our current knowledge set.</li> <li>And then scientists or science/tech-enthusiasts could fill in the blanks to make it feasible.</li> </ul><p>With Discovery, though, they're trying to use actual, recent science news as the basis or justification for ideas that only follow if you misinterpret that science. I may not be explaining myself well, but that's a big difference: from the edge of science with wiggle-room that then imagines new applications, to recent-but-well-understood science that gets twisted to mean something it never meant, and then taken to an extreme that pushes it into the realm of, "hey this is ruled out already given what we know but we're plowing ahead anyway." It may be only me who's having trouble suspending my disbelief for it, but that's what I'm seeing.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 503px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2011/04/008bbn.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-full wp-image-20625" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="606" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2011/04/008bbn.jpg" width="493" /></a> The predictions of Big Bang nucleosynthesis (curves) for the abundances of the light elements, based on the baryon-to-photon ratio (x-axis). The grey bar is that ratio, as observed by WMAP, and the horizontal lines are the observed element abundances. This picture pretty strongly constrains the normal matter density of the Universe in a way that most people here don't appreciate. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/10/missing-matter-found-but-doesnt-dent-dark-matter-synopsis/#comment-582920">Sean T</a> on the missing normal matter in the Universe: "The “missing matter” discussed in this post is normal matter. We know from real, actual observations of how things gravitate that we were not seeing all of the normal matter that exists. This WHIM is at least some of that missing normal matter."</p></blockquote> <p>We know how much normal matter is in the Universe, folks. There really isn't an argument on it: it's ~5% of the critical density. It can't be 10%, or 20% or 30%. It definitely can't be 100%. And if you really want to know, it can't even be 6%. Why not? The above measurements, from Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. If you want to make the light elements in the Universe, the elements we start off with after the Big Bang but before the first stars, you need to run the equations, and they're dependent on the baryon-to-photon ratio. We count the CMB photons and know how many there are, so that means the only free parameter is the baryon density (i.e., normal matter density) of the Universe. We observe the Helium-4, Helium-3, Deuterium, and Lithium-7 abundances in the Universe, and they are consistent with a baryon-to-photon ratio that gives the same Universe that WMAP and Planck gave: one with 5% of the Universe's critical density being baryons. The new "missing matter" found is a part of that 5%. That's what this discovery is; that's what it says; that's what it shows. That's the story here. Anything else you've read into it to the contrary is wrong.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/07/susy_spectrum.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-36345" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="441" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/07/susy_spectrum-600x441.jpg" width="600" /></a> The Standard Model particles and their supersymmetric counterparts. This attempt to solve the hierarchy problem for particle masses predicts a whole new spectrum of particles, none of which have been detected. Image credit: Claire David. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/11/sciences-greatest-lesson-for-humanity-is-how-to-be-wrong/#comment-582923">Frank</a> on the state of the world of physics: "The world of physics may seem bleak now to some but I think we maybe really close to TOE."</p></blockquote> <p>I think the opposite on both counts: I think the world of physics is incredibly bright, and there are so many interesting avenues to investigate. But I think there are many building their way to the dream of a theory-of-everything, and that path is proving quite fruitless. But we all have our own opinions, and you are entitled to yours! On the other hand, we have three interesting comments about how to be wrong.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 410px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2011/07/8875851-finger-holding-the-wrong-piece-for-the-last-missing-puzzle-piece.jpeg"><img alt="" class="size-full wp-image-20048" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="267" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2011/07/8875851-finger-holding-the-wrong-piece-for-the-last-missing-puzzle-piece.jpeg" width="400" /></a> When the last puzzle piece doesn't even fit into the puzzle, you know something is wrong. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/11/sciences-greatest-lesson-for-humanity-is-how-to-be-wrong/#comment-582935">Michael Mooney</a>: "“How To Be Wrong” is very simple. Don’t assume you “know it all” already. Imagine being an unbiased scientist."</p></blockquote> <p>As a scientist, I very clearly and openly don't assume I know it all, and am very open to challenging every assumption, result, and conclusion out there. But only when the evidence warrants it. In other words, I am biased in the direction that the evidence points. On the other hand, I can encourage you to look inward and ask yourself those same questions. Has it ever occurred to you that you, as a non-physicist, non-scientist, and non-expert in this arena, don't know very much about it? That you don't have anything of value to offer to this discussion? That you should be in the position of closing your mouth and opening your mind, and listening to what those who've spent a lifetime studying this have to say about it? And that your vision of an "unbiased scientist" may be an utter abuse of science in and of itself?</p> <blockquote><p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/11/sciences-greatest-lesson-for-humanity-is-how-to-be-wrong/#comment-582940">eric</a>: "I’m in the process of teaching my kid lots of games. Like many small children, he doesn’t like to lose. But the more games he plays, the thicker the skin he gets. And the more he does it, the more he thinks about the overall activity rather than the outcome of any specific game. “Daddy won, I’m upset” becomes “Daddy won 6 of the last 10 and I won 4…pretty good” hopefully will become in the future “I have no idea who’s won more games this week. Play on!” I think that’s a lot like science. People who do a little of it, or who have one single idea they focus on, tend to worry about whether it’s going to ‘win.’ Professional scientists, OTOH, tend more towards the attitude of “hey, 2 of my 50 papers have stood the test of time. Cool!” Or even “what, that paper of mine is still kicking around? I lost track. Who knew?” The activity becomes the focus, rather than the success or failure of any individual effort’s outcome."</p></blockquote> <p>I like this interpretation. It's not so much "how to be wrong" as it is "how to lose," where being wrong is a specific form/special case of losing. Don't be sad for the times you lose; all of us must come to terms with it, as you cannot win all the time. This is a valuable lesson, and should make you appreciate the times you were right (or won) all the more.</p> <blockquote><p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/11/sciences-greatest-lesson-for-humanity-is-how-to-be-wrong/#comment-582987">GregH</a>: "1. Thanks Ethan, for STEALING MY IDEA and writing it up better than I could. 2. Interesting that none of the comments here address being wrong. (Including this one.) Sure, it’s epistemology, but….? 3. Paging Dr. Dunning &amp; possibly Dr. Kruger. Dr. Dunning, white courtesy telephone please."</p></blockquote> <p>Hey, if I could invade people's heads and steal their ideas, I would be a lot more successful than I am. ;-)</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/Ozytive-public-domain.jpg"><img alt="An illustration of multiple, independent Universes, causally disconnected from one another in an ever-expanding cosmic ocean, is one depiction of the Multiverse idea. Image credit: Ozytive / Public Domain." class="size-medium wp-image-36732" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="338" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/Ozytive-public-domain-600x338.jpg" width="600" /></a> An illustration of multiple, independent Universes, causally disconnected from one another in an ever-expanding cosmic ocean, is one depiction of the Multiverse idea. Image credit: Ozytive / Public Domain. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/12/the-multiverse-is-inevitable-and-were-living-in-it-synopsis/#comment-582965">Anonymous Coward</a>, summarizing what is and isn't scientific about the multiverse: "It’s not a scientific theory because it can’t be tested as the other known laws of physics seem to preclude any possibility of testing it. But it does fall out as an intriguing consequence of the other bits of theory that do have observational consequences that can and have been successfully tested."</p></blockquote> <p>Boom. You nailed it. I'm glad to see that I have successfully communicated the science of this to at least one person out there. And I know it's more than one, because some people seem to actually understand what I'm getting at, and what the purpose (and value) of what I do is. They're just mostly silent here.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/cosmicinflation-1200x750.jpg"><img alt="The expanding Universe, full of galaxies and complex structure we see today, arose from a smaller, hotter, denser, more uniform state. Image credit: C. Faucher-Giguère, A. Lidz, and L. Hernquist, Science 319, 5859 (47)." class="size-medium wp-image-36674" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="374" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/cosmicinflation-1200x750-600x374.jpg" width="600" /></a> The expanding Universe, full of galaxies and the complex structure we observe today, arose from a smaller, hotter, denser, more uniform state. Alternatives to the Big Bang, like the Steady-State theory, fell out of favor due to the overwhelming observational evidence, but the Steady-State adherents never changed their mind, not until the day they died. Image credit: C. Faucher-Giguère, A. Lidz, and L. Hernquist, Science 319, 5859 (47). <p> </p> </div> <p>Which is why I appreciate <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/12/the-multiverse-is-inevitable-and-were-living-in-it-synopsis/#comment-582976">Sean T</a>'s comment: "...this blog is NOT a scientific journal. It is an attempt to communicate the current scientific consensus, along with other speculative ideas that may prove fruitful, to an audience that is composed of non-experts in the relevant scientific fields. The audience includes fellow physicists, other scientists who are not physicists (I fall into this category), and non-scientists. This type of communication can be very difficult due to the variety of the audience, and I personally think it’s well done, which is why I continue to read Ethan’s blog. However, much like all science, the topics covered here ALL come with the same caveats — that this is our current best understanding of things and that this understanding might well change as new observations come to light."</p></blockquote> <p>Everything is subject to revision. I have no doubt that if we continue to do science at the rate that we've done it over the past few hundred years, then by time the year 3,000 rolls around, we'll look at much of our modern understanding of things the way we look at Copernicus' or even Ptolemy's "Universe" today: as quaint, as the beginnings of science, but full of bad ideas and assumptions that we didn't even recognize. But we may look at it only as we look at Newton's: as incredibly good, and fundamentally flawed and limited in a few ways, but super successful for its time and what it did nonetheless. We are always learning and growing.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/03/NASA-Apollo8-Dec24-Earthrise.jpeg"><img alt="The first view with human eyes of the Earth rising over the limb of the Moon. Note how bright the Earth appears in comparison to the Moon. Image credit: NASA / Apollo 8." class="size-medium wp-image-35915" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="600" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/03/NASA-Apollo8-Dec24-Earthrise-600x600.jpeg" width="600" /></a> The first view with human eyes of the Earth rising over the limb of the Moon. Note how bright the Earth appears in comparison to the Moon. Image credit: NASA / Apollo 8. <p> </p> </div> <blockquote><p>And finally, from bone-picker <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/13/5-nasa-photos-that-changed-the-world-synopsis/#comment-582977">Art Glick</a> on the Apollo 8 'Earthrise' photo: "I have a bone to pick with the person that named Bill Anders Apollo 8 photo “Earthrise”. They clearly did not understand the mechanics of the Earth-Moon system. The Earth does not “rise” on the Moon. I wonder how many people realize that if you lived on the Moon the Earth would hang in the same spot in the sky eternally. It would go through phases like the Moon does, but it would never change its position. The only reason that Anders saw the Earth “rise” is because his craft was orbiting the Moon at the time. To refer to the Earth “rising” from the Moon is just wrong."</p></blockquote> <p>I presume you have the same bone to pick with the person who called it "sunrise" or "moonrise" since the Earth was rotating, not that any of these celestial objects were rising? I assume as well that you object to ISS astronauts claiming to see 16 "sunsets" in a day, since they're only seeing the same effect over and over again as they go around the Earth? I can't tell you who first called it "Earthrise" (I don't know), but <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/home/earthrise.html">I can give you Bill Anders' recount</a> of the photo itself. After they came around the Moon for their third orbit, they saw Earth appear over the limb of the Moon.</p> <blockquote><p>"I don't know who said it, maybe all of us said, 'Oh my God. Look at that! And up came the Earth. We had had no discussion on the ground, no briefing, no instructions on what to do. I jokingly said, 'well it's not on the flight plan,' and the other two guys were yelling at me to give them cameras. I had the only color camera with a long lens. So I floated a black and white over to Borman. I can't remember what Lovell got. There were all yelling for cameras, and we started snapping away."</p></blockquote> <p>It's incredible to imagine what that sight must be like. For those three men in 1968, there is no better word than "Earthrise" to describe what they saw. Let them have it; they experienced it and we didn't. Maybe, someday, it won't be such an uncommon experience, after all. Go get your copy of <a href="http://amzn.to/2yldQUx">Treknology</a> now, and I'll see you back here tomorrow for more incredible science and stories here on Starts With A Bang!</p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/startswithabang" lang="" about="/startswithabang" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">esiegel</a></span> <span>Sun, 10/15/2017 - 02:49</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/comments-week" hreflang="en">Comments of the Week</a></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-categories field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Categories</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/channel/physical-sciences" hreflang="en">Physical Sciences</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547058" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508054029"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>One time a commenter here had said this blog is just a rehash of some others. I would want to say "I pity the fool" who thinks that :-)</p> <p>In my opinion Ethan always doing an awesome work and also comments here are very high quality in general.</p> <p>"We are always learning and growing."<br /> Hell yeah bra! :-)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547058&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="4p895VGVvOgp1doxTBUE0Hg1EA9vg2BUFJLGNPXoP-Q"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Frank (not verified)</span> on 15 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547058">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547059" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508061087"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Wow! Harsh in both cases!<br /> Aside from being extremely braggadocious about himself (SO like Trump!), arguing science-by-authority and ignoring the substance of my arguments ( I "babble on nonsensically") he has the brass to use Graham's" hierarchy of how to argue" pyramid graphic with this, his favorite strategy, near the bottom:<br /> "Attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument."</p> <p>Ps: For those who don't know, I am a retired psychologist with an avid interest in my chosen areas science for over 50 years, and I subscribe to the philosophy of scientific realism as contrasted with Ethan's instrumentalism. He actually believes the relativity dictum, "It all depends on how you look at it"... resulting in shrinking physical objects and distances... just for openers.<br /> Finally, this is good for a hearty laugh:<br /> "As a scientist, I very clearly and openly don’t assume I know it all, and am very open to challenging every assumption, result, and conclusion out there. But only when the evidence warrants it. In other words, I am biased in the direction that the evidence points."</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547059&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="P4EJJ2PBMT1JxmUcN6Hr9C0Sk5BTtRmov9mEKBNLDqU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 15 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547059">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547060" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508064352"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>For those of you who like radio, get up very, very early tomorrow (Monday) morning, and tune into Coast-to-Coast AM at 3 AM EDT / 12 AM PDT</p></blockquote> <p><a href="http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2012/02/298-george-noory.html">Um....</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547060&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="BGBtU0Cc7JIIFNFx7oVcyG5k5Dhm1v-S5TpijfebNBQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Narad (not verified)</span> on 15 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547060">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547061" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508066919"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Michael Mooney,</p> <p>Since you are retired, why not enroll in a local college, and take some of the physics classes offered? You have the time to invest, and the training might help you – either to rebut the claims you question, or to appreciate the physics behind the claims.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547061&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="jTUDOGMqWokzAuiED1p7Dupo1nrH_OXuqGxVszb1eaY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John (not verified)</span> on 15 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547061">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547062" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508073166"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>No, I would not object to it being called "Earthrise" had the moon been rotating to bring it into view the same as I don't object to the term "sunrise" or "moonrise" for an observer here on Earth. It's still rising in the sky to a stationary viewer on the planet.</p> <p>I really think you missed my point entirely. If you were an observer on the Moon, the Earth would hang there eternally in the same exact location, day after day, year after year, century after century. It would never move!</p> <p>I don't think too many people realize that, and the Anders photo, or at least calling it "Earthrise", perpetuates that misconception.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547062&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="3itAyVrmWIImCpdd3WJxPU3Ze9SUbTdI8jfmnTEWGyw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Art Glick (not verified)</span> on 15 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547062">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547063" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508073475"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>By the way, thanks for that account of that famous Apollo 8 moment. That picture hangs on the opposite wall in my office. It's what I see when I look up from the screen, and by way of a bit of a confession, I have it mounted sideways to perpetuate the misconception I so vehemently deny. Had I hung the picture the way it was taken, the limb of the Moon would be vertical and not horizontal.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547063&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="guOE1hlnTVn9u86q792TqmzL9NgXEwNwqCxybTQSWz8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Art Glick (not verified)</span> on 15 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547063">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547064" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508075552"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"ignoring the substance of my arguments"</p> <p>There is no substance in your arguments MM, that's the point. Everything objection you raise begins and ends with "That can't be right because it doesn't meet the definition of science I like."<br /> You always leave the reader wondering "If he has some serious objection, why doesn't he do the hard work and show it, with supporting calculations, to support himself?"</p> <p>Then we see something like your comment on whether the universe is finite or infinite in size, the comment where you demonstrate you don't even have a basic grasp on the meaning of curvature, (almost as bad as cft's mangling of math later in that string) and it's clear you don't have a clue about it. You just don't like the results. Your comments are as baseless as the ones we still see from the occasional curmudgeon arguing that the "endless" decimal 0.999 ------- does not equal 1, or<br /> that it is possible to trisect a circle. Those folks don't like those results either, and like you, they just don't understand the underlying ideas. Like you, they won't do the work to gain the understanding.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547064&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="77C8ABBLRV8RFFF222cN4VhfF8Z-QJEUx5Rs-fED44Y"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">dean (not verified)</span> on 15 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547064">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547065" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508078625"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@John #3,<br /> Ethan is not the consensus in physics, sorry. His positions on inflation, global warming, quantum anything, psychology, biology, are not universal. In the real world, even in science, folks disagree about a lot of this stuff, and have good reasons to. Ethan pretends otherwise. Like many academic elitists who lack humility and court trendy leftist political views, he ignores human history almost altogether and replaces it with an idealized fiction that has little in common with reality. Go to some other physics sites where there is debate among physicists and scientists and you will see this is true.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547065&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="0oDI5JsAzZyXkjM1eMyDbnA8e9Th9J4Vv1fOKQ_CgWU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CFT (not verified)</span> on 15 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547065">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547066" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508080179"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>John,<br /> I am not interested in being "trained." I've studied whatever I'm interested in for about 60 years. (The "over 50 yr" estimate was too modest.) I am not impressed by credentials.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547066&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="4kSB6xdMIJaPZGfFhJj0GVc6YcY6QYUqZ-VEj1tXs7I"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 15 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547066">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547067" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508084132"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>CFT,</p> <p>"Ethan is not the consensus in physics, sorry." As I have not suggested he is, no apology is needed.</p> <p>However, now that you raise the topic, he is IMHO pretty mainstream, if not exactly consensus. For example, he’s pretty much SOP for the Big Bang theory. In passing, Ethen gets kudos from me for the story on Hoyle's development of nucleosynthesis. That was an interesting side story within the BB vs SS wars. Ethan's writing on the Inflation hypothesis is also consistent with the other Science blog I follow. That conjecture is less well established than the BB, so yes, as a staunch defender of Inflation he's open to greater criticism on that topic, and Sabine served up a good portion in her guest post. LOL! That had to sting!</p> <p>He's on shakier ground when he gets into the Earth Sciences, and he knows it. That's why he runs his stuff (or at least he says he does) past those whose focus is in that domain. Frankly, his duets with Denier are tedious, when they talk past each other, each correct within their chosen paradigm and each presenting evidence incommensurate for the other's POV.</p> <p>But on hard physics, such as gravitational waves detected at LIGO and now VIRGO, he’s pretty much doing the Normal Science thing. There’s no Revolutionary Science at SWAB that jumps out and bites me in the nose.</p> <p>But enough about my opinion of Ethan's writing.</p> <p>You claim that "Ethan is not the consensus in physics …". OK. For the sake of argument, let us assume that is true. Please list the specific topics/items/details where Ethan’s claims are outré, eccentric, or unconventional.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547067&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="eMbjBTSrDCh4MkfxXHs7eiS6TXtTEpuvywZKPkJ3vu0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John (not verified)</span> on 15 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547067">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547068" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508084873"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Michael Mooney,</p> <p>"I am not interested in being 'trained.' "</p> <p>I suspect you were when you studied psychology. Why not in this discipline?</p> <p>'I am not impressed by credentials."</p> <p>How about results? As the theories of GR &amp; QM have been very productive, why not learn some of the POV that has been successful?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547068&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="e-kVy17nK13kr7hQuaxdFPD9AWokUMqbm8gqedq941g"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John (not verified)</span> on 15 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547068">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547069" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508092804"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@John #8,<br /> This is something you really need to do on your own. No matter what source I quote, your first reaction is going to be to scoff, and that goes nowhere. I'm not playing that game. I am suggesting you widen your net and listen to far more voices. Sabine Hossenfelder who has posted on this site regards inflation as useless, she clearly states it doesn't matter what you think another idea leads you to if it is still a dead end. Even considering an unobservable untestable conclusion with no predictive power seriously is a sign you aren't really looking in the right direction and are starting to lose your way into mathematical mysticism. I also quoted you the literal horses mouth on inflation, Ethan's opinion on the subject is nowhere near his professionally if you wish to pull rank:<br /> Google Paul Steinhardt, or just read the article.<br /> .<br /><a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-slams-cosmic-theory-he-helped-conceive/">https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-slams-cosmic…</a><br /> .<br /> When the guy who comes up with an idea tells you exactly why it's a crap idea, and you ignore him and go along with a science popularizer pushing an agenda, you simply aren't paying attention. Things aren't going nearly as well as Ethan likes to claim.<br /> .<br /> You might also try the Not Even Wrong blog. You could learn about the growing divide between schools of thought in physics. I certainly don't agree with many things said there, but it is a start which you can then chart your own course from.<br /> .<br /> Stop listening to the true believers for a change and start looking for the apostates if you want to know what is actually going on.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547069&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="_I3alCrCSBKjrrEBHptcF88lr3lBS3h3gV0ghQCKBns"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CFT (not verified)</span> on 15 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547069">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547070" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508093940"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"You waltz into a science blog, ..."</p> <p>*slow clap*</p> <p>Nicely done Ethan.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547070&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="hMJv2xkTfwwk93KGYXXZQHX-loH5Chdc3NjZvzmDQ6Q"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">klac (not verified)</span> on 15 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547070">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547071" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508117215"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>CFT,</p> <p>As a rule of thumb, when engaging in the exchange of ideas, the individual who make a truth claim is responsible for warranting or substantiating the claim. Absent supporting or substantiating evidence or argument, the truth claim usually lacks persuasive power, and is accepted as true by only the "true believers" as you call them. </p> <p>You've made the claim that Ethan, or more to the point, his posts here are "… not the consensus in physics …". I have, for the sake of argument, granted that as true and have requested from you the evidence or line of reasoning you use to support your truth claim.</p> <p>Your reply was "This is something you really need to do on your own. No matter what source I quote, your first reaction is going to be to scoff, and that goes nowhere. I’m not playing that game."</p> <p>I read that as declining to give the evidence or line of reasoning you use to support your truth claim. Fair enough. You are entitled to make as many unwarranted claims as you wish. I hope you do so with the foreknowledge that your original claim now lacks substance, and may be dismissed without further ado. </p> <p>As a matter of passing interest (perhaps), if you read the current entry on cosmic inflation in Wikipedia ( <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)</a> ) you may see that its assessment if inflation is generally in accord with that posted in this blog by Ethan. It is, of course, possible that Ethan wrote that entry, but it is for you to establish that link, should you wish to make that claim.</p> <p>I've provided my reference to support my position. Please reconsider and provide yours. </p> <p>As for your presumption of prejudice on my part "No matter what source I quote, your first reaction is going to be to scoff …", that was uncalled for, and disappointing behavior.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547071&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="uNNdDaOv1Fg0d_39dIAm49set8owNL6V0Yfq6_TG02o"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John (not verified)</span> on 15 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547071">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547072" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508146719"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@John #11<br /> I recommend that you study the difference between training and education. Also the difference between education and original work. I was in a "special studies" program for the latter, and my thesis was an original coalescence of philosophy and psychology. That included philosophy of science as applied to psychology.<br /> Ethan seems to be unaware of the limitations of his philosophy of science, instrumentalism, including of course the limits of our instruments in gathering information about the "real world." I use scare quotes because of the philosophy that only what we can measure is real... And if we measure Earth to be flattened, as by a fast approaching observer, then that is an "equally valid" description of Earth, as per SR.<br /> But, of course, there is "no substance" to that criticism because SR is so well established. (One of my favorite peeves, of course. There are many more as evident in my history here.)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547072&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="tA8Bs9rfe3Q7no71Bb2_DncSBj_uM3szxawqQ83_bsc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 16 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547072">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547073" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508147582"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@dean #7<br /> "There is no substance in your arguments MM, that’s the point."<br /> Vague generalizations are easy... no substance to argue about. Pick one and let's get down to it.</p> <p>" Your comments are as baseless as the ones we still see from the occasional curmudgeon arguing that the “endless” decimal 0.999 ——- does not equal 1..."</p> <p>I've been all over this one on another physics forum. Numbers are meaningless until they refer to "something." Very, very, very close to one whole pie is still not a whole pie.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547073&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="2_PqpJxfiLYwP9PqCWV-TcZdWw-Z-0poP7yTijl5hwc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 16 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547073">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547074" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508150593"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#17,</p> <p>You're only hanging around here because you like the attention.</p> <p>If people stop responding to your claims you start complaining …</p> <p>Your a moron with absolutely no value whatsoever.</p> <p>You accusr Ethan of being 'so Trump' while actually it's you who's got no skills whatsoever and who criticizing none stop someone who's actually gifted. It's a bit like Trump harassing Obama for not having a birth certificate … to keep getting some love from racists.</p> <p>Only, Ethan isn't really grasping what you are, and why you are doing so.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547074&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="gs2BwlCLWRkHDw7V213mX1EeVwat1iQafNYktw30lAw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 16 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547074">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547075" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508162509"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Michael Mooney,</p> <p>"Ethan seems to be unaware of the limitations of his philosophy of science, instrumentalism, including of course the limits of our instruments in gathering information about the 'real world.' "</p> <p>Ethan seems to be more focused on Physics than Philosophy. That may be why he spends less time that you think he should on the points you find engaging.</p> <p>If, by studying the principle subject material of this blog, you become more comfortable with it, you might have more enjoyable and fewer adversarial interactions here. That is assuming that you would prefer the former to the later.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547075&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="pWmgBQcricPXp8OMJiBe9OkiMUdo5TRTCTZdJWtH6I4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John (not verified)</span> on 16 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547075">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547076" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508169910"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Funny how our President Trump is used as a moral touchstone within a science communities "moral parameters"..<br /> In any discussion.. seems kinda ironic.<br /> lol</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547076&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="F4R2LriIrhEvaurQrRVVx5hMYOUGT8Oa3Voa2BXeLpg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Ragtag Media (not verified)</span> on 16 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547076">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547077" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508170592"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>MM, I will assume your whole pie comment references the issue with 0.999 --- being the same as 1.</p> <p>Your comment "being very very close" is the clearest evidence you could give that you don't understand basic mathematics. It is no wonder you are habitually wrong about physics.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547077&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="vrRoCX8g2IalrcmfUmCumK5r6Xw_Y0Emd3qBz9FwoxI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">dean (not verified)</span> on 16 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547077">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547078" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508170696"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"my thesis was an original coalescence of philosophy and psychology. That included philosophy of science as applied to psychology."</p> <p>I'm sure that level of work took you at least a month to finish. Nothing significant in the things you reference.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547078&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="hK1bnZzayQq2EfU4c7JwVasROYwUsk5KdBCtDlTn5D0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">dean (not verified)</span> on 16 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547078">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547079" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508170813"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>John, none of the CFT, Mooney, ragtag, ever have evidence on their sides. It's strictly denial and lack of understanding all the way down.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547079&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="hp2k2cD23KgS4gsOj_Q1Zx0m_LKGLB0B-9AFy8ejLKc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">dean (not verified)</span> on 16 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547079">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547080" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508219877"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Philosophy is dead dontchya know? Just made up stiff by those who can't do.<br /> As astrology is to astronomy.<br /> As faith healing is to medicine.<br /> As magic is to science.<br /> As homeopathy is to pharmaceuticals.<br /> As Star Wars is to Star Trek ;-)</p> <p>Poking the bear.....</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547080&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="79oilo_vkUd7r2AeMyjTumGvkdR67PgzxD0_Tjjwhwo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Steve Blackband (not verified)</span> on 17 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547080">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547081" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508219972"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>The first rule of the Dunning-Kruger Club is that it's members aren't ware they are in the Dunning-Kruger Club.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547081&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="3QrcCQCaDXvc-giqS8OlAYgUPNjHeipQhLIW8K-2F4o"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Alan G. (not verified)</span> on 17 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547081">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547082" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508220111"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"aware" not "ware".</p> <p>'Tupid keyboard (operator).</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547082&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="UWCMbBOxfSTRzS8hr5i99jngnaM6NOFoyZm-M8QJsH4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Alan G. (not verified)</span> on 17 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547082">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547083" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508225247"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@dean #20<br /> You say there is no substance to my arguments. I challenge you to quit with the vague generalization and pick one of my arguments with "no substance" so we can get specific. You blow it off, presumably because you shrink from the challenge.<br /> Then I give you a specific argument against the common math nonsense you bring up (off topic) that .9999(etc) = 1. You say my comment is clear evidence that I don't understand basic math, but offer no specif rebuttal. What evidence, exactly? Make your argument or quit blowing hot air.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547083&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="yl_yltYdCWn8kvuhmr1LkUC3MdJM_TveGdBhMqRHk6w"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 17 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547083">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547084" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508225644"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Steve Blackband #23<br /> Ethan's instrumentalism is his philosophy of science. Scientific realism is mine. The difference is relevant to honest scientific dialogue... not that Ethan ever engages in the latter.<br /> Your cliche' approach to philosophy doesn't cut the mustard.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547084&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="F7uz-C52OootDGZD0SzVG80jf_p3oHSwL-O_dE71mFE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 17 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547084">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547085" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508237305"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#7<br /> Cant say I was trying too hard.</p> <p>Origin (or not) of cut the mustard is interesting.<br /><a href="https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/cut-the-mustard.html">https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/cut-the-mustard.html</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547085&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="zHYX6TzWi07JbVZ_T0teqAZtJCL8EPrbNEp8S9QMado"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Steve Blackband (not verified)</span> on 17 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547085">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547086" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508237899"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>OK Michael, being new to this blog i will bite a little. Looking up realism etc i am not sure i will be a convert, but with the fairness my best version of an open mind can muster I will indulge. I am bothered by needing to explain how science is successful, 'making valid claims about unobservables', ontology itself. Or that "a scientific realist would argue that science must derive some ontological support for atoms from the outstanding phenomenological success of all the theories using them."<br /> Things like "For example, Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity showed that the concept of the luminiferous ether could be dropped because it had contributed nothing to the success of the theories of mechanics and electromagnetism." It was dropped because it isn't there I would have thought, Michelson Morely.. But thats wiki.</p> <p>So, I would be grateful if you would recommend me one or two articles that you think best define and support scientific realism for the beginner.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547086&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="qL7glXscHvcRh4w_ptPfyrqPlaYErztKrUyF-Ipwmmc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Steve Blackband (not verified)</span> on 17 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547086">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547087" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508320330"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Steve Blackband #29<br /> Here are a couple of links and a little commentary on scientific realism.</p> <p><a href="http://www.fitelson.org/164/realism.html">http://www.fitelson.org/164/realism.html</a><br /> (quote edited)<br /> Traditionally, scientific realism asserts that the objects of scientific knowledge exist independently of the minds or acts of scientists and that scientific theories are true of that objective (mind-independent) world...<br /> Opposed to scientific realism are a variety of antirealisms, including phenomenalism and empiricism. Recently two others, instrumentalism and constructivism, have posed special challenges to realism. Instrumentalism regards the objects of knowledge pragmatically, as tools for various human purposes, and so takes reliability (or empirical adequacy) rather than truth as scientifically central. (end quote)<br /><a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/">https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/</a><br /> (Quote)<br /> ...scientific realism is a position concerning the actual epistemic status of theories (or some components thereof), and this is described in a number of ways. For example, most people define scientific realism in terms of the truth or approximate truth of scientific theories or certain aspects of theories. Some define it in terms of the successful reference of theoretical terms to things in the world, both observable and unobservable....<br /> Others define scientific realism not in terms of truth or reference, but in terms of belief in the ontology of scientific theories. What all of these approaches have in common is a commitment to the idea that our best theories have a certain epistemic status: they yield knowledge of aspects of the world, including unobservable aspects.<br /> ... the scientific realist holds that science aims to produce true descriptions of things in the world<br /> Metaphysically, realism is committed to the mind-independent existence of the world investigated by the sciences.<br /> This idea is best clarified in contrast with positions that deny it. For instance, it is denied by any position that falls under the traditional heading of “idealism”,...(end quote)</p> <p>This includes relativity's philosophy that it all depends on how you look at it, i.e., no objective world independent of measurement/observation. It also includes Ethan's instrumentalism: 'reality is what we can measure.'<br /> (Quote)<br /> Epistemologically, realism is committed to the idea that theoretical claims (interpreted literally as describing a mind-independent reality) constitute knowledge of the world. (end quote)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547087&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ShQFyLNftovSOUqHxPTqeXDMkYYQsPLaAgwVjudyVnM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 18 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547087">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1547088" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1508324896"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@MM</p> <p>From the page you linked to:</p> <p><i>"Led by the successes of statistical mechanics and relativity, however, PLANCK and EINSTEIN helped turn the tide toward realism."</i></p> <p>and from yourself @27</p> <p><i>"Scientific realism is mine."</i></p> <p>Now you either agree with Einstein and SR/GR and you are also a 'realist' or you aren't one.</p> <p>You do realize what 'successes' means, it means that GR was proven to be 'real' while all you have been doing here is complaining that relativity is wrong.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1547088&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="pu0bxmnEZRK1RPfmKhFlWTlJWISyGWaYrmb8ww9V5LE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 18 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1547088">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/startswithabang/2017/10/15/comments-of-the-week-180-from-the-planets-kepler-missed-to-the-nasa-photos-that-changed-the-world%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Sun, 15 Oct 2017 06:49:27 +0000 esiegel 37133 at https://scienceblogs.com Comments of the Week #179: From mirrorless telescopes to the physics ideas that must die https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/08/comments-of-the-week-179-from-mirrorless-telescopes-to-the-physics-ideas-that-must-die <span>Comments of the Week #179: From mirrorless telescopes to the physics ideas that must die</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>“It’s easier to hold onto a bad idea if you never share it, and it’s harder to defend one if you let it out.” -Victor LaValle</p></blockquote> <p>After catching up with a big double-dose of our comments last week, Starts With A Bang! is here again with the latest! For those of you looking forward to my newest book, <a href="http://amzn.to/2wX6B3Y">Treknology</a>, it drops just one week from today! I will have special instructions on next week's comments of the week for anyone who wants me to personally ship them an autographed copy, so look for it if you want one! With that said, let's take a look back at our past week, and all the stories we've hit:</p> <p>There's a whole lot coming up; I'll be on coast-to-coast AM next weekend (very early Monday morning), I've been involved in a bunch of podcasts, and I'll be involved in all sorts of speaking engagements over the coming months in Oregon and Washington, and then (hopefully) even further! And for those of you into classic RPGs and world-building, you may really enjoy this piece I wrote on <a href="http://www.sagaborn.com/world-two-celestial-bodies-sky/">adding some science to your fictional world</a>. With that said, let's dive into what you had to say on this edition of our <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/category/comments-of-the-week/">comments of the week</a>!</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/slide_3.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-36629" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="450" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/slide_3-600x450.jpg" width="600" /></a> From macroscopic scales down to subatomic ones, the sizes of the fundamental particles play only a small role in determining the sizes of composite structures. Image credit: Magdalena Kowalska / CERN / ISOLDE team. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/01/double-comments-of-the-week-178-from-point-particles-to-the-very-first-galaxies-of-all/#comment-582723">Michael Kelsey</a> on how we measure the size of a particle: "So instead, in the real world, we measure the size of quantum entities by scattering: throw something at what you want to measure and see how it bounces. This works extremely well for charged entities. It’s how Rutherford figured out that the gigantic (10^-10 m) atom has a really tiny (10^-14 m) hard little core in the middle, with pretty much empty space around it."</p></blockquote> <p>Michael's entire comment is a really great explanation of how deep inelastic scattering works, and he even goes into the math a bit. I'm going to try to put that math into words, so you understand what he's talking about. (And know that he is completely correct.) Basically, you assume the particle is a single point, with all the properties (electric charge, color charge, weak hypercharge, etc.) contained in a single point-like entity, and you fire other particles towards it that will interact with it. If it were truly a point, there would be a very specific angular distribution of how the particles would recoil from interacting with it; if it were anything other than a point, such as taking up a finite volume, it would depart from that angular distribution. When we say "the size of a particle is equal to this amount," that is the size/scale where we observe that departure from the expected distribution. When we say, "the size of a particle is less than this amount," we mean we observe no departure from the expected distribution down to the limits of our sensitivity. And to the best we can tell, all the Standard Model particles are point-like.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/Gaia-CCD-array-assembly4_07-06-2011.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-36684" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="397" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/Gaia-CCD-array-assembly4_07-06-2011-600x397.jpg" width="600" /></a> This photo, taken at the Astrium France facility in Toulouse, shows the complete set of 106 CCDs that make up Gaia's focal plane. The CCDs are bolted to the CCD support structure (CSS). The CSS (the grey plate underneath the CCDs in this photo) weighs about 20 kg and is made of silicon carbide (SiC), a material that provides remarkable thermal and mechanical stability. The focal plane measures 1 × 0.5 metres. Image credit: ESA's Gaia / Astrium. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/30/ask-ethan-why-dont-we-build-a-telescope-without-mirrors-or-lenses-synopsis/#comment-582674">Frank</a> on Optical Phased Arrays: "There are new tech I think you don’t know about"</p></blockquote> <p>The tech that Frank is referring to can be used to make a "lens-free camera," but the big problem is it relies on a series of light waves impacting a surface to determine direction, and it needs that light to be coherent, like laser light. This is fine for very specific applications, like the optical equivalent of radar, but it won't give you the very high-resolution image you need. Gathering light and maximizing the utility of every photon is what makes observational astronomy progressively more powerful as time goes on. If we could simply measure the <em>wavelength</em> and the <em>direction</em> of every incoming photon to arbitrary accuracy, we'd have the perfect telescope. Mirrors lose photons, but can measure direction to the accuracy of the ratio of photon wavelength to the diameter of the primary mirror, and wavelength to the accuracy of the filter utilized. Optical phased arrays smear out that direction by a factor of many thousands. Resolution matters a lot in astronomy; this is not the way to go.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/astrochem3-1200x900.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-36692" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="450" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/astrochem3-1200x900-600x450.jpg" width="600" /></a> Atoms can link up to form molecules, including organic molecules and biological processes, in interstellar space as well as on planets. Is it possible that life began not only prior to Earth, but not on a planet at all? Image credit: Jenny Mottar. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/02/the-suspect-science-of-star-trek-discovery-context-is-for-kings-season-1-episode-3-synopsis/#comment-582728">Steve Blackband</a> on Star Trek: Discovery: "The bio/physics stuff is fluffy, magic space mushrooms (dude, cool) – but so is the rest. Its going to go wrong of course – thats the problem with prequels – its not in all the following series, though in terms of quantum meets biology maybe this is the forerunner of the Genesis device."</p></blockquote> <p>I will say that there is a difference between science fiction and science fantasy. To me, the difference is that science fiction looks at our Universe as we know it, seeks to extend it in an unproven direction, and apply those extensions to how that might play out for humanity. Science fantasy looks at our Universe as we know it and <em>ignores </em>some of what we know, rather than circumventing it with new ideas/theories, to suit the story's plot needs. The bio/physics stuff about the magic space fungi falls into that latter category; they could have done it only slightly differently to make it viable. So it was laziness on their part, as though they consulted with a half-assed scientist instead of a bona fide expert, and that's what they got.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/110395_0505b.jpg"><img alt="Michael Burnham, initially brought over as a prisoner, finds herself aboard the USS Discovery, captained by the intriguing but sketchy Gabriel Lorca. Image credit: Jan Thijs/CBS © 2017 CBS Interactive." class="size-medium wp-image-36691" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="400" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/110395_0505b-600x400.jpg" width="600" /></a> Michael Burnham, initially brought over as a prisoner, finds herself aboard the USS Discovery, captained by the intriguing but sketchy Gabriel Lorca. Image credit: Jan Thijs/CBS © 2017 CBS Interactive. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/02/the-suspect-science-of-star-trek-discovery-context-is-for-kings-season-1-episode-3-synopsis/#comment-582783">Denier</a> (and <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/02/the-suspect-science-of-star-trek-discovery-context-is-for-kings-season-1-episode-3-synopsis/#comment-582771">Adam</a>) on a neat theory about Star Trek: Discovery: "I think you hit the nail on the head with that one. I think the entire ship is Section 31. Even the ship number is NCC-10<b>31</b>. Suru’s warcrimes don’t matter to Sec 31 because it was done in the interest of killing the enemy and they have a war to win. I also put zero stock in how superior officers were acting, weak security, and even the genital fungus beast. It has already been established that Sec 31 tests their recruits before admitting them. That the captain knew she had broken in to the lab supports the idea that it was all just evaluation testing."</p></blockquote> <p>I love this Section 31 theory. I think it's perfect. I think it's so good I'm going to keep it in mind when I watch the latest episode of Trek tonight, and depending on how it goes, I might put it into my write-up for Forbes on Monday. I was thinking that Discovery is the Federation's "black ops" department, and the pieces are fitting together. The ship's call number, NCC-1031, is the biggest reveal. Thank you for putting that together.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/image-20160115-7371-1t2x0bo.jpg"><img alt="A computer simulation, utilizing the advanced techniques developed by Kip Thorne and many others, allow us to tease out the predicted signals arising in gravitational waves generated by merging black holes. Image credit: Werner Benger, cc by-sa 4.0." class="size-medium wp-image-36697" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="319" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/image-20160115-7371-1t2x0bo-600x319.jpg" width="600" /></a> A computer simulation, utilizing the advanced techniques developed by Kip Thorne and many others, allow us to tease out the predicted signals arising in gravitational waves generated by merging black holes. Image credit: Werner Benger, cc by-sa 4.0. <p> </p> </div> <blockquote><p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/03/gravitational-waves-win-2017-nobel-prize-in-physics-the-ultimate-fusion-of-theory-and-experiment-synopsis/#comment-582758">dean</a> on the Nobel Prize in Physics this year: "Amusing to see two of the primary deniers of any science they don’t like (which is pretty much all of it) acting all butt-hurt over an award they try to dismiss. Congratulations to the researchers on well-deserved honors."</p></blockquote> <p>When you see something you don't like, or you're skeptical of, it's only human nature to seek out the other voices that don't like it or express skepticism. When it comes to evaluating those other claims, however, you must scrutinize them as carefully as possible. What the Danish team that LIGO's detractors point to actually said was that:</p> <ul><li>The signal from the merging gravitational waves is clearly visible. It's there. There's no doubt about it.</li> <li>But it's quite possibly not optimally extracted from the data. Correlations in the leftover noise show that.</li> <li>If you subtract the noise differently, the signal may fall below the 5-sigma value needed in physics for a true "discovery."</li> </ul><p>But that does not mean there's no signal. Take a look at the most recent GW event:</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/smaller1.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-36688" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="365" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/smaller1-600x365.jpg" width="600" /></a> The noise (top), the strain (middle), and the reconstructed signal (bottom) in all three detectors. Image credit: The LIGO and VIRGO scientific collaborations. <p> </p> </div> <p>Do you see that signal in the Livingston detector? That's a signal-to-noise ratio of <strong>14</strong>. If it were just Hanford and VIRGO, it would be far less compelling. But we have lots of events (4) now, lots of data, and lots of evidence. If you were seeking independent confirmation, you have it now from multiple detectors and multiple events. Everything is consistent. Haters gonna hate, but Nobel Prizes are still going to be awarded. And in this case, rightfully so!</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/barishthorneweiss-1.jpg"><img alt="Rainer Weiss, Barry Barish and Kip Thorne are your 2017 Nobel Laureates in physics. Image credit: © Nobel Media AB 2017." class="size-medium wp-image-36699" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="324" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/barishthorneweiss-1-600x324.jpg" width="600" /></a> Rainer Weiss, Barry Barish and Kip Thorne are your 2017 Nobel Laureates in physics. Image credit: © Nobel Media AB 2017. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/03/the-nobel-doesnt-mean-gravitational-wave-astronomy-is-over-its-just-getting-good-synopsis/#comment-582766">Pino</a> on who deserves the Nobel Prize: "What about Einstein? … He still doesn’t deserve the Prize for Relativity? Nonsense. p."</p></blockquote> <p>There is a big push in the scientific community to get the Nobel Prizes to honor people that have done their work more recently, rather than the "typical" awards that go to research that was done decades ago and whose value is only properly recognized today. The awards for the Higgs boson and the discovery of Gravitational Waves are the exceptions; the recent prizes for topology in materials or blue LEDs are far more common. There is also a push to begin awarding collaborations, which I'm split about. Yes, science these days is done by large collaborations mostly, not by sole individuals, and so the award should award everyone who contributes substantially, not just a few of the most famous individuals or those in the highest positions of leadership. But that would dilute the impact and the prestige of the prize, if some ~1000+ people had to share it; would you even feel like a Nobel meant anything if so many people won it? But no one is talking about posthumous awards here. The Nobel is for the living only. I like that rule.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/entanglement_patterns.jpg"><img alt="Two possible entanglement patterns in de Sitter space, representing entangled bits of quantum information that may enable space, time and gravity to emerge. Image credit: Erik Verlinde." class="size-medium wp-image-36703" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="277" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/entanglement_patterns-600x277.jpg" width="600" /></a> Two possible entanglement patterns in de Sitter space, representing entangled bits of quantum information that may enable space, time and gravity to emerge. Image credit: Erik Verlinde. <p> </p> </div> <blockquote><p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/04/are-space-time-and-gravity-all-just-illusions-synopsis/#comment-582790">Sean T</a> on new ideas vs. good ideas: "has it ever occurred to you that the so-called “groupthink” is simply a result of looking at the evidence at hand and coming to an agreement that the current scientific consensus is what best fits that evidence? Creative is not necessarily correct. The main factor that suppresses new ideas is that pesky thing called observational evidence. If the new idea doesn’t explain the observations better than the old idea, then it will be rejected. The burden is on the creator of the new idea to show that it is better than the consensus one, not on the scientific community to demonstrate that the consensus idea is superior."</p></blockquote> <p>This is the problem with most new ideas is that they add one new free parameter to explain one new observation. That's generally not a good physics idea, since there's really nothing gained by that. (It meets criterion #2, below, only.) To modify gravity or replace our current theory, you need to, remember:</p> <ol><li>Reproduce all the prior theory's successes.</li> <li>Explain the observations the pre-existing theory does not.</li> <li>Make new predictions, distinct from the prior theory's, that can be tested.</li> </ol><p>Verlinde's theory has failed at #1, succeeded in one aspect at #2, and made new, <em>unsuccessful</em> predictions for #3. In other words, current data already invalidates them. The burden is on him to show that his theory is not garbage to start with. If you <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/10/04/are-space-time-and-gravity-all-just-illusions/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">read the whole live blog</a>, you'll see my conclusion:</p> <blockquote><p>Too bad; no addressing of the quantitative aspects of his idea. It was interesting to listen and I'm glad I've heard it, but I'm more convinced that this is a cherry-picked solution he claims to have come up with, and that the details, particularly as the Universe evolves, won't turn out to be consistent. I'm also convinced that the physicist who shows this won't be Erik Verlinde.</p></blockquote> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/1-kKS-7rZpDn2JXGC43aEJqw.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-36705" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="349" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/1-kKS-7rZpDn2JXGC43aEJqw-600x349.jpg" width="600" /></a> If gravitation isn't fundamental, but is rather an emergent force that comes about from the properties of fundamental qbits of information, perhaps this new way of looking at the Universe will answer some of our greatest fundamental puzzles. Image credit: flickr gallery of J. Gabas Esteban. <p> </p> </div> <p>There are still some mysteries that we will have to wait a little longer for the Universe's answer.</p> <blockquote><p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/04/are-space-time-and-gravity-all-just-illusions-synopsis/#comment-582794">Michael Mooney</a> on housekeeping over here: "I appreciate that Ethan tried to clean up the nastiest personal abuse here (WOW for example) but why is Elle H.C. (see #9) still here spewing venomous insults?"</p></blockquote> <p>Yes, Chelle is not always kind to others on this blog. In fact, I'd probably rank them as the fourth most routinely-offensive of our present suite of commenters. If you want me to ban Chelle, then I'd have to ban Ragtag Media, you, and CFT also. Let's try keeping all of you around for a little longer, shall we? In other words: don't get worse.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/8-14-CMB-signal-inflation-1200x980-1200x980.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-36707" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="489" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/8-14-CMB-signal-inflation-1200x980-1200x980-600x489.jpg" width="600" /></a> The earliest stages of the Universe, before the Big Bang, are what set up the initial conditions that everything we see today has evolved from. Image credit: E. Siegel, with images derived from ESA/Planck and the DoE/NASA/ NSF interagency task force on CMB research. <p> </p> </div> <blockquote><p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/05/inflation-isnt-just-science-its-the-origin-of-our-universe-synopsis/#comment-582837">Fred</a> on whether inflation is or isn't science: "I’m generally a fan of your sensible take on things but I’m surprised you would dimiss the objections to inflation raised by Steinhardt and others (also expressed in Sabine Hossenfelder’s recent guest appearance here), without properly addressing those criticisms. "</p></blockquote> <p>So I wrote what I wrote because showing how inflation <em>is</em> science, independent of subjective or irrelevant criticisms (legitimate or not), was the strongest refutation I could think of to the claims that inflation is not science anymore. Yes, I don't think you learn very much about the Universe by building a bunch of models, unless you take the tactic that some have (including Kamionkowski et al. in his ARAA paper from 2016) of showing which models are valid and which models are disfavored based on observables like the scalar-to-tensor ratio. But I don't think saying, "I can concoct an arbitrarily complicated model, with as many free parameters as it takes, to produce anything I want" is a good argument. There are a huge set of classes of simple, well-motivated inflationary models that make the generic predictions I provided you with. They all give you flatness, a causally connected horizon, no monopoles, etc., within your <em>observable</em> Universe, regardless of the initial conditions that your Universe possessed before inflation took place. In fact, regardless of the initial conditions that your Universe possess before the final 10^-33 seconds (or so) of inflation! Sabine thinks it isn't science until you have a well-defined probability measure for the end results of inflationary phase space, and inflation doesn't have it. I think that showing this generic behavior in a wide range of cases where the phase space is overwhelmingly resulting in a Universe like our observable one is an adequate substitute, as do many others (we've been having an intense conversation on Twitter; <a href="https://twitter.com/StartsWithABang/status/844187751171801092">start here and follow the sub-threads</a>) like Will Kinney and Richard Easther. But arguing over "what it takes to convince us that X is true" when we are convinced by different pieces of information highlights the fact that we haven't "proven" everything about inflation. Some think that means it's not science; some think the counterarguments are ridiculous. But that's the reason why things broke down as they did.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/1-svAtJuDK8C_3JvbXpSrKxg.jpg"><img alt="The stars and galaxies we see today didn't always exist, and the farther back we go, the closer to an apparent singularity the Universe gets, but there is a limit to that extrapolation. To go all the way back, we need a modification to the Big Bang: cosmological inflation. Image credit: NASA, ESA, and A. Feild (STScI)." class="size-medium wp-image-36709" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="396" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/10/1-svAtJuDK8C_3JvbXpSrKxg-600x396.jpg" width="600" /></a> The stars and galaxies we see today didn't always exist, and the farther back we go, the closer to an apparent singularity the Universe gets, but there is a limit to that extrapolation. To go all the way back, we need a modification to the Big Bang: cosmological inflation. Image credit: NASA, ESA, and A. Feild (STScI). <p> </p> </div> <p>Also from <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/05/inflation-isnt-just-science-its-the-origin-of-our-universe-synopsis/#comment-582837">Fred</a> on an alternative to inflation: "Also: what do you make of this, which claims to do away with the need for an inflationary phase: <a href="http://nautil.us/issue/53/monsters/the-universe-began-with-a-big-melt-not-a-big-bang" rel="nofollow">http://nautil.us/issue/53/monsters/the-universe-began-with-a-big-melt-not-a-big-bang</a>? Can you tell whether the paper referenced is serious work?"</p></blockquote> <p>So, do you remember what I said about the problem with most new ideas? How they add X free parameters (or X pieces of new physics) to solve X number of problems? Whereas you should be solving Y number of problems, where Y &gt; (or ideally &gt;&gt;) than X? In the case of <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.06144">this new paper</a>, which the Nautilus article is based on, X = 2. I predict that no one who's last name isn't Padmanabhan will continue to work on this (IMO) bad idea.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 590px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/admx-axion-search-university-washington-2.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-full wp-image-28529" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="435" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/admx-axion-search-university-washington-2.jpg" width="580" /></a> Image credit: Axion Dark Matter eXperiment (ADMX), via U. of Washington. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/06/five-brilliant-ideas-for-new-physics-that-need-to-die-already-synopsis/#comment-582818">Axil</a> on axionic dark matter: "Whatever happened to the Axion? If a few Axions are generated, then the Proton would split."</p></blockquote> <p>Well, that's supremely not true. The standard Peccei-Quinn axion was ruled out back in the 1990s by the ADMX collaboration, but variations are still being looked for, and theoretical work is still being done. In no variant that I've ever seen does an axion mediate proton decay; I think you made that part up because it sounded good to you. It is not only wrong, it is not feasible.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/05/Piltdownpainting.jpeg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-28089" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="480" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/05/Piltdownpainting-600x480.jpeg" width="600" /></a> Image credit: John Cooke, of "Piltdown Man", one of history's most elaborate scientific hoaxes. <p> </p> </div> <p>And finally, from <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/06/five-brilliant-ideas-for-new-physics-that-need-to-die-already-synopsis/#comment-582825">Julian Frost</a> (seconding but elaborating on) <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/06/five-brilliant-ideas-for-new-physics-that-need-to-die-already-synopsis/#comment-582819">MobiusKlein</a>'s comments: "I have to second MobiusKlein. I thought it was a part of science to devise hypotheses, test them and, from the experimental results, develop refinements to them. Or are you saying that in these cases the refinements don’t cover the difference between the original hypotheses and the experimental results?"</p></blockquote> <p>For all five of these cases that I gave, there was an initial motivation for investigated these areas. Proton decay was supposed to be an indicator of SU(5) grand unification, but the predicted lifetime failed. Now people have gone to <em>more</em> elaborate unification schemes, some of which have been already ruled out, but they keep pushing to larger-and-larger groups to extend the proton's lifetime. Modified gravity was supposed to be an alternative to dark matter. 35+ years on, it still cannot reproduce the first criterion of a new theory: to reproduce the successes of the one it's seeking to replace. Supersymmetry was designed to solve the hierarchy problem. That ship has sailed based on experimental data. Technicolor predicted that there would be no Higgs boson. There is one. And WIMP dark matter predicted a specific production amount related to mass and cross section. Those values are 100% ruled out. These things could still happen: the proton could still decay, gravity could still need a modification, SUSY could exist at some higher scale, Technicolor variants could be discovered at some higher energy scale, and dark matter could have some WIMP-like properties that are very different from what the initial predictions were. But the original motivations for them are gone, and people are plowing ahead having learned no lessons and doing nothing different, except doubling down on their initial assumptions and looking for the same ill-motivated things to higher and higher precision. And that's why they need to die; because the ideas that motivated them are already dead. And with that said, see you back here next week for more Starts With A Bang!</p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/startswithabang" lang="" about="/startswithabang" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">esiegel</a></span> <span>Sun, 10/08/2017 - 06:20</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/comments-week" hreflang="en">Comments of the Week</a></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-categories field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Categories</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/channel/physical-sciences" hreflang="en">Physical Sciences</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546796" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1507481578"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"If you want me to ban Chelle, then I’d have to ban Ragtag Media, you, and CFT also. Let’s try keeping all of you around for a little longer, shall we?"</p> <p>Well, I am down with that... Thanks for the Family approach.<br /> I mean as a family we have our differences but should remain cordial in search of truth.</p> <p>In the end, what does banning get one? Even God did not Ban Satan from his presence ,totally read Job.</p> <p>Regardless, what do you gain by banning anything?<br /> If you ban your bad nature your good nature would grow to destroy you.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546796&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="DXSNNv9iPi1_RDM6lxBzDFClcAvOczariZ9hmQkSIKg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Ragtag Media (not verified)</span> on 08 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546796">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546797" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1507481811"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Remember we are living in an en-tropic environment that takes WORK to keep it from decay. And that "WORK" is ironically born our mental state.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546797&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="hh3oLVFiPS3hR3Nd08djmleEHSvfMqh1I03r7wJCg5o"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Ragtag Media (not verified)</span> on 08 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546797">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546798" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1507505645"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Regarding sci-fi vs. sci-fa distinction. It's an interesting way to look at it. But if one takes that definition, you end up maybe with only a handful of movies that might be called sci-fiction, if any. I'm struggling to think of some that didn't have "fantasy" in it at some point. Maybe "Moon". In Hollywood " ignoring some of what we know" is called "dramatisation" :D</p> <p>Regarding Section 31, I think Denier is right on the money. Not only because of 31 in the ships serial number, but there are numerous hints that this isn't standard star-fleet. Captain Lorca (besides being shown as a slight phychopath) states that he can do whatever he wants and not answer to anyone as long as he carries his mission to win the war. Almost a text-book definition of what section 31 is. Secondly, when the prisoners are taken on board Discovery they notice guards with black uniforms and black insignia. Section 31 wears black uniforms (producers of DS9 wanted them to look like Gestapo). Then they say among themselves that this isn't like any star-fleet sheep they ever saw. Then there's black alert, everything being hush-hush etc.<br /> On the other hand, it's unclear weather the whole ship is section 31 (IMO unlikely, since they previously only seem to use well placed agents instead of full blown crews). So it might be that 20-30% of the crew (guards, chief of security, command, science)are section 31 while others are there not fully realizing what they're in for. </p> <p>So here's my prediction for the plot development: Burnham learns that this is Section 31. For a while she enjoys it because they seem to operate how she likes, letting her do what she wants. Later they probably end up doing some seriously bad things and she starts questioning section 31 vs. star-fleet. In the end they are about to commit some serious atrocity, and Burnham, again, (after much mental battle) starts another mutiny, but this time for the opposite reasons then in the first episode (this would give a link to why the intro episodes where what they were). Then she exposes section 31 for what it is, gets a pardon (or not) from star fleet and they live happily ever after. Section 31 returns to the shadows.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546798&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="m0ySAKYUxaVDdZ3uZdl4AJGIouNE_n9iV6cCIzXDDI0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 08 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546798">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546799" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1507523279"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>p.s.<br /> an amendment:<br /> After watching ep4, IMO it's captain Lorca, and those security guards in black from ep3, who are section 31. First officer isn't looped in captain's decisions, chief science officer says he joined a science vessel, not what Lorca wants to do. Chief of security is dead. Lorca wants Burnham to weaponize everything and anything she can. This does play into section 31 story, of only certain people being places as agents. </p> <p>Couple of things that are really starting to annoy me (but that's just me), is I keep seeing things that look like from other movies. i.e. one of the officers on the bridge seems to have almost an identical costume as Nebula from Guardians of the Galaxy, Klingon space suit that Voq wares reminds me of a Predator suit so much. And I just can't help but think of Merida from Brave whenever I see Burnham's bunk mate. :D Oh, and mentioning Elon Musk in the same sentence as Kokhran just made me cringe.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546799&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="2ELoaonmTTsishZgNw-J_psCWKpQT6khdlwrcVZDMVM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 09 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546799">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546800" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1507524904"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Regarding Nobel Prize, </p> <p>I'm actually extremely happy that the Nobel prizes in science are still being given to actual people who are doing something worthwhile and still keeps the spirit of Nobel. </p> <p>Nobel for literature last year was a joke. I'm OK with Dylan as a musician and song writer, as much as anyone, but that was honestly an insult to any serious writer or poet. And if you look at the list of people/organizations that won the Peace prizes in last 30-40 years... oh my god... with the exception of handful of people among those 30-40... everyone else should be charged for crimes against humanity in one way or the other, not given peace prizes (Obama, Ahtisaari, Carter, EU, UN, Trimble, Hume, Horta, Belo, Peres, Arafat, San Suu, Sadat... and the list goes on and on). Shameful really. To quote Douglas Adams: "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546800&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="HL-w5MxmTeEQ2atICijQujREPUMmWgsDpUeQnm4NhpA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 09 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546800">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546801" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1507531986"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Regarding the new pastime on SWAB of giving television review commentary:<br /> The new STD sounds painful....ouch, what a great line, (and it's so easy!). Watch Orville instead if you want your Trek without the uptight tortured self righteous identity politics and angst. 'More Trek than Trek ...Now with extra risqué humor!!' should be it's secondary moniker. Someone stole another crewmate's leg as a practical joke in retaliation for turning him into Mr. Potato Head in the last episode...I can honestly say I've never even imagined Mr. Potato Head on a starship bridge before. The hidden leg fell out of a ceiling fixture during a tense serious conversation later in the episode and clearly demonstrated why something as unfunny as a STD with fungal genital monsters just can't pull someone's leg, er funny bone the same way. Damn puns, they're like Pringles...</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546801&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="88-YplNcDF3OfZCqgX0NlariG77QgSYmDde8-Ii0-4Y"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CFT (not verified)</span> on 09 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546801">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546802" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1507532573"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ CFT</p> <p>I agree wholeheartedly regarding Orville. It's a great show and I hope it lasts. Getting famous actors in every episode to be a part of Orville universe is also an added bonus. And they play their parts beautifully. It's almost like waiting to see who's gonna be next :)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546802&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="M6dBaMl4WFDrK6dc4EVRgDWQxXJUDgwdgrQgYNPDrds"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 09 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546802">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546803" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1507536715"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>Nobel for literature last year was a joke. I’m OK with Dylan as a musician and song writer, as much as anyone, but that was honestly an insult to any serious writer or poet.</p></blockquote> <p>I agree. There is a funny (IMO) after note to this that make the award into a comedic setup. There was a news story that after the award to Dylan was announced Tom Waits called him to congratulate him. The punch line was that neither singer could understand the other.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546803&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="6IcIGuSYWl89PZjYXzO6YNS9yNQEUyQVILVitgnh8zY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">dean (not verified)</span> on 09 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546803">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546804" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1507538612"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"I’d probably rank Elle H.C. as the fourth most routinely-offensive of our present suite of commenters. If you want me to ban Chelle, then I’d have to ban Ragtag Media, you, and CFT also."<br /> Well at least I know now that you rank criticism of your science, as I do, as more offensive than Elle H.C.'s straight out nasty personal insults.<br /> As for your bottom line warning, "In other words: don’t get worse."... I wonder what would be worse than calling you on presenting your opinions, unfounded speculation and fiction-as-science as established scientific facts... and pointing out your blatant self contradictions and obvious nonsense, as I have consistently done.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546804&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="fu9D9zeajLuDltGQH0gz_8-twyg9PdmB3JN0IDb65xA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 09 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546804">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546805" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1507543248"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@MM:<br /> Nobody appreciates your tireless heroic efforts here to fix whole physics and some even insulting you for it? Poor MM! There there :-)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546805&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="dIqh1uRJ2TasAD8jhs-XpNNZmV21jdBcWPXUFMp7FT8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Frank (not verified)</span> on 09 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546805">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546806" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1507544464"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Frank,<br /> Speak for yourself, not for everyone.<br /> Speak science. It's not personal.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546806&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="gfeoemw8JUu_qG5hIgan-gIxQstsyv3GEIWyuMDindE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 09 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546806">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546807" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1507546234"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>MM,<br /> I was not expressing my own personal views. I was just making an informed guess about how you yourself maybe seeing your situation. (And the rest was for just in case if I am correct :-)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546807&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="U6Bk2Kgx0oQ5xNxklY_2eELpApQ_FPANW3OCbA3hWF0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Frank (not verified)</span> on 09 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546807">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546808" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1507560092"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Frank #12,<br /> You were ONLY expressing YOUR personal views, please don't add dishonesty to your pile of bad behavior.<br /> Your 'informed' guesses about other people's views are pretty atrocious, and reveal far more about your own personal bias and maturity level than the other person you delude yourself into thinking you can speak for. You can only speak for YOU. No one else. Just as I speak for me, and not you. Respect that others disagree, and get used to it if you want to be a grown up. It's fine to disagree with a person's ideas, but attacking the person directly for having the idea is not acceptable.<br /> .<br /> People who put their own words and opinions in someone else's mouth to mock them and make them look bad, are usually insecure themselves and seeking the approval of others. Don't be like that.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546808&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="6Tr0CLx5mApYI8zziv6CHZRMtqRG9z9_KqHCL9ieUWE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CFT (not verified)</span> on 09 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546808">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546809" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1507563366"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@CFT:<br /> Do you know who I am? (Just kidding :-)</p> <p>I think MM is someone who holds on his wrong ideas in the face of overwhelming evidence no matter what (and keeps repeating the same in different ways), (but I know even great scientists known to done same). My view of those kind of people is equivalent of clowns. I am someone who does not feel ashamed of his this kind of personality. Sorry about that if you don't like it.</p> <p>Also I think I have a very good sense of humor thank you very much (even if someone might interpret them badly) :-)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546809&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="b9ZW1NO9T_pFX2bTWDB53epx98dxR2dgtShNauysi08"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Frank (not verified)</span> on 09 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546809">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546810" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1507564019"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@CFT:<br /> Also now I am happy MM finally found his master/savior in you. (Just kidding :-)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546810&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="UFiWm4aSSKbnB_Xnyn5S-iL6I1_JogjdMfYSQN_8hMU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Frank (not verified)</span> on 09 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546810">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546811" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1507607132"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@MM,</p> <p><i>"Elle H.C.’s straight out nasty personal insults."</i></p> <p>I'm only telling the truth, you should find some help. But I also admit that I should perhaps be more thoughtful in how to tell you this, being tactful isn't my strongest point. My bad. ?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546811&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="HSdnd1rOOOkH_2eT7O_6QGDNU1viDC2fN0HG3o2FxcM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 09 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546811">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546812" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1507647860"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ Elle H.C.<br /> "being tactful isn’t my strongest point."<br /> Neither is it of our Great President Trump and He Won. .. :)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546812&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="cfG9hfnkPM2Ak9Vh0tG4RTAIlpFQYh-NlG5YOYs7ztQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Ragtag Media (not verified)</span> on 10 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546812">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546813" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1507653818"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Ragtag Media:<br /> This is out of subject here but if anyone interested:</p> <p>I voted for Hillary but I have complete respect for President Trump as our legal president using his authority given by the US public. </p> <p>And if anyone thinks he was elected unfairly then I would ask, what ideas do we have for a better and more fair president election system, and can we really prove those claims of "better and more fair"?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546813&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="b7MihsENxof5JjP-vKSJg1d2WRj_COYhaBygkeaQY1g"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Frank (not verified)</span> on 10 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546813">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546814" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1507654669"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Frank,... I am speechless you voted....... but regardless, no Biggie.<br /> I just wanna see Chelle's Tits :)<br /> Now here me out, Chelle has some great scientific conceptual proposition's , , Well, with the whole Harvey Weinstein about Democrat heavy hitters doing the "heavy hitting". Well perhaps Chelle just being more a female Mae West sort of scientist would go a LONG way than the old nasty dirt bag ugly bitch type as far as getting the science msg out...<br /> What are your thoughts?<br /> Marketing after-all is a big part of our society....</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546814&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="MrgOGeC-PrE8uvbM84sN-th8xzTGp6ngvsUBTHXHslU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Ragtag Media (not verified)</span> on 10 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546814">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546815" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1507684058"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#19,</p> <p><i>"I just wanna see Chelle’s Tits ?"</i></p> <p>… and an other awkward comment.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546815&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="V2SJPMz7qC5ZW72X1LH5s5A6tUpk-5bVHeQM3GJWii8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 10 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546815">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/startswithabang/2017/10/08/comments-of-the-week-179-from-mirrorless-telescopes-to-the-physics-ideas-that-must-die%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Sun, 08 Oct 2017 10:20:56 +0000 esiegel 37125 at https://scienceblogs.com Double Comments of the Week #178: From Point Particles To The Very First Galaxies Of All https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/01/double-comments-of-the-week-178-from-point-particles-to-the-very-first-galaxies-of-all <span>Double Comments of the Week #178: From Point Particles To The Very First Galaxies Of All</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>“I see now that the circumstances of one's birth are irrelevant. It is what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are.” -Mewtwo, Pokemon (via Takeshi Shudo)</p></blockquote> <p>After a week of commenting technical difficulties here on Scienceblogs, <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/">Starts With A Bang!</a>'s Comments of the Week series is back with a vengeance! I'm so stoked that it's October, because <a href="http://amzn.to/2wX6B3Y">Treknology</a>, comes out in just two weeks! (And yes, if you want an autographed, signed copy shipped from me directly, there will be an opportunity for all of you.) Star Trek: Discovery is out, and we'll be having reviews every Monday after an episode airs, and so you may have noticed this means the end of Mostly Mute Monday for a while. But don't fret; I've started "Five For Fridays," where we'll be doing a new series on five facts, questions, examples, or some other scientific "thing" each Friday going forward. That, and of course the new <a href="https://soundcloud.com/ethan-siegel-172073460">Starts With A Bang podcast</a> is live, on <a href="https://soundcloud.com/ethan-siegel-172073460/starts-with-a-bang-24-the-james-webb-space-telescope">the James Webb Space Telescope</a>!</p> <p></p><center> <iframe src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/344584487&amp;color=%23ff5500&amp;auto_play=false&amp;hide_related=false&amp;show_comments=true&amp;show_user=true&amp;show_reposts=false" width="100%" height="166" frameborder="no" scrolling="no"></iframe><p></p></center>So with two weeks to make up for and all the comments now rescued, I'll just be taking a carefully curated selection of comments from each of the following articles, restricted to the ones where you bothered to comment, of course: <ul><li><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/16/ask-ethan-if-matter-is-made-of-point-particles-why-does-everything-have-a-size/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">If matter is made of point particles, why does everything have a size?</a> (for Ask Ethan),</li> <li><a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/18/5-things-the-world-needs-from-star-trek-discovery/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">5 Things the world needs from Star Trek: Discovery</a> (beginning our Monday ST:DIS reviews),</li> <li><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/19/new-space-telescope-40-times-the-power-of-hubble-to-unlock-astronomys-future/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">New space telescope, 40 times the power of Hubble, to unlock astronomy's future</a>,</li> <li><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/20/how-much-fuel-does-it-take-to-power-the-world/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">How much fuel does it take to power the world?</a>,</li> <li><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/21/the-big-bang-wasnt-the-beginning-after-all/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Big Bang wasn't the beginning, after all</a>,</li> <li><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/22/5-questions-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask-about-the-expanding-universe/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">5 Questions you were too embarrassed to ask about the expanding Universe</a> (for Five For Fridays),</li> <li><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/23/ask-ethan-how-can-worlds-that-never-get-above-freezing-have-liquid-water/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">How can worlds that never get above freezing have liquid water?</a> (for Ask Ethan),</li> <li><a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/25/star-trek-discovery-analysis-and-recap-season-1-episodes-1-2/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Star Trek: Discovery, analysis and recap, Season 1, Episodes 1-2</a> (ST:DIS review),</li> <li><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/26/it-from-bit-is-the-universe-a-cellular-automaton/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">It from Bit: is the Universe a cellular automaton?</a> (by Paul Halpern),</li> <li><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/27/the-four-ways-the-earth-will-actually-end/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The four ways the Earth will actually end</a>,</li> <li><a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/27/ligo-virgo-detects-the-first-three-detector-gravitational-wave/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">LIGO-VIRGO Detects The First Three-Detector Gravitational Wave</a>,</li> <li><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/28/is-the-inflationary-universe-a-scientific-theory-not-anymore/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Is the inflationary Universe a scientific theory? Not anymore</a> (says Sabine Hossenfelder), and</li> <li><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/29/5-surprising-facts-about-the-first-galaxies-in-the-universe/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Five surprising facts about the first galaxies in the Universe</a> (for Five For Fridays).</li> </ul><p>So no more delays; it's onto our <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/category/comments-of-the-week/">comments of the week</a>!</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/Pembroke-Pines.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36612" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/Pembroke-Pines-600x399.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="399" /></a> Trees are seen blown over in a parking lot as hurricane Irma moves through the area of Pembroke Pines, Florida on September 10, 2017. Making landfall as a Category 4 storm, the 2017 season, featuring both Harvey and Irma, is the first in recorded history where two Category 4 (or higher) storms have made landfall in the same year. Image credit: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/17/comments-of-the-week-177-from-nuclear-power-and-weapons-to-god-playing-dice-in-the-sun/#comment-582412">Denier</a> on the impact of hurricanes: "Hurricanes are going to happen no matter what we do, but Irma is perhaps the perfect case in point on the impact of economics. The Category 4 eye wall rolled right across Key West and <a href="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJ7HhShWAAAxRAp.jpg" rel="nofollow">they’re mostly fine</a>. It came through in the early morning and by that night there were even a couple of bars on the island that opened. There is money in Key West and the structures are well built. There are keys that don’t have Key West’s wealth. On those Keys there are mobile home parks and unrenovated houses built before the 1986+ building codes were enacted. They didn’t fare so well. It wasn’t uncommon to see a newer looking home appear as if nothing happened sitting across the street from a scene of utter devastation. Down in the Caribbean there is even less wealth and many of those islands look like they were hit by an atomic bomb."</p></blockquote> <p>We have now had three category five hurricanes this Atlantic hurricane season, all of which did extraordinary damage to United States territories: Harvey, Irma, and Maria. The season isn't over yet, either, but hopefully the worst of the damage is. There is really no amount of building that can save you in the worst-case scenario. Portions of Puerto Rico were prepared for 27 feet of flooding; those parts received 80 feet from the onslaught of Maria.</p> <p>No, you can't look at one particular event and say, "this was the work of climate change." But you can look at what happened and say, "what can we do to repair the damage, to aid the affected, to rebuild in a more resilient fashion, to reduce the potential damage in the future, and to learn the lessons from the havoc that has been wreaked." That is my big hope for what can come out of all of this, but I have little faith that hope will come to fruition in the near future in this country.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/Hydrogen_Density_Plots-1200x1091-1200x1091.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36463" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/Hydrogen_Density_Plots-1200x1091-1200x1091-600x546.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="546" /></a> The energy levels and electron wavefunctions that correspond to different states within a hydrogen atom, although the configurations are extremely similar for all atoms. The energy levels are quantized in multiples of Planck's constant, but even the lowest energy, ground state has two possible configurations depended on the relative electron/proton spin. Image credit: PoorLeno of Wikimedia Commons. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/16/ask-ethan-if-matter-is-made-of-point-particles-why-does-everything-have-a-size-synopsis/#comment-582394">Another Commenter</a> on why matter takes up space: "The Pauli Exclusion Principle goes a long way towards explaining why matter occupies space."</p></blockquote> <p>This is true in one particular sense: it explains why atoms are the sizes that they are, and why multiple atoms, bound together, remain the sizes that they are. By preventing two electrons (a great example of a fundamental fermion) from occupying the same quantum state, the Pauli Exclusion Principle prohibits atoms from "shrinking" together or overlapping too much.</p> <p>But the differing forces, both nuclear and electromagnetic (and to a lesser extent, gravitational), are responsible for why individual protons and neutrons, or single atoms themselves, have the sizes that they do. Yes, Pauli is an important component, but even without it, the building blocks of matter-as-we-know-it would still occupy the same volume they're observed to occupy.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/slide_3.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36629" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/slide_3-600x450.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="450" /></a> From macroscopic scales down to subatomic ones, the sizes of the fundamental particles play only a small role in determining the sizes of composite structures. Image credit: Magdalena Kowalska / CERN / ISOLDE team. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/16/ask-ethan-if-matter-is-made-of-point-particles-why-does-everything-have-a-size-synopsis/#comment-582399">Kasim Muflahi</a> on whether point particles would necessarily be black holes: "I agree with the implication of the question i.e. it implies that electrons, quarks etc. shouldn’t be described as zero-volume points because they have mass; and mass is quantised so that it can’t exist in a zero volume point. If it did, it’d be a black hole."</p></blockquote> <p>That is not necessarily true. Quarks and electrons are fundamental as far as we can measure, but there is no rule (as you incorrectly posit) that prevents these particles from being as small as the Planck scale, which is some 10^-35 meters. Our observations can constrain them down to scales of around 10^-18 or 10^-19 meters; colliders show that if they do have a physical size, it is smaller than that. We can also infer an interaction cross-section, but that is not equivalent to a physical size according to the rules of quantum mechanics.</p> <p>Could they be point particles? According to the quantum rules of the Universe, as best as we understand them, yes they could. Your intuition is no substitute for the actual physics.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/02/Treknology_cover.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-35803" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/02/Treknology_cover-600x566.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="566" /></a> Ethan Siegel's upcoming new book, Treknology: The Science of Star Trek from Tricorders to Warp Drive. Image credit: Quarto / Voyageur Press, CBS / Paramount, and E. Siegel. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/18/5-things-the-world-needs-from-star-trek-discovery-synopsis/#comment-582427">Steve Blackband</a> on my upcoming book, Treknology: "Looking forward to your Trek book. You know you will have a vociferous audience. Ive only been to one Trek conference and all i can say is that these guys are crazy!<br /> No doubt you will do better than that awful and childish Shatner book on Trek tech. However I will be most interested in how you compare with Lawrence Krauss, of whom I am a big fan."</p></blockquote> <p>We're all a little crazy; I take that in a good way!</p> <p>The book, <em><a href="http://amzn.to/2kb9EU1">Treknology</a></em>, is starting to get its first reviews and so far they're very positive. I've also been doing a whole slew of interviews and podcasts about it, and there's a lot of buzz, as you'd expect, around all things Star Trek right now. But I am curious how you feel this new book compares with Krauss' now-classic <a href="http://amzn.to/2x1VIS5"><em>The Physics of Star Trek</em></a>, especially since I was a senior in high school when it came out (IIRC) and I read it. Of course, a lot has happened in the past 20+ years, and many of the technologies featured in Star Trek, including TNG, DS9, and Voyager, were simply undeveloped back in the 1990s, but are well on their way now!</p> <p>It's a fantastic illustration of how science doesn't end, but progresses, and so much becomes possible in terms of how humanity can benefit when it does.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/02/16865135741_2353176727_k-1200x819.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-35846" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/02/16865135741_2353176727_k-1200x819-600x409.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="409" /></a> An artist's conception (2015) of what the James Webb Space Telescope will look like when complete and successfully deployed. Note the five-layer sunshield protecting the telescope from the heat of the Sun. Image credit: Northrop Grumman. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/19/new-space-telescope-40-times-the-power-of-hubble-to-unlock-astronomys-future-synopsis/#comment-582443">Patrick Sweetman</a> on the upcoming NASA flagship missions: "I suppose these things take a long time to get off the ground, but we haven’t even hoisted the James Webb Telescope yet."</p></blockquote> <p>These things take more than "a long time" to get off the ground. NASA, with the way its budget currently works, gets approximately one flagship mission per decade for astrophysics. In the 1990s, that was Hubble. In the 2000s, we didn't get one, owing to the legacy of "faster, better, cheaper," which gave us two (faster and cheaper) out of the three (it wasn't better). In the 2010s, we're getting James Webb; in the 2020s, it'll be WFIRST. There are a number of candidates for the 2030s, and LUVOIR is one of the finalists and perhaps the most ambitious, exciting, and <em>expensive</em> one.</p> <p>But I've been sarcastically looking at so much of what's been proposed recently, rolling my eyes and thinking to myself, "why don't you dream a little smaller, if that's even possible." LUVOIR may be the first mission I've seen come down the pipeline, with the exception of Big Bang Observer (which would be a quartet of LISAs at different points around Earth's orbit, which is being floated for the 2050s at the earliest), that actually seems like an ambition worthy of humanity's dreams. I like it.</p> <p>Also, even though the launch date got bumped, don't be down on Webb. The "five year life" is like how Opportunity (still roving, by the way) was supposed to be a 90 day mission. They've got enough onboard coolant for the mid-IR instrument to last a decade, and even past that point, the near-IR instruments on Webb could propel it into a second decade. Since L2 servicing for LUVOIR will be ideal (if not mandatory), there's no reason why the Webb wouldn't make a great testbed for it. The rewards of a refueled and serviced JWST could be astounding!</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/Nuclear_with_Cherenkov.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36607" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/Nuclear_with_Cherenkov-600x449.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="449" /></a> Reactor nuclear experimental RA-6 (Republica Argentina 6), en marcha. As long as there's the right nuclear fuel present, along with control rods and the proper type of water inside, energy can be generated with only 1/100,000th the fuel of conventional, fossil-fuel reactors. Image credit: Centro Atomico Bariloche, via Pieck Darío. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/20/how-much-fuel-does-it-take-to-power-the-world-synopsis/#comment-582468">John</a>, quoting me and responding on nuclear energy: "“… Is it only our fears of nuclear disaster that prevents us from using our current technology to better the world for humanity for generations to come?’</p> <p>I fear that is true. If only it were not so!"</p></blockquote> <p>It's easy to point to disasters like Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima, and showcase the highly publicized failures that demonstrate the dangers of nuclear power used irresponsibly, while the potential of using reactor fuel to generate nuclear weapons plays on some of humanity's greatest fears.</p> <p>But fear is the great mind-killer when it comes to policy, and reason is the only solution. There are scientific solutions to nuclear energy without the possibility of meltdowns, without the waste problems, and without the nuclear weapons danger. If we cared about our world enough to make it so, we could switch away from fossil fuels and onto nuclear power within a decade. Alas, fear has carried the day up until the present, with far less than 10% of the world's energy coming from nuclear. This has the potential to change... if we can all agree. Again, I'm not optimistic about that anytime soon, but the world is changing, and that's a "crisitunity" if there ever was one.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/03/0-dUThOkQ6z57EkmzF.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-35898" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/03/0-dUThOkQ6z57EkmzF-600x263.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="263" /></a> Even though inflation may end in more than 50% of any of the regions at any given time (denoted by red X’s), enough regions continue to expand forever that inflation continues for an eternity, with no two Universes ever colliding. Image credit: E. Siegel. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/21/the-big-bang-wasnt-the-beginning-after-all-synopsis/#comment-582469">Denier</a> on the beginning of the Universe: "Do they have a theory on why it didn’t happen earlier? Why didn’t the Big Bang happen at the beginning? Why wait? What was it about expanding space that didn’t allow a Bang then later did allow a Bang?"</p></blockquote> <p>What we can say about inflation is that, by its nature, it wipes out any information (as far as our observable Universe is concerned) that pre-existed before the final 10^-33 seconds (or so) of inflation. It's only those tiny, last moments that leave any sort of information imprint on our observable Universe at all. There are many models that are viable of what happened prior to those final moments of inflation, including:</p> <ul><li>that inflation was eternal to the past,</li> <li>that there was a singularity in the past, and only a small region was inflating, but that inflating region took over in short order,</li> <li>that inflation was a consequence of our Universe "rejuvenating" from a prior state,</li> </ul><p>and many others. Different regions of space will see inflation end at different times, but they are forever lost to us; we can only access what's physically, causally connected to us, and all we see is all we get.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/10/curvature.jpeg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-29509" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/10/curvature-600x214.jpeg" alt="" width="600" height="214" /></a> Different curvatures for two-dimensional surfaces. Image credit: Shashi M. Kanbur at SUNY Oswego. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/21/the-big-bang-wasnt-the-beginning-after-all-synopsis/#comment-582479">Jim Paige</a> on what flat space actually means: "Ethan, I know that the universe is “flat,” but when I think of that description I picture something like a very thin pancake or sheet of paper.</p> <p>Since we live in a universe with 3 “travel” dimensions &amp; time, combining to form space-time, that seems very different than “flat” to me.</p> <p>I haven’t been able to get a handle on the explanation of what a flat universe really means. Could you explain the answer to me?"</p></blockquote> <p>I'm going to take you down a dimension, because if you want to visualize the full three dimensional space, you'd need to have experience in four dimensions to be outside of it. So let's instead think of a sheet of paper as "flat," which works just fine for two dimensions. If you took a sheet of paper shaped like a sphere, that would be "positive curvature," while if you had a sheet of paper that was shaped like a saddle, there'd be "negative curvature." The think you can ask is what happens to parallel lines, which you can ask in any number of dimensions that's two or more.</p> <ul><li>If you have positive curvature, parallel lines will eventually meet, which is why lines of longitude all meet at the poles.</li> <li>If you have zero curvature (or perfect spatial flatness), the parallel lines will never meet, always remaining equidistant.</li> <li>If you have negative curvature, parallel lines diverge, getting farther apart the farther away you move.</li> </ul><p>We have used this technique and light from the CMB, the Big Bang's leftover glow, to measure our spatial curvature. It's 0, to a precision of ~10^-2, the best we've ever measured. If we can measure down to about 10^-5 or 10^-6, we should be able to get down to the actual curvature predicted by inflation. Interesting!</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/Like-a-Death-Yell-for-Sto-vo-kor.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36666" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/Like-a-Death-Yell-for-Sto-vo-kor-600x349.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="349" /></a> The warrior that Burnham kills is given the traditional Klingon death ritual... and then predictably used as a political tool to start a war. Image credit: Jan Thijs/CBS © 2017 CBS Interactive. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/25/star-trek-discovery-analysis-and-recap-season-1-episodes-1-2-synopsis/#comment-582567">Sinisa Lazarek</a> on the start of Star Trek: Discovery: "the first two episodes were more of an intro into this world (although they don’t show anything of either the klingon world and state of afairs or federation, only brief hints), then they are “get to know the crew” episodes. Sort of like game of thrones but on steroids.. ok, here are the characters, by the end of the 2nd episode most of them will die.. But in the sneak peak after 2ns episode you get to learn that the whole show will more or less revolve around Burnham and the war with klingons."</p></blockquote> <p>Well, that's certainly what the start of the show is about, but I'm not entirely sure that we're truly in for "War Trek" as I've feared. The Federation is flawed; the Klingon empire clearly has those who disagree with T'Kuvma. (Don't forget that when it came to the initial warrior killed by Burnham, that warrior's <em>brother</em> would not give into T'Kuvma's demagoguery.) After all, even though they call him "T'Kuvma the Unforgettable," he's never mentioned by name in any other Star Trek series. Clearly, he's been forgotten.</p> <p>And that alone should be enough to give hope; if interstellar species can learn from their failures to create a more perfect future, perhaps we can, too.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/maxresdefault.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36659" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/maxresdefault-600x338.jpg" alt="Conway's Game of Life is a popular and very simple algorithm for encoding the evolution of a system, leading to complex but stable/quasi-stable patterns. Image credit: MrJavaFrank / YouTube." width="600" height="338" /></a> Conway's Game of Life is a popular and very simple algorithm for encoding the evolution of a system, leading to complex but stable/quasi-stable patterns. Image credit: MrJavaFrank / YouTube. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/26/it-from-bit-is-the-universe-a-cellular-automaton-synopsis/#comment-582559">Frank</a> on why the Universe must be a cellular automaton: "IMHO universe/reality must be a Cellular Automata Quantum Computer operating at Planck scale."</p></blockquote> <p>Be very, very careful when you attempt to apply your login and intuition to how the Universe ought to behave. The "rules" that govern the Universe are neither intuitive nor necessarily logical to us; all we can do is ask nature "what are you doing" and listen and try to make sense of it. When we add ourselves into the equations, that's when we most easily are led astray.</p> <p>You did post an interesting set of thoughts, though; I don't necessarily agree with them, but I don't necessarily disagree fully, either.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/1020993154.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36668" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/1020993154-600x325.jpg" alt="A collision between two large, rocky bodies in space can be catastrophic for one or both of them. This has happened to Earth before, and will no doubt happen again. But the end of the Earth? That's happening even if something like this never does. Image credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech." width="600" height="325" /></a> A collision between two large, rocky bodies in space can be catastrophic for one or both of them. This has happened to Earth before, and will no doubt happen again. But the end of the Earth? That's happening even if something like this never does. Image credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/27/the-four-ways-the-earth-will-actually-end-synopsis/#comment-582593">Bennett Smith</a> on this blog: "This is a general comment to readers, not a comment on this article in particular. I want to say that Dr. Siegel’s articles are simple enough for me as a layman to understand, but complex enough to be meaningful and challenging. People who use the comments section to post attacks on Dr. Siegel are jerks and should be ashamed of themselves. If they so adamantly disagree with Dr. Siegel, they should create their own blogs. But it’s much easier to disparage than it is to create. I for one hope that Ethan continues his blog for years to come, because I enjoy them and look forwarding to reading them."</p></blockquote> <p>Well, wow. I very rarely get a comment this kind and generous directed towards me. It made me feel very good, so thank you for saying, Bennett. People will do what they do for their own internal reasons, and I will likely never know what those reasons are, fully. But this out-of-nowhere kindness means a lot to me, and so thank you.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2016/09/1280px-Planets_Under_a_Red_Sun.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-35102" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2016/09/1280px-Planets_Under_a_Red_Sun-600x400.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /></a> All inner planets in a red dwarf system will be tidally locked, with one side always facing the star and one always facing away, with a “ring” of Earth-like habitability between the night and day sides. Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech. </div> <blockquote><p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/27/the-four-ways-the-earth-will-actually-end-synopsis/#comment-582607">Naked Bunny with a Whip</a> on the ultimate locking: "Earth’s rotation won’t be tidally locked to the sun before it becomes a white dwarf, will it? Actually, can it ever be tidally locked to the sun with the moon orbiting it?"</p></blockquote> <p>The Earth will be <em>more strongly</em> locked to the Moon than to the Sun, and so the Earth-Moon lock wins. When the Moon spirals away sufficiently from the Earth, the Earth will co-orbit the Moon with a period of 47 days. As our Sun loses mass (after it becomes a white dwarf), our orbit will be pushed out, will take approximately 2-3 years, and the tidal forces on our world will be only about 20% of what they are today due to the Sun. The Moon will cause a permanent deformation in the world.</p> <p>Interestingly, if we were at the right distance, we could have a perfect locking, where the Moon would always be located at the L2 Lagrange point, but alas, nature didn't give us that setup.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/smaller1.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36688" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/smaller1-600x365.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="365" /></a> The noise (top), the strain (middle), and the reconstructed signal (bottom) in all three detectors. Image credit: The LIGO and VIRGO scientific collaborations. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/27/ligo-virgo-detects-the-first-three-detector-gravitational-wave-synopsis/#comment-582600">Sinisa Lazarek</a> on the significance of the latest gravitational wave detection: "Looking at the picture in the Forbes article (where all three detectors/signals are shown), Livingston signal does look like an actual signal. Hanford looks so/so, but Virgo looks just like noise. Why are they so different? On the other hand, why does a waveform look different in all three detectors if it;s the same signal?"</p></blockquote> <p>Well, three things:</p> <ol><li>The top row shows the signal-to-noise ratio. Yes, in Livingston, it's off the charts, peaking at 14. But a SNR greater than 1 you can do something with. At Hanford, it got up to 7, which is robust. At Virgo, it "only" got up to 4.5 (which is still good), an incredible feat considering that Virgo is only about at a third the operating sensitivity of either LIGO detector.</li> <li>They are all so different because the gravitational wave has a specific planar orientation as it passes through Earth, and each detector occupies a different two-dimensional plane <strong>because the Earth is round</strong>! So Livingston is more favorable configured for this particular wave than either Hanford or Virgo (in Italy).</li> <li>And if you look at the bottom row, you can clearly visually see the goodness-of-fit in all three detectors; it isn't "just noise" even to your naked eye.</li> </ol><p>So... pretty incredible.</p> <p>Also, there's a candidate for <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/27/ligo-virgo-detects-the-first-three-detector-gravitational-wave-synopsis/#comment-582606">the <em>snarkiest</em> comment of the week</a> in here:</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/funny.png"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36689" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/funny-600x265.png" alt="" width="600" height="265" /></a> Way to go, NBwaW. </div> <p>Also, as <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/27/ligo-virgo-detects-the-first-three-detector-gravitational-wave-synopsis/#comment-582612">Michael Kelsey</a> notes, Virgo has only 3 km arms, while each LIGO detector has 4 km arms, which makes Virgo less sensitive in principle.</p> <p>To those who are doubters, skeptics, trolls, etc., however you choose to self-define, as long as you obey the rules of conduct on this blog, you are welcome. But that does not entitle you to a response from me. Remember that.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/8-13-Fluctuations-in-Space-1200x417.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36673" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/8-13-Fluctuations-in-Space-1200x417-600x209.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="209" /></a> The quantum fluctuations that occur during inflation do indeed get stretched across the Universe, but the larger feature of inflation is that the Universe gets stretched flat, removing any pre-existing curvature. Image credit: E. Siegel / Beyond The Galaxy. </div> <p>And finally, from <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/28/is-the-inflationary-universe-a-scientific-theory-not-anymore-synopsis/#comment-582640">CFT</a> on an actual quality comment on Sabine's article deriding inflation: "I think Sabine Hossenfelder says it precisely and elegantly:<br /> “It is this abundance of useless models that gives rise to the criticism that inflation is not a scientific theory. And on that account, the criticism is justified. It’s not good scientific practice. It is a practice that, to say it bluntly, has become commonplace because it results in papers, not because it advances science.”"</p></blockquote> <p>There are a great many successes that inflation has had, and I think Sabine is being grossly unfair to cosmic inflation by defending Steinhardt et al.'s perspective as thoroughly as she does. I think she is dismissive of a great amount of scientifically robust predictions that inflation has given us that have been borne out by observation, and I think I will have no choice but to write a follow-up piece for later this week.</p> <p>However, I think Sabine was right about the creation of useless model after useless model, which is a hallmark of "not even science" anymore. It was part of -- interestingly enough -- why I wrote that <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/12/23/why-string-theory-is-not-science/">String Theory was not even a scientific theory</a> two years ago, and <a href="http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/12/dear-dr-b-is-string-theory-science.html">her defense of string theory as science</a> is completely inconsistent with her criteria for inflation. But you do not have to agree with me 100% of the time, and Sabine is just as much a physicist (if not more!) than I am, and is entitled to her opinion and I am proud to represent that on my platform, even if I don't agree.</p> <p>But there's much more exciting stuff to come, and with that said, have a great start of October and I hope you're looking ahead to more science and even more fun as Halloween approaches!</p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/startswithabang" lang="" about="/startswithabang" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">esiegel</a></span> <span>Sun, 10/01/2017 - 01:48</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/comments-week" hreflang="en">Comments of the Week</a></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-categories field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Categories</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/channel/technology" hreflang="en">Technology</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546665" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1506841221"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>IMHO what should be accepted as the size of a quantum particle must be its Compton wavelength. (See below.)</p> <p>I had also said I think BHs are must be made of Planck particles. I want to clarify that what I think maybe happening in BHs is, when they form, particles (neutrons?) get compressed, their Compton wavelength gets smaller and smaller, until their wavelength/size drops to Schwarzschild radius, then they turn into Planck particles.</p> <p>From Wikipedia:<br /> ""A Planck particle, named after physicist Max Planck, is a hypothetical particle defined as a tiny black hole whose Compton wavelength is equal to its Schwarzschild radius.""</p> <p>Or maybe original particles get disintegrated into multiple Planck particles, or maybe original particles get destroyed and new Planck particles form from the available energy.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546665&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="_6i-fdn4_74rk3jBonp-pipn08v9XrPXmfnf4YUuSmI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Frank (not verified)</span> on 01 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546665">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546666" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1506848599"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Also if above is really correct about how BHs form, that implies when physicists collide quantum particles with higher and higher energies, and see upper limit for true size of each particle drops smaller and smaller, what must be really happening is, as particles collide they are in effect getting compressed, so their Compton wavelength drops according to collision energy (but physicists interpret that as meaning Compton wavelength and (true) size of a particle are unrelated concepts).</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546666&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="4hKzLD0VbdI_rJs1b6wh-bEMVX6IUAaFHZsrc9t_3G0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Frank (not verified)</span> on 01 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546666">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546667" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1506850351"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Ethan:<br /> "I’m going to take you down a dimension, because if you want to visualize the full three dimensional space, you’d need to have experience in four dimensions to be outside of it."<br /> What?? Not so. Anyone can directly observe 3-D space by just looking around here in the real world. What is an "experience in four dimensions" anyway? Space (volume) is completely described by three axes. You write nonsense.</p> <p>" If you have positive curvature, parallel lines will eventually meet, which is why lines of longitude all meet at the poles."</p> <p><a href="http://mathopenref.com/parallel.html">http://mathopenref.com/parallel.html</a><br /> "Parallel lines remain the same distance apart over their entire length. No matter how far you extend them, they will never meet."<br /><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_(geometry)">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_(geometry)</a><br /> In geometry, parallel lines are lines in a plane which do not meet; that is, two lines in a plane that do not intersect or touch each other at any point are said to be parallel."<br /> Ethan:<br /> " If you have zero curvature (or perfect spatial flatness), the parallel lines will never meet, always remaining equidistant."<br /> (One out of three statements correct.)<br /> Ethan:<br /> " If you have negative curvature, parallel lines diverge, getting farther apart the farther away you move."</p> <p>As with convergence, if they diverge they are not, by definition, parallel.<br /> You really should read Kelley Ross's paper on the Ontology and Cosmology of Non-Euclidean Geometry and quit spouting the standard mainstream confusion based on imaginary geometry with no referent in the real world.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546667&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="EspdokEW20917JrwST35rSGvempcZIgHBeBMRw_wGuY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 01 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546667">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546668" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1506850809"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Thanks for the explanation about the Earth/Moon/Sun rotation. I'm always happy to see it when my intuition is roughly correct, though the reality is always more complex (and better quantified).</p> <p>The reason I asked is that Larry Niven's short story <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconstant_Moon#.22One_Face.22">"One Face"</a> popped into my head as I was finishing your article. It didn't seem like the resolution of that story would be physically possible.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546668&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="fXrjaMcQES9zOjx_4st6GXrEtecz8NK_mGLRqzRQymU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="Naked Bunny with a Whip">Naked Bunny wi… (not verified)</span> on 01 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546668">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546669" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1506869989"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>There is an adage that goes:<br /> “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” </p> <p>― Upton Sinclair</p> <p>In reference to Ethan's comment about Sabine's inconsistency with Super stings, I've noticed that almost everyone that reacts strongly to 'letting them go' is invested heavily in them, usually professionally for many years. I can easily understand why this would make a person not want to acknowledge something isn't working out when they have so many years of their life invested in an idea. That said, when your theory can not falsified (it's true no matter what) it isn't science anymore, it's belief. There is no way around this, brutal as it may seem.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546669&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="45bQzXZqlZYw5tu26FOFLZfNyyaY1kOza_Di5ZzI_QI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CFT (not verified)</span> on 01 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546669">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546670" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1506882101"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Frank #1: You wrote, "IMHO what should be accepted as the size of a quantum particle must be its Compton wavelength." Sure, and that _is_ what we call "size" in the very low energy limit. But if you restrict yourself to zero energy, then you miss an awful lot of actual, real-world physics.</p> <p>So how do you measure the "size" of a quantum entity? Well, you could try using a "ruler" or "calipers": Constrain it to a finite region, and when you can't squeeze any more (like a micrometer on a ball bearing), then you know the size. But I'm sure you know, Frank, as well as I do what happens if you do that: constraining position bumps up the momentum (motion), and doing so enough can change the properties of the entity you're constraining (excitation energies, internal states, even stuff like pair production).</p> <p>So instead, in the real world, we measure the size of quantum entities by scattering: throw something at what you want to measure and see how it bounces. This works extremely well for charged entities. It's how Rutherford figured out that the gigantic (10^-10 m) atom has a really tiny (10^-14 m) hard little core in the middle, with pretty much empty space around it.</p> <p>How did he figure that out? And how did he get a size? By looking at the _pattern_ (angular distribution) of scattering for a charged particle (alpha, +2) off a charged sphere (atom or nucleus). For EM, we can calculate what that distribution should be (it's an undergraduate homework problem): for a perfect point charge, the distribution is proportional to 1/sin^4. For a spherical charge, that distribution is modified with a cut-off set by the radius of the sphere.</p> <p>So we can shoot charged projectiles in a beam at charged targets, measure the angular distribution, and extract the radius of the target. If you do that with electron-electron or electron-proton scattering, you don't really get an interesting result. The e-e repulsion is so strong that you don't really get to probe small radii. But at much higher energies, the beam has enough kinetic energy to get into the target field much closer to the center, and you can start to look for deviations from 1/sin^4.</p> <p>For electrons on protons at medium energies (a few GeV electron beam on hydrogen), we see deviations from 1/sin^4 that are consistent with a hard sphere of radius about 10^-15 m (1 fm). At even higher energies, we start to probe _inside_ that sphere, and interact with the proton's constituents in such a way as to produce new secondary particles, not just scattering the electron.</p> <p>But for electron-electron scattering, even at the very highest energies (135 GeV for each electron in a collision) probing as close as we can get to the charges shows _NO_DEVIATION_ from 1/sin^4 angular scattering. The beam energy allows us to translate that result into a maximum possible size (if the size were larger, then we'd see deviations). </p> <p>That upper limit for the sphere an electron's charge must be enclosed in is currently no larger than 10^-18 m (the same is true for the size of the constituents in a proton). Maybe the electron's charge really _is_ that size. Maybe it's really down at the Planck scale, or maybe it's a true mathematical point (which is what we use in the Standard Model, because it makes the maths easier :-). </p> <p>We don't know. All we know is that, at the highest precision we can measure, the electric field of an electron _looks_like_ it is a perfect 1/r^2 field coming from a point at the center.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546670&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Rr4nyABxR9-QRJ_oDLqlCNFFSu8teIUHD2rOel_Uh5g"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Kelsey (not verified)</span> on 01 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546670">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546671" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1506916686"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ Ethan<br /> " but I’m not entirely sure that we’re truly in for “War Trek” as I’ve feared."</p> <p>After watching E03 just now.. I think we're in for Dark Trek.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546671&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="1vXeaFqgTMY1Qm5rN8h-qMLO9rWVWKR6bdpC365lS1E"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 01 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546671">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546672" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1506953435"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@CFT#5<br /> Again I agree.<br /> This was right to the point : "...when your theory can not falsified (it’s true no matter what) it isn’t science anymore, it’s belief."</p> <p>It seems that most theoretical physics ( with an emphasis on math) and cosmology 'these days' falls into that category.</p> <p> Evidence?... What evidence? Playing with toy models in a closed room... mostly it seems.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546672&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="3Zxe_KbVeaLfzqc9zzHakFWbrRLnJCtmepQxTaJYL30"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 02 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546672">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546673" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1506956736"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p> I think Sabine was right about the creation of useless model after useless model, which is a hallmark of “not even science” anymore.</p></blockquote> <p>I somewhat disagree. All this model-building is, in one sense, an attempt to come up with different hypotheses in the hopes that one of them will turn out to be useful, predictive, etc. As with many things in science, you don't know how useful the result will actually be until you get it. Now the vast majority, if not all, of these models will end up being useless. With our perfect hindsight, we see those useless things and think 'what a waste' - but with are extremely limited foresight, we have no idea which future model will be in the useless category.</p> <p>Sub-fields of science often go into a 'hypothesis exploration' phase like this experimental testing is hard to come by, for two reasons. One, because it's a comparatively cheap and easy activity to do while you're waiting for those terribly difficult, lengthy, and expensive experiments to be developed and performed. And two, because one possible payoff of a new good hypothesis might be cheaper, faster, easier ways to test amongst the candidates.</p> <p>In short, sometimes in science you have a good idea of which frogs are secret princes and which ones aren't. Those are the good times. But other times you have no idea which - if any - frogs are princes. In those bad times, progress may boil down to doing a lot of kissing. Inflation theory right now is going through a 'kiss a lot of frogs and hope for a prince' phase.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546673&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="_EJo3F6PegoKlgUT3V3cK7goIQP6DF0wWVkQ5XOreUw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 02 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546673">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546674" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1506961177"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Let's hear it for Paul Feyerabend!</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546674&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="DYZWgY8jmrneNxmYcb-dE2ugnIckehUxE_Vx5frKG24"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John (not verified)</span> on 02 Oct 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546674">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/startswithabang/2017/10/01/double-comments-of-the-week-178-from-point-particles-to-the-very-first-galaxies-of-all%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Sun, 01 Oct 2017 05:48:31 +0000 esiegel 37117 at https://scienceblogs.com Comments of the Week #177: From Nuclear Power and Weapons to God Playing Dice in the Sun https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/17/comments-of-the-week-177-from-nuclear-power-and-weapons-to-god-playing-dice-in-the-sun <span>Comments of the Week #177: From Nuclear Power and Weapons to God Playing Dice in the Sun</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>“There are two problems for our species' survival - nuclear war and environmental catastrophe - and we're hurtling towards them. Knowingly.” ―Noam Chomsky</p></blockquote> <p>Well, another week of science has gone by, here at Starts With A Bang! and everywhere else in the world, and while we're down one space mission from the start of the week (Cassini), there are still lots of good things on the horizon! We're just four weeks away from the official release of <a href="http://amzn.to/2wX6B3Y">Treknology</a>, and just a single week away from the new Star Trek series, Discovery, which I'll be officially reviewing. Our <a href="https://www.patreon.com/startswithabang">Patreon supporters</a> are continuing to make amazing things possible, as not only are we doing podcasts and producing all we're producing, but we're going to start taking a new stab at a video miniseries, called (tentatively) <em>FantaSci</em>, about the science behind fantasy and sci-fi tropes, worlds, concepts, and technologies. Have a suggestion? Let's hear it!</p> <p>As always, you've had quite the diversity of opinions to share. Let's check it out on our <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/category/comments-of-the-week/">comments of the week</a>!</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/opo9919a.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-28722" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="333" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/opo9919a-600x333.jpg" width="600" /></a> A NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope (HST) view of the magnificent spiral galaxy NGC 4603, the most distant galaxy in which a special class of pulsating stars called Cepheid variables have been found. Image credit: Jeffrey Newman (Univ. of California at Berkeley) and NASA/ESA. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/10/comments-of-the-week-176-from-making-heavy-elements-to-why-the-sky-is-blue/#comment-582283">eric</a> on the difference between explaining and describing: "We do science to gain information, and then we use that information to do other things; accomplish human social or policy goals. Are there any activities that can be accomplished by ‘explain’ science that can’t be accomplished by ‘describe’ science? Is mere ‘describe science’ unable to cure cancer? Launch satellites?"</p></blockquote> <p>I think there is a difference, but I think the examples you note are all carefully chosen to be specifically where the difference is obscured. The difference, to me, in the context of actual problem-solving, is that when you can explain something, you understand the intricacies of how it works so well that when you're in a somewhat different situation, you can accurately predict what's going to occur. For a description, you can't. It's sort of like the difference between a physical theory of how galaxies rotate (a halo of dark matter distributed around baryonic matter), versus an empirical correlation regarding the relationship between two quantities (e.g., the Tully-Fisher relation). They can both accurately describe the relationship between a galaxy's luminosity and its velocity dispersion, but only the explanation can allow you to understand other types, morphologies, and classifications of galaxies. A description is enough to accurately describe the behavior of a particular class of systems; an explanation covers more ground than that.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/16016668166_98ac30706a_b.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-36608" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="399" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/16016668166_98ac30706a_b-600x399.jpg" width="600" /></a> Uranium ore contains less than 1% U-235, and must be processed into reactor-grade uranium. A photo of yellow cake uranium, a solid form of uranium oxide produced from uranium ore. Yellow cake must be processed further to become reactor-grade. which is 3-5% U-235. Weapons-grade requires approximately 90% U-235. Image credit: Nuclear Regulatory Commission / US Government. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/09/ask-ethan-how-can-a-nation-have-nuclear-power-without-the-danger-of-nuclear-weapons-synopsis/#comment-582270">John</a> on the true nuclear fear: "A related concern that terrorists can use to spread the FUD they exploit is to add radiation sources (non-weapons grade) to a conventional explosive bomb to make areas unsuitable for people to live."</p></blockquote> <p>I mean, a nuclear weapon in the hands of a single bad actor is one of the worst-case scenarios imaginable. A nuclear device going off in a heavily populated area could kill millions or even tens of millions, cause many trillions of dollars worth of damage, and could contaminate water, air, and land in places for decades or centuries. A single dirty, nuclear bomb has truly horrific potential.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/Nuclear_with_Cherenkov.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-36607" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="449" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/Nuclear_with_Cherenkov-600x449.jpg" width="600" /></a> Reactor nuclear experimental RA-6 (Republica Argentina 6), en marcha. As long as there's the right nuclear fuel present, along with control rods and the proper type of water inside, energy can be generated with only 1/100,000th the fuel of conventional, fossil-fuel reactors. Image credit: Centro Atomico Bariloche, via Pieck Darío. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/09/ask-ethan-how-can-a-nation-have-nuclear-power-without-the-danger-of-nuclear-weapons-synopsis/#comment-582272">Elle H.C.</a> on whether nuclear power will be phased out: "I’m not so sure about this. There are plenty of countries planning a phase-out:</p> <p style="padding-left: 30px;"><i>“As of 2016, countries including Australia, Austria, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Malta, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, and Portugal have no nuclear power stations and remain opposed to nuclear power. Belgium, Germany, Spain and Switzerland are phasing-out nuclear power. Globally, more nuclear power reactors have closed than opened in recent years but overall capacity has increased.”"</i></p> </blockquote> <p>There is still a lot of NIMBY fears about nuclear, but until we have either nuclear fusion or high-capacity renewables that can meet humanity's energy needs, our options are either nuclear power or fossil fuels. While there are a few developed nations that are choosing a combination of renewables and (mostly) fossil fuels, the decision to eschew nuclear for fossil fuels is a losing choice for the environment in the long-term, and does nothing to ameliorate the growth of nuclear among developing nations. I read your Wikipedia article that you quoted, and I think the phase-out is not as dominant a trend as you want it to be.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/cyclone_chart.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-36635" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="315" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/cyclone_chart-600x315.jpg" width="600" /></a> Accumulated cyclone energy over a nearly 50 year time period, globally. Image credit: Ryan Maue. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/11/now-is-absolutely-the-time-to-politicize-hurricane-irma-and-other-natural-disasters-synopsis/#comment-582303">William Later</a> on whether there are significant trends in tropical storms: "Such a clear cut increasing trend. <a href="https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-content/uploads/cyclone_chart.jpg" rel="nofollow">https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-content/uploads/cyclone_chart.jpg </a>not."</p></blockquote> <p>The graph you've presented shows two things: a very noisy effect (there's more than a factor of 2 in variation between the lightest years and the heaviest), and a slight upward trend with a large uncertainty. That, by the way, is what the climate models predict, and why NOAA makes careful statements to say that we cannot yet robustly detect the slight upward trend, although all the physics at play shows it must exist and the data is consistent with that to within the uncertainties. But the point about tropical storm strength that I made in the article <em>wasn't</em> that the overall accumulated energy was increasing, even though it should be. The point also wasn't that this is the worst year ever, or that every year will be a bad year, or that this hurricane season is a direct result of global warming. The point was that human activities are affecting the planet in a negative way, that these effects are quantifiable, and that now is the best time to do something about it. There's so much more going on than your oversimplified "don't blame climate for this." Climate is to blame for a lot of long-term trends, like <a href="http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511?lo=ap_a1">how plants are becoming less nutritious</a>, how <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/climate-scientists-cannot-predict-how-severe-future-hurricanes-will-be-now-663246">coastlines are becoming more vulnerable</a>, or, <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2017/09/06/548658019/climate-power-money-and-sorrow-lessons-of-hurricane-harvey">as Adam Frank noted</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>But in <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/did-climate-change-intensify-hurricane-harvey/538158/">the wake of Hurricane Harvey</a> we <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/08/hurricane-harvey-climate-change-global-warming-weather/">can now see</a> what <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/08/30/katrina-sandy-harvey-the-debate-over-climate-and-hurricanes-is-getting-louder-and-louder/?utm_term=.43c1fe0fa45c">climate change</a> is really about. It was never about clever arguments but, instead, something much more elemental: power, money and human suffering.</p></blockquote> <p>We know <a href="https://theconversation.com/do-hurricanes-feel-the-effects-of-climate-change-83761">how climate change affects hurricanes</a>. We know <a href="https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=3878">what the cost of doing nothing is</a>. It's long past time to act, but acting now is still vital. I've been saying this for a long time and will likely keep saying it until we do something about it. Which may not happen in my lifetime, but you've gotta try.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2015/12/1280px-Nasa_astronaut_training_at_NBL.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-33968" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="400" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2015/12/1280px-Nasa_astronaut_training_at_NBL-600x400.jpg" width="600" /></a> This image shows Hubble servicing Mission 4 astronauts practice on a Hubble model underwater at the Neutral Buoyancy Lab in Houston under the watchful eyes of NASA engineers and safety divers. Image credit: NASA. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/12/top-6-discoveries-of-cassini-as-its-20-year-mission-comes-to-an-end-synopsis/#comment-582347">Sinisa Lazarek</a> on the tech of deep-space missions: "when it comes to technology evolution and time it takes for probes to get to outer planets, we’ll sadly always lag behind. Meaning, what was cutting edge when the probe was made, will always be retro tech by the time it arrives to the destination."</p></blockquote> <p>This is absolutely true, and it's why the ability to service a space telescope like Hubble was such an incredible boon to science. Think about the images Hubble took in 1995, after the first servicing mission. You know, images like the original Hubble Deep Field.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2015/01/1-r8NUnLZi9epMpVpzHCcJog.jpeg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-32322" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="587" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2015/01/1-r8NUnLZi9epMpVpzHCcJog-600x587.jpeg" width="600" /></a> The original Hubble Deep Field, which discovered thousands of new galaxies in the abyss of deep space. Image credit: R. Williams (STScI), the Hubble Deep Field Team and NASA. <p> </p> </div> <p>Now think about what it took with its upgraded cameras more than ten years later. Same optics, mind you, same mirror, same light-gathering power, and almost the same amount of observing time. Yet that better camera technology and computational power sure did make a difference!</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2016/09/HXDF.png"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-35186" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="523" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2016/09/HXDF-600x523.png" width="600" /></a> The Hubble eXtreme Deep Field (XDF), the deepest view of the distant Universe ever taken. Image credit: NASA; ESA; G. Illingworth, D. Magee, and P. Oesch, University of California, Santa Cruz; R. Bouwens, Leiden University; and the HUDF09 Team. <p> </p> </div> <p>We're talking about three times as many galaxies, greater detail, broader wavelength coverage, deeper redshifts, fainter objects, and much more. We are entering an era where we're going to be launching a large number of missions and observatories to the L2 Lagrange point, some 1.5 million kilometers from Earth. The only observatories we've ever serviced were less than 1,000 kilometers from our world. If we want to service James Webb, or WFIRST, or any other future missions, we have to develop the capability of not only getting there, but to either get humans there (some four times as far away as any human has ever gone in space) or to program robots with sufficient precision that they can do the servicing automatically. When you're sending something out into deep space, you're stuck with the launch-era technology, but when you're close to home, you can always make it better if you're willing to invest in doing so.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/imagecassini.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-36636" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="600" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/imagecassini-600x600.jpg" width="600" /></a> The ripples in Saturn's rings as seen up close from Cassini. Image credit: NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/12/top-6-discoveries-of-cassini-as-its-20-year-mission-comes-to-an-end-synopsis/#comment-582349">Denier</a> on an incredibly cool image from Cassini's finale: "My favorite pic from Cassini from its ‘Grand Finale’ was this one: <a href="https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2017/imagecassini.jpg" rel="nofollow">https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2017/imagecassini.jpg</a> What appears to be a vast number of evenly spaced rings are not individual rings at all. The process that makes this ring appear as it does is the same process that forms the structure in spiral galaxies. The entire ring is a 2 arm spiral wound around and around and around so every other band is just another section of the same continuous spiral arm."</p></blockquote> <p>This is truly incredible, and you can see the density waves bunching up the farther out you go. If you look closely at the lower right of this image, you can also see some vertical ripples which are evidence of a bending wave, which are caused by yet another of Saturn's moons. Those points of light you see? Those are background stars, seen through the diffuse ice-particles that make up Saturn's rings. (Which are 99.9% ice, by the way!) Cassini has taught us some truly incredible things, and as is always the case, it's brought up even more questions that need answering. My favorite image set from the finale, if you were curious?</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="https://68.media.tumblr.com/4d90ce217fb85ef38100c7f6c4d8bc14/tumblr_inline_ovk955VKbG1tzhl5u_500.gif"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-36636" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="600" src="https://68.media.tumblr.com/4d90ce217fb85ef38100c7f6c4d8bc14/tumblr_inline_ovk955VKbG1tzhl5u_500.gif" width="600" /></a> A timelapse of Saturn's evolving ring structure. Image credit: NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute. <p> </p> </div> <p>This incredible showcase of how Saturn's ring structure isn't static, but rather evolves over time. We think of things like orbiting planets and moons and fool ourselves with this vision of the Solar System as unchanging over even long periods of time, but the changes in the rings of Saturn have shown us how naive we truly are when it comes to that point of view. With the exception of a few major static features, normally related to the locations of large moons, Saturn's rings are ever-evolving. And the view is fascinating.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/eso1617h.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-36582" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="424" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/eso1617h-600x424.jpg" width="600" /></a> The construction design for the ELT, revealed in 2016, was the basis for this artist's rendition of what the completed telescope, with the dome open, will look like in approximately 7 years. Image credit: ESO/L. Calçada/ACe Consortium. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/13/a-new-record-nears-the-worlds-largest-telescope-prepares-for-completion-synopsis/#comment-582348">Frank</a> on what imperfections might be present in an open-air telescope: "“The smoothness of the surface will be a ridiculous 7.5 nanometers” How about dust from air? I think it should be possible to keep away dust by creating a (negative?) static electric field all around the telescope."</p></blockquote> <p>I know it's not as impressive as creating a giant static field, but this is part of why it's so important to have that final coating on the telescope mirror. It's not like the mirror needs to be polished; that 7.5 nanometer tolerance is good from the moment the mirror comes off the rack. But the coating is what's so important, both for an additional level of reflectivity and to keep the mirror as pristine as possible. When it does get dusty, that's degradation at work. The only better option? To go to the most dust-free environment we know of: space. But that's a little bit pricier, and a little less accessible for servicing.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2016/11/1-Hv06rx7FcvJ7t66ABABgzw.jpeg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-35347" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="473" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2016/11/1-Hv06rx7FcvJ7t66ABABgzw-600x473.jpeg" width="600" /></a> The power spectrum of the fluctuations in the CMB are best fit by a single, unique curve. Image credit: Planck Collaboration: P. A. R. Ade et al., 2014, A&amp;A. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/14/successfully-predicting-the-future-requires-theoretical-science-synopsis/#comment-582361">Denier</a> arguing against the usefulness of theoretical work in science: "</p> <p style="padding-left: 30px;">when a theoretical model makes failed predictions, that doesn’t necessarily mean the theory is a failure</p> <p>By your thinking, can anything ever be proven wrong? As a whole, I think historical observation is far more useful than scientific theory at predicting the future. When cavemen didn’t know what the sun was or that the Earth wasn’t flat, they still knew the sun would come up in the morning."</p></blockquote> <p>First off, yes, theories can be demonstrated to be wrong. "Proven" is the wrong word if we're being pedantic, because you can always tweak your theory or your model to try and fit the observations a little bit better. Sometimes this is a useful approach! We warn laypeople about "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" or advise them to "chew on the meat and throw away the bones" because quite often, there's a seed of a brilliant idea embedded in an overall model, theory, or idea that doesn't pan out. Copernicus' theory didn't work; it was less successful than Ptolemy's. What do you do? Tweak it and work with it, or abandon it? The Big Bang didn't accurately predict the large-scale structure of the Universe, even with the right seed fluctuations. Do you throw it all away? Or do you find the one modification -- dark matter -- that not only makes it work, but that fixes a whole host of other problems? What you are describing as "historical observation" is very closely related to the "descriptive" approach to the Universe we were talking about to start off this edition of our comments. Sure, you can use past experience to predict future behavior. But only if you have a successful theory can you do it, you know, in a quantitatively accurate fashion. That's the difference between a weather forecast and the farmer's almanac, or a meteorological projection and a groundhog. If you want to be intellectually lazy, relying wholly on historical observations will get you pretty far most of the time. But we can go farther. Let's all go together!</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/ChROoxAUkAQseSD.jpg"><img alt="At the photosphere, we can observe the properties, elements, and spectral features present at the outermost layers of the Sun. But it's the processes taking place in the core that provide its true power. Image credit: NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory / GSFC." class="size-medium wp-image-36625" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="371" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/ChROoxAUkAQseSD-600x371.jpg" width="600" /></a> At the photosphere, we can observe the properties, elements, and spectral features present at the outermost layers of the Sun. But it's the processes taking place in the core that provide its true power. Image credit: NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory / GSFC. <p> </p> </div> <p>And I'll give the last word this week to <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/15/proof-of-god-playing-dice-with-the-universe-found-in-the-suns-interior-synopsis/#comment-582374">Frank</a> on the subject of God playing dice with the Universe: "Hidden variable theory seems like a valid counter argument against entanglement at first (like Einstein thought) but if it was true then quantum computers would not work (however we have primitive but working examples of them today)."</p></blockquote> <p>There are two things at play that felt "spooky" to Einstein in quantum physics: the notion that nature would be inherently probabilistic rather than deterministic, and that two objects would affect each other in a faster-than-light fashion. The first one is "determinism" and the second one is "locality" (or non-locality). Hidden variables was a way to try and save both; to say that you can have a deterministic Universe where everything was locally connected, by having some behind-the-scenes variables that are responsible for what we perceive as the quantum nature of the Universe. But that doesn't work for a variety of reasons that have been demonstrated over the past 55 years or so. And the interior of the Sun is a perfect example; without quantum physics, the Sun wouldn't shine at all! What's remarkable about our theories isn't how intuitive or simple they are, but how well they describe the Universe that we inhabit. How successful their quantitative predictions are, and what a wide range of phenomena they apply to. There's nothing else in the Universe quite like the fundamental laws of physics, and perhaps that's what it was that made me fall in love with the subject all those years ago. It's a love that countless others have shared throughout history, and that many will continue to share for generations to come. You're always welcome to share in it with me, and hopefully there will be even more to come in the days, weeks, months and years ahead. See you there!</p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/startswithabang" lang="" about="/startswithabang" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">esiegel</a></span> <span>Sun, 09/17/2017 - 02:18</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/comments-week" hreflang="en">Comments of the Week</a></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-categories field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Categories</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/channel/physical-sciences" hreflang="en">Physical Sciences</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546390" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505630629"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Several years ago, inspired by the matter, I penned the following little ditty (actually originally mentioning Max Born - Bohr fits better though), it's cleverness lost on most lay people. I present it here for the amusement of the physics community. Please credit properly if you reproduce...</p> <p>Throwing Dice</p> <p>'Twas the birth of modern physics,<br /> Einstein's annus mirabilis,<br /> Beyond the music of the spheres,<br /> and all which that could tell us.</p> <p>Then the quantum world invaded,<br /> Einstein's God does not throw dice,<br /> and despite the protestations,<br /> 'til he died that was Al's vice.</p> <p>Amidst the shouts that he ignored,<br /> all the while that Neils Bohr goaded,<br /> the secret that they neither knew,<br /> those very dice were loaded!</p> <p>- Art Glick -</p> <p>...specializing in Geek humor for decades!</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546390&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="iMvhEAJoGax2IX1fHgFp8mga0gtRhvuAGzaQxF9E-IY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Art Glick (not verified)</span> on 17 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546390">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546391" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505630987"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Good one! Thank you. :)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546391&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Al2BU9T1AewEHj7nk96l69Hs-0v731adkBAVMHSsJ0Y"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John (not verified)</span> on 17 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546391">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546392" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505631331"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Ethan,</p> <p><i>"I read your Wikipedia article that you quoted, and I think the phase-out is not as dominant a trend as you want it to be.</i></p> <p>Me personally, I don't have a particular preference on this topic. The debate about phase-out just pops up on a regular basis where I live. My curiosity with nuclear is more further down the line, at the next level, if Protons 'can' be converted into energy.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546392&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="wg95-O-MiaQ-R7nKBCX3-GScXXc-91tcRIH3ZZhQIS8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 17 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546392">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546393" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505636472"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Ethan wrote:</p> <blockquote><p>We know what the cost of doing nothing is.</p></blockquote> <p>First, I find it quite funny you would make that a hyperlink to an article that doesn’t detail the cost. I’ve linked to actual economic studies and can’t get you to read beyond the title, but I don’t want to detract from what I believe is a massively important point I feel you are missing.</p> <p>In 1935 there was a hurricane that followed almost the exact same path Irma just did. When it hit the Florida Keys it was recorded as an 892 mbar low. It killed everyone. By comparison hurricane Irma even at the most violent stretch as a Category 5 storm out over the Atlantic never got below 913 mbar. I’m not trying to use anecdotal events to disprove trends but rather I’m pointing out even if we could drop atmospheric carbon to 1935 levels, and we can’t, it guarantees us nothing. There are records of hurricanes and typhoons as far back as there is history. There is no amount of carbon emission reduction that would make us hurricane proof or can even be counted on to meaningfully lessen the power of hurricanes. </p> <p>Hurricanes are going to happen no matter what we do, but Irma is perhaps the perfect case in point on the impact of economics. The Category 4 eye wall rolled right across Key West and <a href="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJ7HhShWAAAxRAp.jpg">they’re mostly fine</a>. It came through in the early morning and by that night there were even a couple of bars on the island that opened. There is money in Key West and the structures are well built. There are keys that don’t have Key West’s wealth. On those Keys there are mobile home parks and unrenovated houses built before the 1986+ building codes were enacted. They didn’t fare so well. It wasn’t uncommon to see a newer looking home appear as if nothing happened sitting across the street from a scene of utter devastation. Down in the Caribbean there is even less wealth and many of those islands look like they were hit by an atomic bomb.</p> <p>No amount of carbon reduction will make any difference, but increasing wealth does and the difference it makes is massive. I understand that you want to save the environment and your motives are only the best, but if you implement a policy that reduces carbon at the expense of economic growth you can get people killed for what would be no appreciable gain. If you want to help, and I mean really help, then help economically. Both the people and the environment will benefit.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546393&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="y-zTeAe7tL2gZLJLDVaXfHt8dc-wSONx5UtRNHcyUZQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Denier (not verified)</span> on 17 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546393">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546394" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505667437"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Denier, that was VERY WELL articulated.<br /> It was well reasoned and articulated in a thoughtful, non condescending/argumentative tone that should evoke open dialog, thoughts in a constructive atmosphere.<br /> You set a fine and decent example for how modern scientific/political/social discourse rebuttals with regards to the current events of the day should be handled.<br /> Good On You. :)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546394&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="YFAA4DPI3Rp8d_Ei0vgHOIBIjaUtUV4X1QeEKnTuFN8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Ragtag Media (not verified)</span> on 17 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546394">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546395" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505687297"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Ethan keeps saying we know so much about the mankind's impact on the climate, and then for some mysterious omits to mention a number. How much is humanity influencing the weather Ethan? After your poor attempt to politicize a hurricane,<br /> You say<br /> "The point was that human activities are affecting the planet in a negative way, that these effects are quantifiable"..<br /> .<br /> and then you don't mention those 'effects' are in fact not very quantified at all. NOAA even says so.<br /> .<br /> "… It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate). …"<br /> ..<br /> and<br /> ..<br /> "But statistical tests reveal that this trend is so small, relative to the variability in the series, that it is not significantly distinguishable from zero (Figure 2). In addition, Landsea et al. (2010) note that the rising trend in Atlantic tropical storm counts is almost entirely due to increases in short-duration (&lt;2 day) storms alone. Such short-lived storms were particularly likely to have been overlooked in the earlier parts of the record, as they would have had less opportunity for chance encounters with ship traffic."<br /> .<br /> source:<br /><a href="https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/">https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/</a><br /> .<br /> Funny, they want to put in the caveat "That said, human activities may..." which is just English 101 weasel words for "I have no actual data."<br /> .<br /> I am not impressed with your claims of certainty Ethan, because even the 'experts' who would love to back your convictions, can't.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546395&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="rxlRgNFxsymk1SgDne98WIoU-a84lyZgjkWhfmBdYeQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CFT (not verified)</span> on 17 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546395">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546396" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505748154"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ CFT<br /> Also ask Ethan How much Cow farts affect the climate and frogs and bears, deer and partridges in pear trees.. LOL</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546396&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="RWbRBdyGHiXCTor6VI-T0uRKjhZdgHdVDclH6db_2KY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Ragtag Media (not verified)</span> on 18 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546396">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546397" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505750325"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@CFT, also ask Ethan how the flapping wings of BILLIONS of birds affect the "climate" LMAO:<br /><a href="http://www.arbotopia.com/how-many-birds-in-the-whole-wide-world/">http://www.arbotopia.com/how-many-birds-in-the-whole-wide-world/</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546397&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="JFGk3cNucC8txnuSglzEJ0co7rmKN5PeXCYXJNB6czQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Ragtag Media (not verified)</span> on 18 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546397">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/startswithabang/2017/09/17/comments-of-the-week-177-from-nuclear-power-and-weapons-to-god-playing-dice-in-the-sun%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Sun, 17 Sep 2017 06:18:16 +0000 esiegel 37102 at https://scienceblogs.com From making heavy elements to why the sky is blue https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/10/comments-of-the-week-176-from-making-heavy-elements-to-why-the-sky-is-blue <span>From making heavy elements to why the sky is blue</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>“In the media age, everybody was famous for 15 minutes. In the Wikipedia age, everybody can be an expert in five minutes. Special bonus: You can edit your own entry to make yourself seem even smarter.” ―Stephen Colbert</p></blockquote> <p>It's been another fun-and-fact-filled week here at <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/">Starts With A Bang!</a> (And did you know <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethan_Siegel">I have a wikipedia page? I do!</a> And most of the facts there are even correct!) I'm planning out the next edition of the <a href="https://soundcloud.com/ethan-siegel-172073460">Starts With A Bang podcast</a>, which should cover the science that the James Webb Space Telescope will reveal starting in just over a year; yes, we're just 13 months from launch! We're also looking into starting a video series, with the financial (and idea-filled) help of our generous <a href="https://www.patreon.com/startswithabang">Patreon supporters</a>, as well as some exciting interviews coming up in advance of the October 15th release of <a href="http://amzn.to/2wX6B3Y">Treknology</a>, which should take the world by storm!</p> <p>So with all the announcements out of the way, let's dive right into our <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/category/comments-of-the-week/">comments of the week</a>!</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/Recreacion-artistica-onda-gravitacional_101501205_1049849_1706x1280-1200x900-1200x900.jpg"><img alt="The fabric of spacetime, illustrated, with ripples and deformations due to mass. A new theory must be more than identical to General Relativity; it must make novel, distinct predictions. Image credit: European Gravitational Observatory, Lionel BRET/EUROLIOS." class="size-medium wp-image-36461" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="449" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/Recreacion-artistica-onda-gravitacional_101501205_1049849_1706x1280-1200x900-1200x900-600x449.jpg" width="600" /></a> The fabric of spacetime, illustrated, with ripples and deformations due to mass. A new theory must be more than identical to General Relativity; it must make novel, distinct predictions. Image credit: European Gravitational Observatory, Lionel BRET/EUROLIOS. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/03/comments-of-the-week-175-from-future-technology-to-the-cause-of-dark-energy/#comment-582170">Elle H.C.</a> on Einstein's opinion on the aether: "To quote Einstein:</p> <p style="padding-left: 30px;">“We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity <b>space without aether is unthinkable</b>; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.”</p> <p>The scientific community has ruled against Einstein on this topic..."</p></blockquote> <p>It's not so much that "the scientific community" made a ruling as it is that Einstein's "unthinkable" interpretation was actually equivalent to his own interpretation. If you call the mathematical structure of "spacetime" an "aether," I can't really say anything to change your mind, but you are redefining words to make the "aether" exist. If that were the case, let me turn it around on you: what would an aether-less spacetime look like? The conventional thinking is that when we talk about empty space -- the "vacuum" -- we are talking about what we physically know as nothingness itself. This is what contains the entire Universe. Nothing more is required. You can certainly invent something more (or something else), but unless it has a physical difference from the predictions of nothingness itself, it doesn't have a physical meaning.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 507px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/01/wavefunction.gif"><img alt="" class="size-full wp-image-18192" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="377" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/01/wavefunction.gif" width="497" /></a> The quantum wavefunction, and the potential for quantum tunneling through a finite barrier. Image credit: Chi LF collaboration, from John von Neumann Institut fur Computing. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/03/comments-of-the-week-175-from-future-technology-to-the-cause-of-dark-energy/#comment-582173">eric</a> on the spreading of quantum wavefunctions: "Many (I want to say ‘all’ but I’m not sure about that) wavefunctions are much larger than what we would consider the discrete particle to be. The photon is, in reality, ‘smeared out’ over a much larger area."</p></blockquote> <p>The important thing to remember is that wavefunctions are not static entities, but rather that they spread out over time! There is an uncertainty inherent to anything's position and momentum, and so that means that if you know where something is and how it's moving at any particular moment in time, even to an accuracy of Planck's constant, there is an uncertainty that grows with time and distance as far as where this particle will be in the future. So if you take the extrema of the possibilities and allow that sort of spreading, it's pretty impossible to not have some portion of the wavefunction wind up a seemingly absurd distance away. The only way out is to make a high-energy-enough measurement to collapse the wavefunction, which is where the "quantum zeno's paradox" comes in, and why a watched radioactive atom doesn't decay the same as one that you simply leave alone.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2015/01/1-BzjLp87PlMz-nZ2Cf6Zjfw.jpeg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-32349" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="400" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2015/01/1-BzjLp87PlMz-nZ2Cf6Zjfw-600x400.jpeg" width="600" /></a> Image credit: Delta II rocket launch, public domain, via <a href="http://www.gps.gov/">http://www.gps.gov/</a>. <p> </p> </div> <blockquote><p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/03/comments-of-the-week-175-from-future-technology-to-the-cause-of-dark-energy/#comment-582175">Steve Blackband</a> on a book recommendation: "Highly recommend Rise of the Rocket Girls by Nathalia Holt. An easy holiday read, [focusing] on the efforts of the women ‘computers’ in the space program, much like the book by Dava Sobel called the Glass Universe [focusing] on the women who read astronomy photographic plates."</p></blockquote> <p>I haven't come across this book, so I'm very curious to learn about it! For anyone interested in the history of both the space program and the role that women in science have played, it gets good reviews from people I respect. <a href="http://amzn.to/2xia7Jv">Pick up a copy at Amazon here</a>.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/Nuclear_with_Cherenkov.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-36607" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="449" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/Nuclear_with_Cherenkov-600x449.jpg" width="600" /></a> Reactor nuclear experimental RA-6 (Republica Argentina 6), en marcha. As long as there's the right nuclear fuel present, along with control rods and the proper type of water inside, energy can be generated with only 1/100,000th the fuel of conventional, fossil-fuel reactors. Image credit: Centro Atomico Bariloche, via Pieck Darío. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/03/comments-of-the-week-175-from-future-technology-to-the-cause-of-dark-energy/#comment-582178">Sinisa Lazarek</a> about whether Einstein is always a good authority about physics: "Well, Einstein also said: “There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” Just because someone made great contribution in one area, doesn’t make him absolutely correct about everything."</p></blockquote> <p>It goes beyond that, actually. Just because someone is an expert and made a great contribution in one area doesn't mean they are correct about everything they say <em>even in that area</em>. Alan Guth was the inventor and originator of inflation, yet his original model was untenable <em>and everyone knew it</em>. Fred Hoyle made tremendous strides in uncovering the properties of the primordial light in the Universe yet would not accept that his model for departures from a blackbody spectrum did not fit the observations. Einstein was not only wrong about many aspects of quantum and nuclear physics (despite winning a Nobel for the photoelectric effect), but made many mistakes concerning relativity, including the declaration that gravitational waves were a physical impossibility. The idea that "one should listen to the master" is absurd; you should listen to the correct argument that is made for the correct reasons, regardless of who makes it. Einstein was wrong. <em>A lot</em>. So was pretty much every scientist in history. We must tread carefully here, and not fall for the fallacy of picking the quotes and statements that support what we want reality to be.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/Naatriumi_reaktsioon_veega_purustab_klaasist_anuma.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-36464" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="338" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/Naatriumi_reaktsioon_veega_purustab_klaasist_anuma-600x338.jpg" width="600" /></a> Placing a chunk of sodium metal in contact with water results in a violent, and often explosive, reaction. Image credit: Wikimedia Commons user Tavoromann. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/03/comments-of-the-week-175-from-future-technology-to-the-cause-of-dark-energy/#comment-582183">John</a> on whether science describes or explains: "One of the unresolved, and possibly unresolvable, tensions in Science – in the instance Physics – is whether it <b>describes</b> or <b>explains</b>. As seen above, some are firmly (even emphatically) members of the descriptive camp. I found Ethan’s “What’s the quantum reason that sodium and water react?” (05-AUG-17) a delightful example of Science’s – in that instance physical Chemistry – ability to explain."</p></blockquote> <p>I think this is an interesting topic to consider. The sodium-and-water example feels like a good explanation, rather than merely a description, because we have a deep understanding of what physics underlies it. If you ask "why do the quantum energy levels behave as they do," you're likely to come away with more of what feels like a description than an explanation, even though those quantum energy levels are what power the sodium-and-water reaction. If we have a deeper layer (or two, or more) of understanding than what you're asking about, it's easier to explain what's going on. But if you're at that deepest level that humanity has ever gone, usually it only feels descriptive. At that most fundamental level, I don't know that it's possible to do any better.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/Sun_poster.svg_.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-36592" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="300" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/Sun_poster.svg_-600x300.jpg" width="600" /></a> This cutaway showcases the various regions of the surface and interior of the Sun, including the core, which is where nuclear fusion occurs. Although hydrogen is converted into helium, the majority of reactions, and the majority of the energy that powers the Sun, comes from other sources. Image credit: Wikimedia Commons user Kelvinsong. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/05/the-suns-energy-doesnt-come-from-fusing-hydrogen-into-helium-mostly-synopsis/#comment-582192">Frank</a> on the brightness of the Sun's center: "All cutaway views of sun I had seen show its center as the brightest region. But I think if we could really see inside of sun almost all of it would look black. Because I think visible light is produced close to the surface. Am I right on this?"</p></blockquote> <p>You know, I was all prepared to write to you about blackbody spectra, the energy produced, how collisions between gamma-ray photons and particles in the Sun's core produce thermalization and a very hot, intense set of radiation that spans the full electromagnetic spectrum, and so on. I was prepared to show you images like this:</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/10/BlackbodySpectrum_loglog_150dpi_en1.png"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-26119" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="435" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/10/BlackbodySpectrum_loglog_150dpi_en1-600x435.png" width="600" /></a> The blackbody spectrum of bodies radiating at a variety of temperatures. Image credit: Wikimedia commons user Sch. <p> </p> </div> <p>And to tell you that being hotter meant more radiation of all wavelengths, so long as you obey that blackbody law. And then I saw, just below, that <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/05/the-suns-energy-doesnt-come-from-fusing-hydrogen-into-helium-mostly-synopsis/#comment-582193">Candice Elliot</a> has beaten me to it, providing an excellent explanation.</p> <blockquote><p>This is one of those Berkelian questions… since we can’t actually do a cut-away. However, no, the region inside of the core would still be amazingly hot and does radiate in the visible region… but that most of the energy in the core is radiating at high energies up into the gamma. So, it would still be bright in the visible. You might want to look up ‘black body radiation’. As the temperature goes up, the energy peak goes up (shorter wavelength/higher energy per photon)… but so does the amount of energy in non-peak wavelengths. As the energy passes from the convention zone to the surface, the volume of the mass that is available goes up so the temp goes down and at the very surface, the temp cools such that the peak is now in the visible range (of course it is! That’s because we evolved to use the peak range to see!)</p></blockquote> <p>So, good job! In short, the core of the Sun would be brighter than the core of any cooler blackbody, all other things being equal, no matter which wavelength of light you looked at. Remember, hotter objects contain more energy overall, and that affects what you "see," among a myriad of other things!</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/43b35612-df94-45f8-b45f-d0759b83f46a-large16x9_FotodelincendioforestalEagleCreekFireporTristanFortsch.jpg"><img alt="The Eagle Creek fire has now spread to engulf over 10,000 acres, has caused the evacuations of thousands of families, and millions of dollars in property damage. The terrain itself will take decades to recover. Image credit: Tristan Fortsch/KATU-TV via AP." class="size-medium wp-image-36605" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="337" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/43b35612-df94-45f8-b45f-d0759b83f46a-large16x9_FotodelincendioforestalEagleCreekFireporTristanFortsch-600x337.jpg" width="600" /></a> The Eagle Creek fire has now spread to engulf over 10,000 acres, has caused the evacuations of thousands of families, and millions of dollars in property damage. The terrain itself will take decades to recover. Image credit: Tristan Fortsch/KATU-TV via AP. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/06/the-terrifying-physics-of-how-wildfires-spread-so-fast-synopsis/#comment-582205">Ragtag Media</a> on the cause of wildfires: "Or rather The Terrifying Actions Of Environmentalist Cause Disaster. Thank a Spotted Owl"</p></blockquote> <p>What many people on both sides of the political aisle -- including those on the far right who blame environmentalism for hampering the logging industry and those who blame the logging industry for destroying America's natural resources -- don't realize is how many strides have been made in the practice of sustainable logging over the years. All the major logging companies, like Weyerhauser (which dominates where I live), now treat lumber as a crop. You cut a portion, you replant, you let it grow, you harvest, etc. This is how it works, it's good for the environment, etc. However, there are a great many compelling reasons to think that we have not yet arrived at the ideal fire, wildlife, flora-and-fauna management system. For protected lands like forests, natural fires do occur. Should we clear out the underbrush? If so, by how much? Should we engage in controlled burns? Of what magnitude? These are questions still being discussed today, and they <em>should</em> still be discussed. There is much to still learn. With that said, I would hope that everyone here would be against arson. Would be against throwing fireworks into the woods when there's a burn ban. And would be against the 80% of wildfires that are caused by human negligence and/or malice. My wife and I had our lives endangered by one that was started atop Powell Butte a few years ago just outside of Portland, OR, by... a group of teenagers. We were the first to call 911 and alert them. We were out hiking and had to race back to our car and leave. We got out, but... I mean, come on. It's okay to say, "arson is bad," and to call irresponsible fire-starting exactly what it is: arson. At least <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/06/the-terrifying-physics-of-how-wildfires-spread-so-fast-synopsis/#comment-582215">Alan G.</a> agrees with me:</p> <blockquote><p>"Well, it would seem prudent that the first and best line of defense is for humans to stop setting wildfires."</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/12/treefire.png"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-30186" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="451" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/12/treefire-600x451.png" width="600" /></a> Image credit: Andrew Walsh, aka flickr user radiofree. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/06/the-terrifying-physics-of-how-wildfires-spread-so-fast-synopsis/#comment-582241">MobiusKlein</a> on the culture wars: "Not every science discussion needs to start with a Culture War rerun."</p></blockquote> <p>The cynical part of me wants to say, "have you been on the internet before?" But I think this is a good place to bring something up about forest management that's very important. A lot of people focus on the "renewing" effect that burns have, clearing out the old, dead brush and allowing the ecosystem to start over. Because of human activity, a lot of what will first grow when we have a wildfire, will be invasive species. If they take root in the early stages, they can choke out the natural habitat which would have grown there if not for the introduction of these species by human activity. If we want to restore the natural habitat after a wildfire occurs, in many locations (like in the Columbia Gorge), we absolutely need human intervention to properly manage the restoration. This is a big part of what the forest service does, and will be doing in the coming months after the fires are put out.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/Oldest_star_in_solar_neighbourhood.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-36597" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="480" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/Oldest_star_in_solar_neighbourhood-600x480.jpg" width="600" /></a> This is a Digitized Sky Survey image of the oldest star with a well-determined age in our galaxy. The ageing star, catalogued as HD 140283, lies over 190 light-years away. The NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope was used to narrow the measurement uncertainty on the star's distance, and this helped to refine the calculation of a more precise age of 14.5 billion years (plus or minus 800 million years). Image credit: Digitized Sky Survey (DSS), STScI/AURA, Palomar/Caltech, and UKSTU/AAO. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/07/the-greatest-cosmic-puzzle-astronomers-find-stars-that-appear-older-than-the-universe-synopsis/#comment-582239">Carl</a> on how a star appears older than the age of the Universe: "Two words: stellar progeria."</p></blockquote> <p>Certainly, if the star actually does appear to be 14.5 billion years old, something must've happened to cause that "artificially large" age we ascribe to it. But what was it? For the last word of the week, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/07/the-greatest-cosmic-puzzle-astronomers-find-stars-that-appear-older-than-the-universe-synopsis/#comment-582246">Omega Centauri</a> has an idea:</p> <blockquote><p>"What if the star originally had a brown dwarf companion, and was a bit lower in mass early on then would appear to make sense today? So say after a few billion years, it merged with its brown dwarf gaining a few percent of mass."</p></blockquote> <div style="width: 582px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/05/star_density.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-28077" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="3000" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/05/star_density-572x3000.jpg" width="572" /></a> The globular cluster Messier 5, shown here in this NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image, is one of the oldest belonging to the Milky Way. The majority of its stars formed more than 12 billion years ago, but there are some unexpected newcomers on the scene, adding some vitality to this aging population. These blue stragglers resulted from mergers of smaller stars, and create larger, apparently younger ones. Image credit: ESA / Hubble &amp; NASA. <p> </p> </div> <p>This actually goes the wrong way; this would make a star appear <em>younger</em> than it actually is, akin to blue stragglers. What would work is for something to have stripped a bit of the mass <em>away</em> from the star. If you can have a more massive star age, burn through its fuel, and then lose some of its mass, it will evolve more quickly. Even if that's the case, the big question is <em>how</em>. Off the top of my head, my first idea is that this star began in a globular cluster or a multi-star system, was the less-massive companion in a binary (or more) system, it had some of its mass siphoned off after billions of years, and then a close gravitational interaction with another body ejected it into the galaxy, away from its former companions, where we observe it today. But I have no evidence for this. The Universe is like a detective story with insufficient clues. Until we catch another, similar star doing something as compelling as this, we don't know whether this explanation is possible. Regardless, we can only see the survivors in the Universe today, and infer what might have (or must have) happened in the past. The rest is why this is such a great cosmic puzzle! See you back here next week for more exciting stories of science and the Universe here on Starts With A Bang!</p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/startswithabang" lang="" about="/startswithabang" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">esiegel</a></span> <span>Sun, 09/10/2017 - 02:40</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/comments-week" hreflang="en">Comments of the Week</a></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-categories field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Categories</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/channel/physical-sciences" hreflang="en">Physical Sciences</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546273" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505032624"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"At that most fundamental level, I don’t know that it’s possible to do any better. [than to be able to describe]"</p> <p>Yes, at that level at that time that seems to be the best one can do.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546273&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="s_d8gDJcSR3ncFnMHnDmau0hUTmeExRtzrbt5QmlwwQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John (not verified)</span> on 10 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546273">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546274" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505036174"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>John:<br /></p><blockquote> “One of the unresolved, and possibly unresolvable, tensions in Science – in the instance Physics – is whether it describes or explains. </blockquote> <p>I'm wondering if this is nothing more than a semantic issue; English having multiple words for what is, in practical terms, the same outcome. We do science to gain information, and then we use that information to do other things; accomplish human social or policy goals. Are there any activities that can be accomplished by 'explain' science that can't be accomplished by 'describe' science? Is mere 'describe science' unable to cure cancer? Launch satellites? </p> <p>I think, in fact, that science <i>accomplishes</i> the same activities, contributes to society the same ways, regardless of whether you call it explanatory or merely descriptive.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546274&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="fTFUdQFeJij3cMKtLwPvZmCbsmrUiTFtA0pMIioJAqo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 10 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546274">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546275" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505036994"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Ethan in reply to Elle HC:<br /> " If you call the mathematical structure of “spacetime” an “aether,” I can’t really say anything to change your mind, but you are redefining words to make the “aether” exist. If that were the case, let me turn it around on you: what would an aether-less spacetime look like?"</p> <p>"The conventional thinking is that when we talk about empty space — the “vacuum” — we are talking about what we physically know as nothingness itself. This is what contains the entire Universe. Nothing more is required. You can certainly invent something more (or something else), but unless it has a physical difference from the predictions of nothingness itself, it doesn’t have a physical meaning."</p> <p>So... back to "spacetime" as "nothingness itself":<br /> Yet "mass tells IT how to curve and IT tells mass how to move"(conventionally speaking, as per Wheeler.)</p> <p>IT is a "mathematical structure." IT is "nothingness itself." Yet IT functions as a malleable medium (aether?) The "science" of GR theory doesn't even ask how that mechanically happens in the world to which the "mathematical structure" refers... if there is one (according to instrumentalists) existing independent of man's math and models!</p> <p>So... "You can certainly invent something more (ed: and call it "spacetime")... but it doesn’t have a physical meaning."</p> <p>Such is the nature of "spacetime"... even as it curves around masses like the Sun and guides the planets in their orbits!</p> <p>Or it could just be the force of gravity "acting at a distance" (god forbid!)... Maybe via the (as yet unconfirmed) Higgs Field filling all space... no longer the vacuum of "nothingness."</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546275&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="sHBpbUFr31eDZNUAId_YGVv00Co-pcWBU3caqvWktAo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 10 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546275">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546276" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505038930"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Ethan,</p> <p><i>"It’s not so much that “the scientific community” made a ruling as it is that Einstein’s “unthinkable” interpretation was actually equivalent to his own interpretation."</i></p> <p>No, that doesn't make sense. This is more like it:</p> <blockquote><p>"The Copenhagen Interpretation denies that the wave function provides a directly apprehensible image of an ordinary material body or a discernible component of some such, or anything more than a theoretical concept.</p> <p>In metaphysical terms, the Copenhagen interpretation views quantum mechanics as providing knowledge of phenomena, but not as pointing to 'really existing objects', which it regarded as residues of ordinary intuition. This makes it an epistemic theory. <b>This may be contrasted with Einstein's view, that physics should look for 'really existing objects',</b> making itself an ontic theory." - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation#Metaphysics_of_the_wave_function">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation#Metaphysics_of_…</a></p></blockquote> <p>--</p> <p><i>"what would an aether-less spacetime look like?"</i></p> <p>That's not the right question, SpaceTime is only a mathematical framework it isn't Space itself. </p> <p>Space itself can't exists exist without an æther. It would be like a ocean without water. You need a medium for waves to travel and things to come to life.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546276&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="bgw2lTVzir35WpylPeIftz0L53DoZJupsIBx8dJ-wqU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 10 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546276">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546277" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505059024"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>eric,</p> <p>"I’m wondering if this is nothing more than a semantic issue ..."</p> <p>I don't think so. A description of a process or an event is not an explanation for the process or event.</p> <p>This is, of course, sensitive to what is being described or explained. I think Ethan makes that point.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546277&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="dSuLwcXThYofUujGzafmH7PZ7P_VWSuI2mcB-54EYW4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John (not verified)</span> on 10 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546277">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546278" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505059459"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>[me] “I’m wondering if this is nothing more than a semantic issue …”</p> <p>[John] I don’t think so. A description of a process or an event is not an explanation for the process or event.</p></blockquote> <p>Okay, can you give me an example of both? Preferably an example relevant to science.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546278&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="F-rzx0wlqLHiHOUPmJUtLJKeVYqOUwFvf7Ue5HlaeMw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 10 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546278">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546279" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505060213"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>eric,</p> <p>"The sodium-and-water example feels like a good explanation, rather than merely a description, because we have a deep understanding of what physics underlies it. If you ask “why do the quantum energy levels behave as they do,” you’re likely to come away with more of what feels like a description than an explanation, even though those quantum energy levels are what power the sodium-and-water reaction. If we have a deeper layer (or two, or more) of understanding than what you’re asking about, it’s easier to explain what’s going on. But if you’re at that deepest level that humanity has ever gone, usually it only feels descriptive."</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546279&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ROYSA_xZ5eWuaDzxv7k7naeu3KYjUbV-zaekfROTNNQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John (not verified)</span> on 10 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546279">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546280" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505061882"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>John, you made a quote that says a bit of science that looks like an explanation is really a description. Okay. Now, what is your contrasting example of a real explanation?</p> <p>Give me an example of both, not just an example of a description.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546280&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="vDAfFpIVK0bJTVAUr279RDLAvrRcz8_Q7VOt1qGI6Cg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 10 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546280">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546281" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505062186"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>eric,</p> <p>"If you ask “why do the quantum energy levels behave as they do,” you’re likely to come away with more of what feels like a description than an explanation, "</p> <p>Note that the language you and I share and use when trying to understand each other discriminates between the two words:<br /> http : / / www . dictionary . com / browse / description ? s = t<br /> http : / / www . dictionary . com / browse / explanation ? s = t</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546281&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="5prl_G6tgqqKlZsPFV7eDl1Gc5HVWJa4SXZivvjofE4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John (not verified)</span> on 10 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546281">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546282" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505062247"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>eric,</p> <p>"The sodium-and-water example feels like a good explanation, rather than merely a description, because we have a deep understanding of what physics underlies it."</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546282&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="qMtQcTqmGdxonzryXjydi_DRwP5UO5Cprns4xlVgL58"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John (not verified)</span> on 10 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546282">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546283" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505063034"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>eric,</p> <p>As you seem to remain persuaded that a description of a process or an event is equivalent to an explanation for the process or event, by all means enjoy your conviction. It is, as you're aware, not an opinion I embrace.</p> <p>I hope you can accept that there can be, and are other valid opinions.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546283&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="44pn4QOikOirukuGpE2rTcoRy_Vmd-pVvW2LbCqOPEY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John (not verified)</span> on 10 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546283">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546284" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505063182"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>So you're saying the sodium and water example counts as an explanation?</p> <p>You don't think we need anything deeper in this case?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546284&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="1lqaNJlJ99r3Y-L016sfc6UIujvk2-SHgeCXwK3oXSk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 10 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546284">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546285" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505064999"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>eric,</p> <p>As your posts suggest to me that your position is that the sodium and water example does not count as an example, please explain why you think the underlying physics provided by Ethan do <b>not</b> produce an explanation, and provide a contrasting example of what you consider a <b>real example</b>. </p> <p>Absent that, I suggest acknowledging that reasonable people can disagree, and agree to disagree about the equivalence of the terms "explanation" and "description".</p> <p>In re needing "anything deeper in this case", as the question was "What’s the quantum reason that sodium and water react?", the answer is no. Ethan provided the explanation.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546285&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="BVsp0x_467BQNc2NjcszzaYXEdaL14-vQSYjR3FmhFQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John (not verified)</span> on 10 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546285">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546286" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505067702"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Bottom line is that there are little to zero wild fires on private, corporate managed lands compared to the plethora of wild fires on public enviro wacko lobby controlled whack job lands.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546286&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="tS_Q65bK71Yx5w8waCE_VT9tqd-xyHOxX8CdoLDmmAA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Ragtag Media (not verified)</span> on 10 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546286">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546287" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505076391"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Ragtag Media: that's an interesting claim. And by that, I mean you are talking hogwash.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546287&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ejcanF7wRYk3Xm5n5G6b_JWlo8SOiJHJv895qvVkuxY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Julian Frost (not verified)</span> on 10 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546287">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546288" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505114619"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><blockquote><p>What many people on both sides of the political aisle — including those on the far right who blame environmentalism for hampering the logging industry and those who blame the logging industry for destroying America’s natural resources — don’t realize is how many strides have been made in the practice of sustainable logging over the years. All the major logging companies, like Weyerhauser (which dominates where I live), now treat lumber as a crop. You cut a portion, you replant, you let it grow, you harvest, etc. This is how it works, it’s good for the environment, etc.<br /> However, there are a great many compelling reasons to think that we have not yet arrived at the ideal fire, wildlife, flora-and-fauna management system. For protected lands like forests, natural fires do occur. Should we clear out the underbrush? If so, by how much? Should we engage in controlled burns? Of what magnitude? These are questions still being discussed today, and they should still be discussed. There is much to still learn.</p></blockquote> <p>All true. It's also true that the people who still make blanket unsupportable accusations of blame against "radical environmentalists" are ignoring, intentionally or from lack of knowledge, the fact that huge fires destroyed massive amounts of land during the height of the logging years in the Midwest: Alpena, Manistee, Holland, and the Port Huron region had massive fires in 1871, the same time as the terrible fire in Peshtigo Wisconsin. A great deal of the "thumb" area in Michigan burned in 1881. These weren't the consequences of 'radical environmentalists". </p> <p>Summary: people who use the term "radical environmentalists" aren't concerned with facts, only political agenda. </p> <p>Julian @ 15: Perfect comment on ragtag's "observation".</p></blockquote> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546288&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="6VUXUzjefMRCd1OPy3fA2XC53l4jGY3tJrL4kINAseE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">dean (not verified)</span> on 11 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546288">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546289" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505147556"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>As your posts suggest to me that your position is that the sodium and water example does not count as an example, please explain why you think the underlying physics provided by Ethan do not produce an explanation</p></blockquote> <p>No you misunderstand me. I'm happy to count it as an explanation if that is your argument. I'm trying to understand what YOU THINK is the difference.</p> <p>I'm actually okay with Ethan's definition; when there are deeper layers of understanding we can point to, we'll call it an 'explanation.' When there aren't, we'll call it a 'description.' Its somewhat subjective (which is why I think it's somewhat semantic) if you are okay with it too we can reach agreement?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546289&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="dOEzZk5AIn6athBNpveFG_VKGMcVLBDI32PACF_eUSs"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 11 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546289">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546290" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505160978"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>It would be like a ocean without water.</p></blockquote> <p><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/0802.1854">And?</a><a></a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546290&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="AK4LPgSA33jx2fV7tnnRAYVwSDYAKjPbQBZY3-gorI0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Narad (not verified)</span> on 11 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546290">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546291" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505205895"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>If "spacetime" is curved by mass and that curvature "tells masses how to move", what is the EXPLANATION of what it is and how it works, scientifically speaking?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546291&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="j9f98xbQqtloqFH7SG2-O2CkXtyF8hpqO4z63rwv3H4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 12 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546291">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546292" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505213348"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@MM,</p> <p>You should know the answer to that question because you say that 'mainstream' scientists are liars, so we all expect you to know how it works. So please tell us how does gravity works, scientifically speaking, what makes the apple fall?</p> <p>All GR does is describing the relationships of how a massive element affects its surroundings (Space) and in which frame, it does this very well, but what the underlying 'forces' are that's not something GR/SpaceTime tells us, that's something an Aether theory could help us with, explaining what it is that fills Space and make GR happen.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546292&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="1X7e4Sq_nSq1IZ_TdTKF1a3daiucUYCzpZxHhdgZ-Bw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 12 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546292">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546293" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505213709"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Narad,</p> <p>What 'and?'? </p> <p>In the paper, <i>'An overview is given of what mathematical physics can currently say about the vacuum state for relativistic quantum field theories on Minkowski space.'</i></p> <p>You can write papers about waves and currents of the ocean without talking about H2O. In CFD you can use Boltzmann or Navier–Stokes equations etc. you don't 'need' water just like you don't need an aether in Space Time to do your calculations. </p> <p>But as Einstein said, <i>"<b>"According to</b> the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable"</i>; it's as if he says that GR predicts an aether. He's pointing to search beyond GR and look what Space is made of.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546293&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="txGyOuMCoEzZozR09Ai-ClNz0ikZyl77mxZqj_3pASM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 12 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546293">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546294" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505221450"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>eric,</p> <p>"… you misunderstand me …"<br /> That is possible.</p> <p>Referring to your comment (#2, 10-SEP-17), "I’m wondering if this is nothing more than a semantic issue …" indicates that the list of acceptable responses includes only those that are limited to assessments of semantic content. When I hear or read someone taking a position that the differences between alternatives is "nothing more than a semantic issue", it is usually within a context in which that individual considers the differences small and inconsequential, slight and insignificant, almost needing no serious discussion.</p> <p>Having nothing else available as evidence to judge the meaning of your words, and reading you question about the language, (#6, 10-SEP-17) "Okay, can you give me an example of both? Preferably an example relevant to science." I offered a dictionary reference to the definition of the words (#9, 10-SEP-17) you and I share and which discriminates between them. </p> <p>Your question (#12, 10-SEP-17), "So you’re saying the sodium and water example counts as an explanation?", followed by "You don’t think we need anything deeper in this case?" added more weight to the idea that you viewed the dictionary definition and my distinction between "description" and "explanation", was at best, trifling.</p> <p>I had then, do now, and expect in the future to think that a description (e.g. "The sky is blue.") is qualitatively different from an explanation (e.g. "The reason the sky is blue is because …").</p> <p>The good news is that when I hear or read someone taking a position that the difference between alternatives is "somewhat semantic", it usually occurs in a context in which that individual accepts that the differences are significant and substantial, while also remarking that the borders between them are linguistically porous; where the one bleeds into the other without a clear demarcation. This later situation is common, and if that position is indeed yours, then we now share a mutual understanding.</p> <p>In closing, the better news (#17, 11-SEP-17) is "I’m actually okay with Ethan’s definition; when there are deeper layers of understanding we can point to, we’ll call it an ‘explanation.’", although I think it differs from your position expressed at comment #12.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546294&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="xR8XehYmYma9H_vCnJYiK-JsgD68txqPQAg3t9NTy2Q"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John (not verified)</span> on 12 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546294">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546295" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505291794"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>See #19. So there is NO EXPLANATION of what "spacetime" is ("nothingness itself?") or how IT is "curved" or how IT "guides" the movement of masses. Yet mainstream science (including Ethan) constantly insists that it is in fact a malleable and mass-guiding medium, even though it is really "nothing" but a geometric math model. What physical world? Who cares anyway what it is, if anything, as long as the math works? I do.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546295&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="IVSMPiynTdAUFS89QLLU3QZdG4SaKN2IF6VkLyO4RLs"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 13 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546295">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546296" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505302877"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ MM</p> <p>Let me try to compare the situation with gravity to a clock. And lets i.e. imagine that it's a digital clock. And let's say you don't actually know what a watch is or how it works... but you see numbers appearing in a certain way, and you notice patterns... and if you're smart, you can write a perfectly solid and precise model and predict when a certain number will appear on the display. You have no idea how the inner workings of a digital watch work (in this hypothetical situation), no idea about electrons, or IC's or anything else. Until you actually tear it apart and find out. Even without "knowing" how it works, you know when the something will happen, you have a predictive model. So this is the case with our current knowledge of gravity. We know how it will work in pretty much any place in the universe. We don't know how it will behave in most extreme scenarios, like plank scales or highest energy levels. Our best theory tells us what will happen and why, it doesn't currently tells us how that actually happens. Yes, in some other areas of physics, we have a more deeper understandings of the actual underlying processes. But not yet for gravity... and there are host of other areas.. CP violation i.e. just from top of my head. </p> <p>Nothing to whine about "NO EXPLANATION". Well, sorry for the human race not being omniscient at this time.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546296&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="FAEzeTIfGyAdmYmSpUil4pPzk0RARPFNWRcEztI1TeI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 13 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546296">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546297" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505379889"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>SL, You missed a piece:<br /> Yet mainstream science (including Ethan) constantly insists that it is in fact a malleable and mass-guiding medium, even though it is also “nothing” but a geometric math model. Real science does investigate, describe and try to explain the real world of physical stuff and forces.</p> <p>If you insist that IT is curved by mass and in turn IT guides the movement of masses, then IT must be something, not nothing. Unlike Ethan, I am committed to honesty in science.<br /> Maybe the Higgs Field will become the new name for the ("non-existent") aether... space filled with energy quanta connecting everything. That would be quantum physics' replacement of GR's "curved spacetime," now (dishonestly) treated as an established fact.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546297&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="8EyhsPdK9pJcS5Z-7qyN7nXLte7DK-HooHIULOG7LGI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 14 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546297">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546298" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505422603"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@MM,</p> <p>Can you please keep it on topic, and leave the ridiculous self-glorification and personal attacks out.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546298&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ca63tuurbqer8-TP_GXqoHsMyOAruxUnHvr25tBXsbk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 14 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546298">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546299" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505452595"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>MM,</p> <p>Where do you get the idea that spacetime is regarded as "nothingness"? Science certainly does not promote that idea. There seems to be a confusion between terms like "vacuum" or "empty space" and the term "nothing". The term "vacuum" or "empty space" can be defined simply as a region in which there is no matter. That does not imply that it is "nothing". There are indeed quantum fields and virtual particles found in vacuum, so it cannot be "nothing". </p> <p>Once the distinction is made between "vacuum" and "nothing", why is it so incredible to you that this vacuum can have the properties ascribed to it by GR? Why cannot vacuum be affected by the presence of nearby matter? Why is it that vacuum cannot affect the motion of matter?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546299&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="1TKRTnuPnjXrdx1iZWd5D-ROY9Ne11bHz-S5rS-Jhc0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 15 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546299">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546300" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505453274"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Elle,</p> <p>The problem you have is conflating terms; it's not necessarily a problem with your idea. (not that your idea is necessarily right; but I am not really qualified to definitively speak to that question). The term "aether" as it has been used historically in physics referred to something that is completely different from what you propose, something that HAS definitively been ruled out. The term aether was invented because Galilean relativity was well known by the time Maxwell worked out the full electromagnetic equations, and the alternative that actually turned out to be correct was so counterintuitive that nobody actually thought about it (until Einstein). Galilean relativity basically states that there is no such thing as the absolute velocity of anything. Statements like "the velocity of light is 3.0E8 m/s" are to be regarded as nonsensical. To make that statement sensible required a modification such as "the velocity of light relative to its medium of propagation is 3.0E8 m/s". Maxwell's equations made precisely the first statement. Since this was not acceptable, physicists modified it to the second one and used the term "aether" to refer to the medium through which light travelled. </p> <p>This aether was considered a physical substance. All kinds of strange properties were ascribed to it based on the observed motion of light. It was held to be as rigid as steel, but easily passed through without noticing. </p> <p>It was only once Einstein developed SR that the correct modification "light travels at a speed of 3.0E8 m/s with respect to all observers" was realized. That eliminated the need for the aether, and all of its strange properties. The idea that there is a field permeating all of space does not resurrect this idea of the aether. The aether had properties quite different from the Higgs field. Like I said, I am not qualified to discuss the viability of the idea that the Higgs field might be the cause of gravity. I do know, however, that the Higgs field is not identical to the old aether.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546300&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="M1PSXC7_ByTar0g1eQLU-A5-6OYVDjDPFPP-Ey7P-qI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 15 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546300">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546301" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505464845"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Sean T, #27:<br /> "Where do you get the idea that spacetime is regarded as “nothingness”? Science certainly does not promote that idea."</p> <p>Ethan, quoted in #3 above (my caps):<br /> “The conventional thinking is that when we talk about empty space — the “vacuum” — we are talking about what we physically know as NOTHINGNESS ITSELF. This is what contains the entire Universe. Nothing more is required. You can certainly invent something more (or something else), but unless it has a physical difference from the predictions of NOTHINGNESS ITSELF, it doesn’t have a physical meaning.”</p> <p>Try to keep up with Ethan's contradictions and presentation of theoretical conjecture as facts.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546301&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="1YkFYcwhBrvU_QtxTVkMTUqY7RCx4rkZfVLfKOTq_S4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 15 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546301">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546302" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505466759"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Sean T,</p> <p>Sure for a lot of things an aether is no longer needed.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546302&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="rX3uphMz4mcDW_-RURvrYEP7qfHCpqG7thTqRSjW30M"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 15 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546302">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546303" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505468313"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Elle: I think Sean's point is that calling it an 'aether' would confuse it with an historical notion which it doesn't resemble.</p> <p>Do you remember an earlier post by me about the confusion caused by physicists naming properties the same words used by lay people to denote other things (like 'spin')? Lay people then try and analogize the technical concept to the common meaning of the word, with bad results.</p> <p>Sure we <i>could</i> call it an aether and try and keep in mind that it's not the same sort of aether that 19th century people were talking about. But IMO that would cause greater confusion, not greater understanding. 20th century spacetime and 19th century aether are not the same thing.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546303&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="oBrcZFEwbJpj_h_3AEPe_u7v-1TYHdPvKX2jOAgeuhU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 15 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546303">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546304" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505514413"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Eric,</p> <p><i>"… spacetime and … aether are not the same thing."</i></p> <p>Is there anyone who ever said that they are the same thing? The former is a mathematical model, the latter a substance.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546304&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="vW9iktmmnR7bMwW5w4Jqwh6gZXOubGJSkQpSaOnTE50"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 15 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546304">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/startswithabang/2017/09/10/comments-of-the-week-176-from-making-heavy-elements-to-why-the-sky-is-blue%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Sun, 10 Sep 2017 06:40:29 +0000 esiegel 37096 at https://scienceblogs.com From future technology to the cause of dark energy https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/03/comments-of-the-week-175-from-future-technology-to-the-cause-of-dark-energy <span>From future technology to the cause of dark energy</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>“There will be days when we lose faith. Days when our allies turn against us...but the day will never come that we forsake this planet and its people.” ―Optimus Prime</p></blockquote> <p>There was too much to simply keep it to a single article a day this week here at Starts With A Bang! The dynamic duo of Megan Watzke and Kimberly Arcand published a delightful contribution on scale, and we're gearing up for a month where we'll highlight some of the telescopes of the 2020s (and maybe beyond) that will help shape the future of astronomy.</p> <p>In the meantime, those of you who caught totality from the eclipse have affirmed to me that it was, in fact, one of the greatest experiences of your lifetime. Want to know exactly what it was like?</p> <p>Well, check out our <a href="https://soundcloud.com/ethan-siegel-172073460/starts-with-a-bang-23-experiencing-a-total-solar-eclipse-for-the-first-time">latest episode</a> of the <a href="https://soundcloud.com/ethan-siegel-172073460">Starts With A Bang podcast</a>, where we highlight exactly that!</p> <p></p><center> <iframe frameborder="no" height="450" scrolling="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/340134482&amp;color=ff5500&amp;auto_play=false&amp;hide_related=false&amp;show_comments=true&amp;show_user=true&amp;show_reposts=false&amp;visual=true" width="100%"></iframe><p></p></center> <p>Thanks to our generous Patreon supporters (including some of you), we've got some fantastic ideas in the pipeline that I can't wait for you to read.</p> <p>I just received word that we're six weeks away from the publication of <a href="http://amzn.to/2wX6B3Y">Treknology</a>, and that enough preorders have happened that they're <em>already</em> going to have to do a second printing of the book! (That's good news, probably.) But you're not here to get book updates; you're here for the bonus science. With that said, let's get right to it, and into our <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/category/comments-of-the-week/">comments of the week</a>!</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/05/Ev059HR_3D-1200x954.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-36211" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="477" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/05/Ev059HR_3D-1200x954-600x477.jpg" width="600" /></a> The particle tracks emanating from a high energy collision at the LHC in 2014. Although these collisions are plentiful and incredibly energetic, they have not yet yielded any compelling evidence of physics beyond the Standard Model. Image credit: Wikimedia Commons user Pcharito. <p> </p> </div> <blockquote><p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/27/comments-of-the-week-174-from-growing-black-holes-to-nuclear-bombs/#comment-582036">Elle H.C.</a> on nuclear reactions and energy conservation: "On the mass-energy conversion, so why do they say there’s no energy released during particle collisions, like in a fission reaction for instance, or is this something I misunderstood?"</p></blockquote> <p>So there's an important starting point that I want to make sure gets emphasized: in every particle-particle, particle-photon, antiparticle-particle, etc., reaction that's ever been observed, energy and momentum both are always 100% conserved. If you add up the energy of the rest mass plus the kinetic energy of the initial reactants, and compare it to the energy of the rest mass plus the kinetic energy of the products, energy is always conserved. Those two numbers will balance one another out. Now, that doesn't mean that the masses are going to balance! In fact, in pretty much every nuclear reaction, they don't; either you have fusion (where energy is released, bringing you up closer to iron-56), or fission (where energy is released, bringing you down closer to iron-56), and so there's more <em>kinetic</em> energy available at the end. That's what normally happens. So overall, energy is usually liberated in a nuclear reaction, but it's just being converted from one form (mass) to another (kinetic energy).</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2015/10/fig_four8.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-full wp-image-33629" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="181" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2015/10/fig_four8.jpg" width="600" /></a> The only way to 'disrupt' a proton, or any particle, is via a collision, interaction, or decay involving another external particle. Image credit: Ned Wright / Sean Carroll, via <a href="https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll3/Carroll4.html">https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll3/Carroll4.html</a>. <p> </p> </div> <p>And from <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/27/comments-of-the-week-174-from-growing-black-holes-to-nuclear-bombs/#comment-582060">Elle H.C.</a> again, on what may be the root of all these misconceptions: "I am only focusing on the idea of how vibrations might change the energy/mass levels of a Proton, and if that may lead to the disruption of a Proton. Please do explain to us what’s so ‘misleading’ about this question."</p></blockquote> <p>What's misleading is that "vibration" is a completely unrelated classical concept that has no business in the quantum world. It's not related and the question makes no sense, as nuclei don't vibrate, energy levels don't vibrate, and nothing of the sort causes the disruption or disintegration of a proton. For what seems like ages, you've been going on about this, and I couldn't for the life of me figure out why you wouldn't take "this makes no sense" for an answer. But now I think I see. For clarification, you also <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/27/comments-of-the-week-174-from-growing-black-holes-to-nuclear-bombs/#comment-582062">provided a link</a> to where this idea of vibration comes from: <a href="http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/12/07/how-to-explain-the-higgs-mechanism/">Sean Carroll's blog</a>. And Sean, like many, talks about how a particle can be viewed as a vibration, or excitation, of a fundamental field. For example, he calls the Higgs boson a vibration of the Higgs field. So I think this is where your misconception arises, because you are picturing the field as an underlying, static thing, permeating all of space, and that it's vibrating in one place, creating a particle there, and so if you make that field vibrate in one spot over and over, perhaps you can make something interesting happen. I <em>think</em> that's where your mind is. And if so, here's why it's wrong.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/zhIUh.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-36585" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="451" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/09/zhIUh-600x451.jpg" width="600" /></a> The vibrating modes of a guitar string. Image credit: Mark Peterson / Mt. Holyoke. <p> </p> </div> <p>Sure, for a physical string, it makes sense to talk about different vibrational modes, and how they correspond to different sounds or frequencies. But for fields and particles, they're only called:</p> <ul><li>modes,</li> <li>or vibrations,</li> <li>or energy levels,</li> <li>or excitations,</li> </ul><p>because the different allowable states obey an analogous set of mathematical rules. But <em>nothing is vibrating</em>, and <em>nothing is excited</em>, and <em>nothing is physically at a different level</em>, and so on. The proton does not vibrate; space does not vibrate; even fields do not vibrate. Particles don't exist (or not exist) because a field is (or isn't) vibrating; particles exist (or not) with a particular configuration because of the quantum state that a quanta of energy occupies (or doesn't occupy). I hope this clears up your "vibration" questions once and for all! You have misinterpreted an analogy to mean something other than what it means, and have been talking about physical impossibilities as though they had validity because of it. But that's not the end of the world! It just means that you have an opportunity, so long as you're humble before the laws of nature, to learn about where your misconception is. You can learn about the way the Universe actually works, revise your picture of it, and begin drawing more valid conclusions and asking better questions. If you can do that, you're well on your way to a satisfying life that's rooted in the physical reality we all inhabit.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/max_7841-1200x801.jpg"><img alt="The ALPHA collaboration has come the closest of any experiment to measuring the behavior of neutral antimatter in a gravitational field. Depending on the results, this could open the door to incredible new technologies. Image credit: Maximilien Brice/CERN." class="size-medium wp-image-36545" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="401" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/max_7841-1200x801-600x401.jpg" width="600" /></a> The ALPHA collaboration has come the closest of any experiment to measuring the behavior of neutral antimatter in a gravitational field. Depending on the results, this could open the door to incredible new technologies. Image credit: Maximilien Brice/CERN. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/26/ask-ethan-what-science-experiments-will-open-the-door-to-the-future-synopsis/#comment-582035">Frank</a> on what is and isn't possible: "Basically, we don’t really know many big ideas in science-fiction are really theoretically/practically possible or not. And that means our knowledge of physics is incomplete. And that means we should try to answer those questions by doing more theoretical research, as well as more experiments and observations."</p></blockquote> <p>Here's the important thing, to be totally transparent: Everything that we can draw conclusions about is based only in our current understanding of physics and the laws that govern the Universe. But it's fun, as a theorist, to play the game of "what if?" What if all we know isn't all there is to physics? What if there are some new things? And if X or Y or Z is a new thing, what are the consequences that arise? That was the point of <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/08/26/ask-ethan-what-science-experiments-will-open-the-door-to-the-future/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">last week's Ask Ethan article</a>: what could possibly occur to bring some of our "science fiction" dream technologies into reality? And if antimatter has a negative gravitational mass (we haven't made a sensitive enough test), or dark matter can be harnessed and turned/amplified into energy via <em>E = mc^2</em> (it may be possible), or if the Universe rotates at the right rate to allow closed timelike curves (it probably doesn't, but it isn't ruled out), some very interesting consequences arise. In particular, some presently thought-to-be-impossible ideas become possible. And that's worth remembering, as we continue to experiment.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/1280px-Antimatter_Rocket-1200x960.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-36546" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="480" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/1280px-Antimatter_Rocket-1200x960-600x480.jpg" width="600" /></a> All rockets ever envisioned require some type of fuel, but if a dark matter engine were created, new fuel is always to be found simply by traveling through the galaxy. Image credit: NASA / MSFC. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/26/ask-ethan-what-science-experiments-will-open-the-door-to-the-future-synopsis/#comment-582045">CFT</a> on loss and behavior: "My last few posts were very upset and angry, I made the mistake of drinking after receiving a phone call about the death of someone very dear to me."</p></blockquote> <p>Well all the best to you in these troubling times. May you make peace with what has happened and come out okay with yourself, your life, and the world without your loved one on the other side of your grief. Thank you, also, to <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/26/ask-ethan-what-science-experiments-will-open-the-door-to-the-future-synopsis/#comment-582145">rich r</a> for being a model of kindness in his compassion to CFT. Kindness, remember, costs us nothing.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/Hurricane-Harvey.jpg"><img alt="From the International Space Station on August 25, 2017, 250 miles above Earth, a NASA astronaut captured photos of Hurricane Harvey. Image credit: NASA." class="size-medium wp-image-36569" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="337" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/Hurricane-Harvey-600x337.jpg" width="600" /></a> From the International Space Station on August 25, 2017, 250 miles above Earth, a NASA astronaut captured photos of Hurricane Harvey. Image credit: NASA. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/28/how-hurricane-harveys-record-setting-rainfall-is-happening-right-now-synopsis/#comment-582068">John</a> on the physics of hurricanes: "It’s notable to read here of a science that appears essentially the same as was presented to me in primary school many moons ago!"</p></blockquote> <p>This is very much the case! The basics of hurricane science and tropical storm formation, in general, has changed very little in perhaps the past 40+ years. Once we began launching Earth-monitoring satellites to watch how these storms form over the ocean, we learned very quickly what the mechanisms at play were. Air blowing rapidly over a warm ocean (typically, at least 80 degrees Fahrenheit or 27 degrees Celsius) will result in that air collecting water, rising, cooling, forming clouds, and then the air dropping again, while additional warm, wet air continuing to rise beneath it. The faster the winds and the warmer the water, the more devastating this can get. People with a variety of political persuasions are going to argue about what the finer points of this one event -- Hurricane Harvey -- means, but the previous paragraph, about the basic science behind hurricane formation, will not change, no matter what is legislated.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/globe_inset_v3.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-36562" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="600" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/globe_inset_v3-600x600.jpg" width="600" /></a> The entire path of totality across Earth's surface, for the August 21, 2017 eclipse. Only 0.26% of the surface experienced totality. Image credit: NASA's Scientific Visualization Studio. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/29/no-neil-degrasse-tyson-squashing-curiosity-and-wonder-is-never-okay-synopsis/#comment-582072">Sean T</a> on Neil deGrasse Tyson's wonder-crushing statements: "Most people will only experience an eclipse when it is relatively close to home, as this one was for Americans (as will, of course the 2024 one be as well). Let people just wonder at and enjoy it when they can."</p></blockquote> <p>Do you see the above image? See that "giant" swath where the eclipse falls? That quarter-of-a-percent of Earth's surface? According to Neil, that's what "not rare" looks like. Now, there was misinformation out there -- and it's always good to correct misinformation -- but it's important to do it in a way that's inclusive, that doesn't talk down to people, and that amplifies the wonder and awe at the natural Universe. At least, that's what I try to have be my <em>modus operandi</em>. But I have gotten, particularly on Twitter and Tumblr, a lot of hate mail about the piece I wrote about Neil. This is one of the dangers of a personality cult: if you deify someone, you lose the ability to recognize their flaws, no matter how egregious they are. And if you believe it about yourself, you lose the ability to self-improve. May we all never fall into that trap here!</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/Jangle-Joe-Sexton.jpg"><img alt="The eclipsed Sun, the visible corona, and the reddish hues around the edges of the Moon's shadow — along with human beings rapt with awe — were among the most spectacular sights of the total eclipse. Image credit: Joe Sexton / Jesse Angle." class="size-medium wp-image-36531" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="450" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/Jangle-Joe-Sexton-600x450.jpg" width="600" /></a> The eclipsed Sun, the visible corona, and the reddish hues around the edges of the Moon's shadow — along with human beings rapt with awe — were among the most spectacular sights of the total eclipse. Image credit: Joe Sexton / Jesse Angle. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/29/no-neil-degrasse-tyson-squashing-curiosity-and-wonder-is-never-okay-synopsis/#comment-582096">jvj</a> on another eclipse experience: "I spent 45 minutes explaining how an eclipse happens to a young person, with a HS education, who didn’t know what the Milky Way is. He spent 1 1/2 hours watching the eclipse with his family with a pair of Celestron 2X eclipse glasses I gave him. (We had 80% totality in our location). No doubt hundreds of thousands of folks who haven’t given “science” a second thought in a long time also joined my friend in experiencing the eclipse."</p></blockquote> <p>Part of the reason, I think, that so many people don't engage with science is that it feels so foreign to them. It feels as though it's divorced from their day-to-day experience. What made this eclipse special is that there were literally <strong>200,000,000 people</strong> who lived within a 1-day drive of the path of totality. This was a very rare opportunity for people to experience a cosmic event that only occurs over any particular location on Earth, on average, once every 400 years or so. Yes, eclipses <em>anywhere</em> aren't rare, but you don't get to be everywhere on Earth at once. Relating science to what people experience and understand is one of the biggest challenges of science communication. Yes, Neil correctly stated a fact, achieving McLovin levels of communication.</p> <p></p><center> <iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eRZoLV7JV7s" width="560"></iframe><p></p></center> <p>But I think everyone who demands more isn't being unreasonable. In fact, people who think Neil should be immune from criticism or improvements because of the good he does are missing the point of learning, of self-improvement, and of knowledge entirely. But that's just my opinion, and you're entitled to your own as well.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/bennu_size_comparison.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-36571" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="287" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/bennu_size_comparison-600x287.jpg" width="600" /></a> Comparing the size of unrelated objects, such as a 'familiar' one with an 'unfamiliar' one, can help people get a feel for scale in a uniquely powerful way. Image credit: NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center Conceptual Image Lab. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/30/why-understanding-scale-is-vital-not-just-for-science-but-for-everyone-synopsis/#comment-582108">symball</a> on visualizations for scale: "Here in the UK we have a more standard unit scale, for areas it is the size of Wales, and for volume either olympic swimming pools or Wembley Stadium. For height we use double decker buses, or occasionally Nelsons Column."</p></blockquote> <p>I personally propose that we begin using a single, standard unit for areas, volumes, heights, and weights.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/GodzillaRSC.jpeg"><img alt="Godzilla munching on a train" class="size-medium wp-image-18669" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="432" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/GodzillaRSC-600x432.jpg" width="600" /></a> Image credit: Godzilla the motion picture, by Ishirō Honda, image retrieved from Will Dodson. <p> </p> </div> <p>How do you feel about units of "Godzillas"?</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/dietrich_bin_neutron_star_mgr_01.jpg"><img alt="3D rendering of the gravitational waves emitted from a binary neutron star system at merger. The central region (in density) is stretched by a factor of ~5 for better visibility. Image credit: AEI Potsdam-Golm." class="size-medium wp-image-36567" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="351" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/dietrich_bin_neutron_star_mgr_01-600x351.jpg" width="600" /></a> 3D rendering of the gravitational waves emitted from a binary neutron star system at merger. The central region (in density) is stretched by a factor of ~5 for better visibility. Image credit: AEI Potsdam-Golm. <p> </p> </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/31/5-facts-we-can-learn-if-ligo-detects-merging-neutron-stars-synopsis/#comment-582137">Anadish Kumar Pal</a> on whether LIGO could have detected merging neutron stars or not: "There might be some astronomical observation of gravitational waves produced by neutron stars; although, I think, this time it is quite improbable, looking at the sheer fortuitousness of the so-called detection makes it untenable — the VIRGO run was too short (just 25 days), LIGO never found any orbiting neutron stars’ gravitational waves in the last 3 years, while there are too many neutron stars nearby to have slipped LIGO’s notice."</p></blockquote> <p>Remember, please, how probability works. And combine that with how gravitational wave events work. The amplitude of gravitational waves increase tremendously in the final moments, as the distance between two objects reaches a minimum. The known neutron star pairs are far too distant to have their gravitational wave amplitudes detected. In fact, it's only during the final seconds, at most, that inspiraling binaries will be at the appropriate frequencies and amplitudes to be seen by LIGO.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/06/f5.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-36298" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="475" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/06/f5-600x475.jpg" width="600" /></a> The sensitivities of a variety of gravitational wave detectors, old, new, and proposed. Note, in particular, Advanced LIGO (in orange), LISA (in dark blue), and BBO (in light blue). Image credit: Minglei Tong, Class.Quant.Grav. 29 (2012) 155006. <p> </p> </div> <p>So saying "we didn't see anything in years" is like buying a lottery ticket every second for a few years (it was months, actually, but whatever), and not winning, and drawing the conclusion that <em>therefore</em><em>, I won't win if I play for another few weeks</em>. But maybe you will! No one expected LIGO would detect its first black hole-black hole merger after turning on for just a few days in September of 2015, but it happened. Merging neutron stars -- with or without VIRGO observing it, too -- could have happened. Of course, it could <em>not</em> have happened, too. It's just speculation at this point. But don't say "too many neutron stars nearby to have slipped LIGO’s notice" as though that's a fact. Until we know the merger rate and the local population of neutron star binaries, that's not a valid conclusion.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/04/LQCD1.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-36034" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="424" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/04/LQCD1-600x424.jpg" width="600" /></a> As computational power and Lattice QCD techniques have improved over time, so has the accuracy to which various quantities about the proton, such as its component spin contributions, can be computed. Image credit: Laboratoire de Physique de Clermont / ETM Collaboration. <p> </p> </div> <p>And finally, from <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/09/01/a-new-explanation-for-dark-energy-the-matter-in-our-universe-synopsis/#comment-582148">Frank</a> on analogous experiments: "If physical Black Hole analogue(s) possible, then maybe we should try to find physical analogue(s) for expansion of the universe/Dark Energy."</p></blockquote> <p>You must be <em>very</em> precise if you want to create an analogue system. Most people, when they talk about building a system as an analogy for a system that we cannot physically study in a lab, misunderstand what's going on entirely. It's very tempting to try and create a visualization in your head for what an analogous system would look like, to set that system up, and then run experiments. But that is <em>not</em> what an "analogue system" as you call it actually is. Rather, it's a system that is governed by the same equations, which may or may not look anything like the original system you're trying to model. You know how we build black hole analogs? We create a low-temperature, condensed matter system with a rapidly flowing fluid, where it flows so fast it exceeds the speed of sound in that medium. These <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_black_hole">sonic black holes</a> are called this because sound waves cannot escape from the fluid. It's a mathematical analogy. We can try to find a physical analogue for an expanding Universe or dark energy, but that's a tall order that won't be easily accomplished by a conventional, positive-pressure fluid or gas. It's important to be open-minded, but when you confront your idea with physical reality, it's reality that shall always be the victor and the arbiter of what's right. Thanks for a great week, everyone, and I'll see you back here tomorrow for more Starts With A Bang!</p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/startswithabang" lang="" about="/startswithabang" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">esiegel</a></span> <span>Sun, 09/03/2017 - 02:04</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/black-holes" hreflang="en">Black Holes</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/comments-week" hreflang="en">Comments of the Week</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/dark-energy" hreflang="en">dark energy</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/gravity" hreflang="en">gravity</a></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-categories field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Categories</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/channel/physical-sciences" hreflang="en">Physical Sciences</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546181" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504422386"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Ethan,</p> <p>I can follow you perfectly, and you are right to point out why I am wrong, I have no problem with this 'strict' mathematical vision of the world.</p> <p>But I guess I'm here on Einstein's side in his discussions with Bohr, that QM is incomplete, to single out:</p> <p><i>"But nothing is vibrating, and nothing is excited, and nothing is physically at a different level, and so on."</i></p> <p>When looking at the double slit experiment how can a Photon 'sense' the other slit when there is 'nothing', or what's going on with entangled? QM has this all worked out in theory, but my guess is that in reality that 'nothing' you talk about is 'something'.</p> <p>To quote Einstein:</p> <blockquote><p>"We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity <b>space without aether is unthinkable</b>; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it." - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#General_relativity">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#General_relativity</a></p></blockquote> <p>The scientific community has ruled against Einstein on this topic, so I guess one has to come up with something better than QM and I'll let the discussion rest without proof.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546181&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="QsdaBR0iLeusU9bOU0WVx3HaVgdqL9oDn3H3U5skiRQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 03 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546181">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546182" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504428795"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Regarding:<br /> And finally, from Frank on analogous experiments: “If physical Black Hole analogue(s) possible, then maybe we should try to find physical analogue(s) for expansion of the universe/Dark Energy.”</p> <p>A "Black Hole analogue" has been found; it is the "an exciton-polariton condensate" as discussed in the following</p> <p>Observation of self-amplifying Hawking radiation in an analog black<br /><a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.6550">https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.6550</a></p> <p>and</p> <p>Black Holes and Wormholes in spinor polariton condensates<br /><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1104.3013">https://arxiv.org/abs/1104.3013</a></p> <p>It is well established fact that spinor dark mode polariton condensates are analog black holes that produce Hawking radiation. </p> <p>See</p> <p><a href="https://phys.org/news/2016-08-physicist-quantum-effects-hawking-lab.html">https://phys.org/news/2016-08-physicist-quantum-effects-hawking-lab.html</a></p> <p>Physicist claims to have observed quantum effects of Hawking radiation in the lab for the first time</p> <p>Read more at: <a href="https://phys.org/news/2016-08-physicist-quantum-effects-hawking-lab.html#jCp">https://phys.org/news/2016-08-physicist-quantum-effects-hawking-lab.htm…</a></p> <p>The production of Hawking radiation in coherent optical systems producing bose condinsation is well established.</p> <p>In LENR research, strange particle emissions in both LENR fuel and LENR ash that I beleive are based on the polariton bose condinsate based analog particles have been shown to produce particle tracks on photographic emulsions that are predicted to be generated by an analog tachyon monopole particle. These particles are oftentimes seen to be coherent and coordinated in their movement in swarms.</p> <p>For details see</p> <p><a href="http://restframe.com/mm/posts/analysis-of-groups-of-tracks.html">http://restframe.com/mm/posts/analysis-of-groups-of-tracks.html</a></p> <p>Also, as predicted by string theory, these analoge strange particles ( as tachyons) are also seen to produce mesons as a consequence of hadronization.</p> <p>See for details in theory:</p> <p>Plasma-Balls in Large N Gauge Theories and Localized Black Holes<br /><a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0507219v3.pdf">https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0507219v3.pdf</a></p> <p>The Inside Story: Quasilocal Tachyons and Black Holes<br /><a href="http://slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub">http://slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546182&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="8JDe_ERM6gHPymm-qDqsSsqSD5uYbaZ1NJiOROJpga0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Axil (not verified)</span> on 03 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546182">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546183" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504433689"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>When looking at the double slit experiment how can a Photon ‘sense’ the other slit when there is ‘nothing’, or what’s going on with entangled?</p></blockquote> <p>Many (I want to say 'all' but I'm not sure about that) wavefunctions are much larger than what we would consider the discrete particle to be. The photon is, in reality, 'smeared out' over a much larger area. So it doesn't need to 'sense' the other slit through some exchange of intermediates between it and the second slit situated away from it; instead, the photon is literally big enough to hit both at once and thus 'know' whether the second slit is there. It doesn't really 'know' anything of course, but the point is that the interaction between the photon and the sheet encompasses both slits because it's wavefunction is that big.</p> <p>Similarly with entangled particles; entanglement doesn't mean they are shooting some beam of information between far-separated particles, it means the wavefunction of the pair is smeared out over the entire area between them (and yes, this can literally be meters, kilometers, even hypothetically light years). If this seems crazy, it's worth pointing out that some wavefunctions are literally <i>infinite</i> in extent. The value of the function may decrease with distance (and the probability of finding a particle in any given spot goes down as the square of that value), so we can for practical purposes ignore the wavefunction beyond a certain distance as an approximation. But the math for such functions says that that particle has a non-zero wavefunction out to infinity.</p> <blockquote><p>QM has this all worked out in theory, but my guess is that in reality that ‘nothing’ you talk about is ‘something’.</p></blockquote> <p>You and Michael Mooney both have an issue with reifying descriptive words. No natural language (including English) has accurate terms for modern physical concepts. The mathematical expressions are the most accurate terms we can come up with; the words we use are <i>imperfect approximations</i> for those more accurate mathematical terms. So for example, a thermodynamic partial change in entropy, ds, <i>is</i> dQ/T. It is not "order decreases" which is just a crappy English approximation. It is not "entropy increases over time in a closed system" which is another better (but still squishy) English approximation of the math. It's the math. Likewise, when physicists describe some subatomic thing or force as "vibrating", that's just a crappy approximate English term for the math. It probably means that some of the math describing the system has the same form as an oscillator (such as Energy = 1/2*k*(variable)^2). That's it. Quantum mechanical 'spin' doesn't mean some literal physical object is literally physically spinning; it means the object has a angular momentum component.</p> <p>This sort of confusion and laypeople reifying words incorrectly is, AIUI, one of the reasons physicists started going to crazy terms like top/bottom, strange/charm, up/down for quarks. They saw the confusion caused by the earlier historical choice of terms like "spin" and decided they didn't want that to happen again. </p> <p>So, my advice to you and MM and every other layperson who thinks they've discovered some flaw in modern physics by reading a natural language description of some theory is: <i>learn the math</i>. That's the REAL 'description' of the theory - not the words. Learn it backward and forwards. Learn it so well you can solve the equations and problems physicsts use these theories to solve - at least to the level of a 2nd or 3rd year undergraduate. Once you grok the math, then you'll really know what these theories say. But as long as you're stuck at the no-math, natural language level of understanding, any extrapolation or metaphoric reasoning which leads you to believe there's an error in the theory is <i>much</i> more likely to be a result of your lack of understanding, not a flaw in the theory.</p> <p>They play's the thing. :) <i>Play</i> here meaning actually working through the equations.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546183&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="yYZycNDLb_WVnr2h1NHorMaXvwgxGbgdg3LHPB5rCsA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 03 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546183">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546184" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504436932"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Eric,</p> <p><i>"space without aether is unthinkable"</i></p> <p>A.E.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546184&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="YEAOO6hbstrOoMd_gnGAM4yZP2Q7kOUX7eciMVCISl8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 03 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546184">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546185" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504445678"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Highly recommend Rise of the Rocket Girls by Nathalia Holt. An easy holiday read, focussing on the efforts of the women 'computers' in the space program, much like the book by Dava Sobel called the Glass Universe focussing on the women who read astronomy photographic plates.</p> <p>Some nuggets (i.e. my ignorance):</p> <p>The Suicide Squad. Students at Caltech who got interested in rockets in 1949. Called that since things kept blowing up. After damaging a building they were not permitted to continue on campus, so they went to a spot in the desert that soon became the JPL.</p> <p>Barbara Paulson was the first 'computer' and part of the Suicide Squad. She got to work all through space missions until she retired in 1993 when the Mars Orbiter was in progress.</p> <p>FORTRAN is a contraction of Formula Translator ( I missed out on FORTRAN - started with basic and assembly language).</p> <p>Richard Feynman was in the Explorer 1 control room when it launched.</p> <p>A reminder of how the pill transformed womens ability to be part of the workforce.</p> <p>The Ranger moon missions - named after the JPL heads Ford pickup truck.</p> <p>How lucky they were with Mariner 2 (Mariner 1 was a disaster - failed because of a single transcription error, and that in Mariner 2 a short magically corrected itself) and that it was the first USA 'win' in the space race.</p> <p>The people at JPL were far more interested in Mars and Venus than that dumb boring moon rock.</p> <p>After Ranger 6 failed (as did the previous 5) James Webb himself told the JPL they had just one more go.</p> <p>Mariner 3 confused paint chips for stars, jeopardizing its mission.</p> <p>Pantyhose was originally called Panti-Legs. Yea, I know.</p> <p>Thomas Edison coined the term 'computer bug'. Popularised by Grace Hopper in 1947 when they actually found a moth trapped in the relay points of a panel - hence joking that they were 'debugging' and the term took hold.</p> <p>Apollo 12 landed next to Surveyor 6, and picked up the pieces. Still the only lunar space probe that came home.</p> <p>The Space Shuttle was based on von Brauns design for the Nazi Amerika Bomber that would go suborbital and drop bombs on New York City.</p> <p>Voyager 2 was launched BEFORE Voyager 1! (But landed second).</p> <p>Sue Finley - hired in 1958 just before Explorer 1 launched the USAs first satellite.<br /> Worked on missions for all the planets.<br /> Still there - longest female employee and working on the Juno mission after which she will retire.<br /> WHAT a mind bogglingly amazing career. Hell I would like to spend a few hours (at least) with her in a bar.</p> <p>From the first baby rockets fired in 1949 to landing on the moon in 1969.<br /> Just 20 years.<br /> Good grief.</p> <p>More amazing, maybe. The first USA ship to reach the moon crash-landed (on purpose) in 1964. Just 5 years later they landed two men. Wow. I can't get a grant funded in that time these days :-(</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546185&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="3VfLd9_hBQcwBnUehbCRGoTYNkohf0gORp6j9lbkKCE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Steve Blackband (not verified)</span> on 03 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546185">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546186" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504481304"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ chelle</p> <p>Well, Einstein also said: "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will."</p> <p>Just because someone made great contribution in one area, doesn't make him absolutely correct about everything. Argument from authority is fallacy. As Sagan put it: "One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else."</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546186&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="jNLn-U_gzRUTECo7F0g-ecXNWr5ZfImHAexrb0HFHCM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 03 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546186">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546187" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504486241"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL,</p> <p>When it comes to GR you better listen to the master:</p> <p><i>"We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities"</i></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546187&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="h5wmLo3fZOQSFrbR6Q6pQLugMLvwL8K7GQ5F8YhhC9E"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 03 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546187">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546188" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504487382"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>i was replying to your quote about "space without aether is unthinkable", like that somehow "proves" there should be aether. at lest be honest chelle. </p> <p>p.s. that same "master" as you call him, didn't believe in BB or that universe is expanding when his own theory showed it would. There are no masters or overlords or rulers in science. That kind of talk is more in line with MM, and you're starting to sound more like him every day.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546188&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="JFjlylpJdwFdYrsgCm62qlEGEkuHfE9vPL3RcEYao30"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 03 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546188">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546189" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504488551"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL,</p> <p><i>"i was replying to your quote about “space without aether is unthinkable”, like that somehow “proves” there should be aether. at lest be honest chelle."</i></p> <p>I was honest because it came out of the same quote, those two arguments go hand in hand, and please allow me to be a bit poetic, absolutely nothing wrong with calling Einstein 'The Master' for Christ sake, every thousands get their 'Masters' diploma and even MC Hammer was a Master of Ceremonie.</p> <p>Anyway FYI as already posted once before:</p> <p><i>"Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:</i></p> <blockquote><p>It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. <b>But we do not call it this because it is taboo.</b></p></blockquote> <p>So please don't be a hypocrite saying we should question authority; but the moment I do so, you try to stump me down.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546189&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="TwpK19YzI2ljF1yyxXvbynE2L_bxGg-zNU79ftSX_5I"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 03 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546189">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546190" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504488774"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>The reference came out of this book:<br /><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Different-Universe-Reinventing-Physics-Bottom/dp/0465038298">https://www.amazon.com/Different-Universe-Reinventing-Physics-Bottom/dp…</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546190&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="aLA6zPnM_GxSTDDk9QdArPGyhfa6jQAAcTg7TGSxl6I"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 03 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546190">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546191" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504492110"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>One of the unresolved, and possibly unresolvable, tensions in Science – in the instance Physics – is whether it <b>describes</b> or <b>explains</b>. As seen above, some are firmly (even emphatically) members of the descriptive camp. I found Ethan’s “What’s the quantum reason that sodium and water react?” (05-AUG-17) a delightful example of Science’s – in that instance physical Chemistry – ability to explain.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546191&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="7YdFS8Bht-HZS_xReH5NYhISVCungNk92DgYGUp2EaM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John (not verified)</span> on 03 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546191">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546192" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504503706"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Whoops sorry. Voyager didn't land of course.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546192&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="lA1xj7g-pf3-i2zkXEhvwZEI-1pFaDshOcL4Z5XxFT4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Steve Blackband (not verified)</span> on 04 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546192">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546193" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504787494"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I love the idea of "Godzillas". But which Godzilla shall we choose? I can see hyperactive working groups, hotly contested papers, and exciting news stories for DECADES!</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546193&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="mhAshz_qYZpbfEPsokESdhofVKz8R8iGO9Yu6Ayi3Ys"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Carl (not verified)</span> on 07 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546193">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546194" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504799176"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Ref; eric 3:<br /> "You and Michael Mooney both have an issue with reifying descriptive words. No natural language (including English) has accurate terms for modern physical concepts. The mathematical expressions are the most accurate terms we can come up with; the words we use are imperfect approximations for those more accurate mathematical terms."</p> <p>Kelley Ross, " The Ontology and Cosmology of Non-Euclidean Geometry:<br /> "§4. Conclusion<br /> Just because the math works doesn't mean that we understand what is happening in nature. Every physical theory has a mathematical component and a conceptual component, but these two are often confused. Many speak as though the mathematical component confers understanding, this even after decades of the beautiful mathematics of quantum mechanics obviously conferring little understanding. The mathematics of Newton's theory of gravity were beautiful and successful for two centuries, but it conferred no understanding about what gravity was. Now we actually have two competing ways of understanding gravity, either through Einstein's geometrical method or through the interaction of virtual particles in quantum mechanics.<br /> Nevertheless, there is often still a kind of deliberate know-nothing-ism that the mathematics is the explanation. It isn't."</p> <p>You reify the math and its model and ignore the "real world" fit as descriptive of the natural cosmos... as if there were no "real world" which the math is enlisted as a tool to describe.</p> <p>You have ignored my reference to Ross's ontology before. No doubt that level of scholarship is way over your head. ... as with all those who insist that "the mathematics is the explanation."</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546194&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="sXeDPsMyIMRIkP6HNxLZgEqgCZWltMp4F-Ol2juFgjE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 07 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546194">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546195" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504800467"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>Just because the math works doesn’t mean that we understand what is happening in nature.</p></blockquote> <p>That may be true. But <i>not even having math that works</i> puts you much lower on the understanding scale.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546195&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="XJdynpphGVJdK_NygUJ4bQAt8LHqRfggP2tonIfTYDs"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 07 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546195">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546196" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504853935"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Ethan wrote:</p> <blockquote><p>I have gotten, particularly on Twitter and Tumblr, a lot of hate mail about the piece I wrote about Neil. This is one of the dangers of a personality cult: if you deify someone, you lose the ability to recognize their flaws, no matter how egregious they are.</p></blockquote> <p>I think the problem is bigger than a cult of personality but rather is a commentary on the nature of Twitter and Social Media. They are algorithmic tuned echo chambers. They actively funnel to you content you want to consume, and often enough your only exposure to counter views are cherry-picked snips being debunked by someone of your like mind. They are tribe building machines.</p> <p>The bias provided by Social Media is one of a number of factors that are reducing society’s critical thinking ability. The ability to take in a foreign idea and examine its strengths and weaknesses is fading. In its place is the adoption of an almost religious orthodoxy where foreign ideas must be shouted down and where the freedom of speech exercised wrongly is viewed as a threat equivalent to actual violence. Every opinion, and too often verified fact, is thoughtcrime to some online tribe or another.</p> <p>That said, hate received from the Neil deGrasse Tyson piece was teed up perfectly for a ‘Finish Him’ response. Please, please, please tell me you went with Keegan-Michael Key’s closing line.</p> <p><a href="https://vimeo.com/138219734">https://vimeo.com/138219734</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546196&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="EQh7Rc2tBQGAfM3IBvEzEcH8SEnHssPeNVfjRtU7GX0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Denier (not verified)</span> on 08 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546196">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546197" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504856577"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>eric,<br /> Did you even attempt to read the Ross paper? If so you clearly did not understand it.<br /> The concept must be clear before quantification of it has any meaning at all.<br /> Study and *understand* the history of the development of non-Euclidean geometry for openers. Study Ross' paper, then get back to me if you learned anything from it. Again, the math is NOT the explanation, contrary to your assertion.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546197&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="M99rmBqc8mYhyea7lhtGPc49IBzAZ4LShkoFnhN0YU8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 08 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546197">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546198" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1505152255"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I read it.</p> <blockquote><p>The concept must be clear before quantification of it has any meaning at all.</p></blockquote> <p>No, he doesn't say that at all. In fact he seems to strongly disagree with your idea that we must all get our ontology straight first, as he says:</p> <p><i>"The most important point is that the ontological status of the dimensions involved with the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic curvature is a question entirely separate from the mathematics. It is also, to an extent, a question that is separate from science -- since a scientific theory may work quite well without out needing to decide what all is going on ontologically."</i></p> <p>Now if you want to argue that the math of Relativity doesn't tell us the ontology of the universe, I'm okay with that. I'll leave metaphysics to the philosophers and happily stick to mere physics. But if you want to claim relativity must be incorrect for some reason having to do with ontology, or that we must all work out our ontologies before we can begin writing down equations, I disagree - and more to the point here, Ross's article <i>doesn't support that conclusion at all</i>. In fact it seems to me he's much more accepting of conventional cosmology than you are, as he happily reports the 'new' (now somewhat old) finding that the universe appears to be open. And he states that curved spacetime is a possibility, while in contrast you don't even accept the concept of spacetime.</p> <p>Ross ends with: <i>"The purpose, then, is to break ground, to open up the issues, and to stir up the complacency that is all too easy for philosophers when they think that somebody else is the expert and understands things quite adequately. It is the philosopher's job to question and inquire, not to accept somebody else's word for somebody else's understanding."</i></p> <p>Which is fine. Asking questions about 'complacent' truth is great. Go do it. Just remember that <i>pace<i> Sagan's famous quote about Bozo, just because some challenges to the scientific status quo turn out to be valuable doesn't mean <i>all</i> challenges will be correct or valuable. Most challenges will be stinkers.</i></i></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546198&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="o_c3hFQ6JuOXWp1WlKXBa1TkAmOVEmhF4DvwjRNZlK0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 11 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546198">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546199" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1506591461"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Denier @ #16 -</p> <p>That was beautiful. Truly. Every word.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546199&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="8382sZaXE_3QuMlghd22gCV1OhCwuXYaonbD6LIcXjc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Carl (not verified)</span> on 28 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546199">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546200" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1506593455"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@eric#18<br /> Your reply got lost in the shuffle until now. (My "notifications" on SWAB do not work.)<br /> Seems you missed the whole point of his paper... which questions the concepts and assumptions upon which non-Euclidean geometry and cosmology are based.</p> <p>His saying that curved spacetime is a* possibility* does not endorse it as an actual entity in the world, as treated by the mainstream. He also did a rundown on extrinsic vs intrinsic curvature and explained that models are just models until verified to fit scientific observation in the world they are supposed to describe. He explained how curvature of any dimension requires the next higher dimension, i.e., that a curved line requires a plane and "curved space" (volume) would require a fourth spatial dimension... a "possiblity" (scare quotes) with no real world referent. </p> <p>Me: The concept must be clear before quantification of it has any meaning at all.<br /> You:<br /> "No, he doesn’t say that at all."<br /> You missed the point that the math is not the explanation. Math models without specific reference to real world phenomena are meaningless. Look at the recent discussion here on the proliferation of inflation models... with all the math you care to chew on (I presume) and no empirical evidence to make it science... just metaphysical imaginings. Oh... but they are all credentialed theoretical physicists, mathematicians and cosmologists!</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546200&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="MkfZWwy8EC4nkfneSrSZWiqFnnQENyxKyAvNT9ja6Ro"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 28 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546200">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/startswithabang/2017/09/03/comments-of-the-week-175-from-future-technology-to-the-cause-of-dark-energy%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Sun, 03 Sep 2017 06:04:11 +0000 esiegel 37089 at https://scienceblogs.com Comments of the Week #174: from growing black holes to nuclear bombs https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/27/comments-of-the-week-174-from-growing-black-holes-to-nuclear-bombs <span>Comments of the Week #174: from growing black holes to nuclear bombs</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>“It will shine still brighter when night is about you. May it be a light to you in dark places, when all other lights go out.” ―Galadriel, LOTR, J.R.R. Tolkien</p></blockquote> <p>Well, we've been anticipating it for months (or years), but this is our very first time meeting up since the total solar eclipse here at <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/">Starts With A Bang!</a> Did you get to see it? Was it as spectacular for you as it was for me? I'm already looking forward to 2024, but you can look forward to a podcast coming this next week from me on just how spectacular it was! (With a judicious dose of physics and astrophysics, of course.) <a href="https://www.patreon.com/startswithabang">Patreon supporters</a>, of course, can get it right now; no waiting! With that said, let's move on to the scientific stories we covered this past week:</p> <ul><li><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/08/19/ask-ethan-do-black-holes-grow-faster-than-they-evaporate/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Do black holes grow faster than they evaporate?</a> (for Ask Ethan),</li> <li><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/08/21/the-hottest-stars-in-the-universe-are-all-missing-one-key-ingredient/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The hottest stars in the Universe are all missing one key ingredient</a> (for Mostly Mute Monday),</li> <li><a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/08/22/ten-surprises-for-scientists-and-skywatchers-during-the-total-solar-eclipse/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ten Surprises For Scientists And Skywatchers During The Total Solar Eclipse</a>,</li> <li><a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/08/23/beyond-black-holes-could-ligo-have-detected-merging-neutron-stars-for-the-first-time/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Beyond black holes: could LIGO have detected merging neutron stars for the first time?</a>,</li> <li><a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/08/24/afraid-of-aliens-the-science-doesnt-back-you-up/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Afraid of aliens? The science doesn't back you up</a>, and</li> <li><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/08/25/science-knows-if-a-nation-is-testing-nuclear-bombs/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Science knows if a nation is testing nuclear bombs</a>.</li> </ul><p>I seriously can't believe that the publication of my latest book, <a href="http://amzn.to/2wX6B3Y">Treknology</a>, is almost upon us. And -- if you didn't catch it -- I actually had <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/we-need-a-dui-test-for-marijuana-1503440821">my first op-ed, cowritten with Alex Berezow, appear in the Wall Street Journal</a>! This year's going to end with a bang, too, I can feel it! And now that we've covered all that, let's dive right into what you had to say for our <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/category/comments-of-the-week/">comments of the week</a>!</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/07/TSE_2016_srd.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36392" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/07/TSE_2016_srd-600x606.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="606" /></a> 32 images of the 2016 eclipse were combined in order to produce this composite, showcasing not only the corona and the plasma loops above the photosphere with stars in the background, but also with the Moon's surface illuminated by Earthshine. Image credit: Don Sabers, Ron Royer, Miloslav Druckmuller. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/20/comments-of-the-week-173-from-quantum-uncertainty-to-earths-final-total-solar-eclipse/#comment-581926">Ragtag Media</a> on a good way to celebrate the eclipse: "If’s you want a great souvenir to pass on, the US postal service is selling some cool eclipse stamps:<br /><a href="https://store.usps.com/store/browse/productDetailSingleSku.jsp?productId=S_475304" rel="nofollow">https://store.usps.com/store/browse/productDetailSingleSku.jsp?productId=S_475304</a>"</p></blockquote> <p>I agree with Ragtag here. I bought a couple of sheets of these and they're wonderful. They look, to be honest, like Miloslav Druckmuller's photos (above), and I've already sent a few off to some lucky folks. Now that I've seen one for the first time, I'm a true believer in their magnificence, and I can't wait for the next one!</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/starlightDeflectionFig3.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36525" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/starlightDeflectionFig3-600x565.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="565" /></a> The Newtonian and Einsteinian predictions for gravitational deflection of a distant radio source during the Earth's orbital period (1 year) due to the Sun. The black dots are 2015 data. Image credit: The deflection of light induced by the Sun's gravitational field and measured with geodetic VLBI; O. Titov, A. Girdiuk (2015). </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/20/comments-of-the-week-173-from-quantum-uncertainty-to-earths-final-total-solar-eclipse/#comment-581930">Anonymous Coward</a> on confirming relativity without waiting for an eclipse: "Thanks Ethan, for the indirect link. That picture and its caption was a big enough clue for me to find the paper by Titov and Girdiuk: “The deflection of light induced by the Sun’s gravitational field and measured with geodetic VLBI.” I’d heard about the radio measurements of light deflection from the sun but didn’t know of any primary sources."</p></blockquote> <p>It is incredible how much amazing, quality science has gone on with regards to confirming relativity. In addition to light-bending by the Sun, we do have confirmation of gravitational redshift, the Shapiro time delay, the precession of not just Mercury's orbit but also Venus', Earth's, and Mars' orbits, the Lens-Thirring effect, geodetic precession, strong and weak gravitational lensing, the Sachs-Wolfe and Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, and many others, not the least of which is the direct detection of gravitational waves by LIGO. General relativity is extraordinarily well-confirmed by a whole slew of independent lines of evidence -- Govert's book <em><a href="http://amzn.to/2gdNuPf">Ripples In Spacetime</a></em> that I <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/08/03/ripples-in-spacetime-from-einstein-to-ligo-and-beyond/#119be2dc351e">reviewed just recently</a> -- does a wonderful job recounting many of the confirmations. The radio VLBI observations are a good, recent one that I'm happy I can point you towards. Interestingly, many people have worked to take observations, independently, good enough to confirm the original Eddington experiment this past Monday. I'll let you know if I come across any robust results.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2016/03/25848795491_10c9cfe4f2_k.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-34381" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2016/03/25848795491_10c9cfe4f2_k-600x617.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="617" /></a> Image credit: photograph by Frank Tuttle of King Triton and Ursula the sea witch from the Little Mermaid at MidSouthCon 34. </div> <blockquote><p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/20/comments-of-the-week-173-from-quantum-uncertainty-to-earths-final-total-solar-eclipse/#comment-581976">Steve Blackband</a> on who am I: "BTW is the guy in the grey beard and crown you?"</p></blockquote> <p>Updated annually since 2009 with each new Halloween photo. If you missed any, they've been:</p> <ul><li>2016: King Triton,</li> <li>2015: Axe Cop,</li> <li>2014: Man-o-taur,</li> <li>2013: Rainbow Dash,</li> <li>2012: Zangief,</li> <li>2011: Wolverine,</li> <li>2010: Macho Man Randy Savage,</li> <li>2009: Pharaoh Ramses.</li> </ul><p>Keep speculating as to what 2017 might hold!</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/Illustration_of_a_black_hole_and_its_surrounding_disk-1200x960.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36519" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/Illustration_of_a_black_hole_and_its_surrounding_disk-1200x960-600x479.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="479" /></a> As a black hole shrinks in mass and radius, the Hawking radiation emanating from it becomes greater and greater in temperature and power. Once the decay rate exceeds the growth rate, Hawking radiation only increases in temperature and power. Image credit: NASA. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/19/ask-ethan-do-black-holes-grow-faster-than-they-evaporate-synopsis/#comment-581903">Omega Centauri</a> on what Hawking radiation is made of: "Since we have a primordial neutrino background at IIRC 1.75K, do black holes also emit Hawking like neutrino radiation? Or does finite rest mass largely suppress this?"</p></blockquote> <p>We normally think of Hawking radiation as being radiation (photons) only, and to a first approximation, that's very likely correct. Why? Because we don't have enough power in the radiation to -- as you intuit -- create any particles with non-zero rest mass. Even the rest mass of a neutrino, at the low end at around 10^-6 eV/c^2, is far too great to be created by any black holes that exist today. (The CNB is around 1.95 K, FYI, but falling into gravitational wells leads to greater velocity than that temperature would imply.)</p> <p>Give it enough time, though; when the mass of a black holes shrinks to a small enough value so that the temperature of Hawking radiation is above the neutrino rest mass energy, or above a few tens of Kelvin, and you'll start making neutrinos, then electron/positron pairs, and then the really heavy stuff in the last few seconds. What's interesting is that we're still not sure what sort of gravitational waves come out at the event horizon, as we don't have the quantum theory of gravity necessary to go there. Too bad, because gravitons are massless, too!</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/06/LIGOsound.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36276" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/06/LIGOsound-600x451.jpg" alt="The 30-ish solar mass binary black holes first observed by LIGO are likely from the merger of direct collapse black holes. But a new publication challenges the analysis of the LIGO collaboration, and the very existence of these mergers. Image credit: LIGO, NSF, A. Simonnet (SSU)." width="600" height="451" /></a> The 30-ish solar mass binary black holes first observed by LIGO are likely from the merger of direct collapse black holes. But a new publication challenges the analysis of the LIGO collaboration, and the very existence of these mergers. Image credit: LIGO, NSF, A. Simonnet (SSU). </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/19/ask-ethan-do-black-holes-grow-faster-than-they-evaporate-synopsis/#comment-581906">Michael Mooney</a> on an intended insult that's actually a compliment: "Ethan consistently makes statements as established facts even though they are theoretical, without empirical evidence and surrounded by debate in the world of physics."</p></blockquote> <p>Yes, you're very welcome. What you are talking about is called "theoretical physics," in the sense that we have theories which accurately describe the Universe, which in turn we can use to make predictions about new phenomena that haven't yet been observed. It is the best, most straightforward use of theoretical physics, and also my favorite: it's what I built the start of my career on. It's why we were able to predict gravitational waves, including their properties and waveforms, before we had ever detected them. It's why a whole slew of science is able to be done at all.</p> <p>Someday, like many others before you, you may come to appreciate it.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/05/1-JfanY_MplBJ_FX1N0I2StQ-1200x675.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36161" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/05/1-JfanY_MplBJ_FX1N0I2StQ-1200x675-600x337.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="337" /></a> Hawking radiation is what inevitably results from the predictions of quantum physics in the curved spacetime surrounding a black hole's event horizon. Image credit: E. Siegel. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/19/ask-ethan-do-black-holes-grow-faster-than-they-evaporate-synopsis/#comment-581911">klac</a> on what a black hole's event horizon looks like: "Is the “surface” of the event horizon smooth or roiling? If the latter, does this affect the evaporation rate?"</p></blockquote> <p>Smooth, down to the quantum gravity scale. At the scale at which it is imperfect, there will be imperfections in the spectrum of Hawking radiation. If Hawking radiation is ever detectable, the fluctuations will be another 30-something orders of magnitude below that in scale. Good luck.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/WR_31a.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36522" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/WR_31a-600x450.jpg" alt="This Wolf–Rayet star is known as WR 31a, located about 30 000 light-years away in the constellation of Carina. The outer nebula is expelled hydrogen and helium, while the central star burns at over 100,000 K. Image credit: ESA/Hubble &amp; NASA; Acknowledgement: Judy Schmidt." width="600" height="450" /></a> This Wolf–Rayet star is known as WR 31a, located about 30 000 light-years away in the constellation of Carina. The outer nebula is expelled hydrogen and helium, while the central star burns at over 100,000 K. Image credit: ESA/Hubble &amp; NASA; Acknowledgement: Judy Schmidt. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/21/the-hottest-stars-in-the-universe-are-all-missing-one-key-ingredient-synopsis/#comment-581937">John</a> on Wolf-Rayet stars: "These Wolf-Rayet stars would make for a pretty inhospitable Solar System!"</p></blockquote> <p>Oh, yes! That is an extremely good point; here are just a few reasons why:</p> <ul><li>They only live for maybe a few million years before they end their lives,</li> <li>They change in luminosity by a factor of many over that time,</li> <li>They blow off many solar masses worth of plasma across any planets present,</li> <li>They are unstable, flaring stars,</li> <li>And their spectra are such that they ought to strip the atmospheres off of any potentially habitable world that ever existed around them.</li> </ul><p>I would say that makes for "pretty inhospitable" indeed.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2016/06/Oxford_-_Worcester_College_-_garden_tree_sunbeam.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-34760" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2016/06/Oxford_-_Worcester_College_-_garden_tree_sunbeam-600x450.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="450" /></a> Sunbeams shining through the trees at Oxford, by Wikimedia Commons user Remi Mathis, under a c.c.a.-by-s.a.-3.0 license. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/21/the-hottest-stars-in-the-universe-are-all-missing-one-key-ingredient-synopsis/#comment-581940">CFT</a> on the solar eclipse: "I can get the effect of a complete solar eclipse every time I walk under a leafy tree or enter my house. I call it ‘shade’."</p></blockquote> <p>Walking under a shady tree is to a total solar eclipse what fanning yourself with a folded sheet of paper is to skydiving for the first time. Never seen a total solar eclipse? I highly recommend it; it just might change your outlook on life a little bit.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/960x0.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36549" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/960x0-600x517.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="517" /></a> A shot of the Sun's corona at the moment of totality, during the Great American Eclipse of August 21, 2017, at Casper Collage Wyoming. Image credit: Gene Blevins/AFP/Getty Images. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/22/ten-surprises-for-scientists-and-skywatchers-during-the-total-solar-eclipse-synopsis/#comment-581952">Sinisa Lazarek</a> on eclipse surprises: "Reading your article it’s clear that you had a blast and that you’re still under emotional experience of it. ? I’m glad and happy that you had good weather and that it was great.<br /> But can’t really understand why points 1, 2, 6 and 9 are surprising, especially for scientists."</p></blockquote> <p>Well, the first one (that it didn't get dark all at once) surprised me, because the Sun is really, really bright, and a penumbral shadow is kind of (no offense to the inanimate objects in the Solar System) garbage compared to the umbral shadow when it falls on the Moon. When total eclipses happen under cloudy conditions -- which is how the people I know experienced the 1979 eclipse -- it does get dark all at once. So that's why #1 surprised me.</p> <p>The second one, as to the size and brightness of the corona, I had only seen photos. Sure, some photos are long-exposure to bring out the detail in the outer corona, but I had expected to see a much smaller corona, akin to what the photo at the very top of the page showed, than what was actually visible to my eye. There's no way to really know these things for sure, that cannot be preserved on film, until you've experienced it for yourself. Being a scientist has very little to do with the human experience you feel with your own body. In more than a theoretical sense alone, we all need to live.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/solar_disk.png"><img class="size-full wp-image-36550" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/solar_disk.png" alt="" width="600" height="422" /></a> The eclipsed Sun, the visible corona, and the surrounding sky, as blown-up by me multiple times over the original image referenced. Image credit: Joe Sexton / Jesse Angle. </div> <blockquote><p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/22/ten-surprises-for-scientists-and-skywatchers-during-the-total-solar-eclipse-synopsis/#comment-581953">Pawel</a> on why the Moon's shadow is so black: "But the question is – why the Moon seems so black during totality? The rest of the sky, beyond the Sun’s corona, is bright because of the light refracted in the atmosphere. Since the Moon is far beyond the atmosphere, shouldn’t it be washed away by the refracted light and appear the same color as the rest of the sky?"</p></blockquote> <p>Optics never fails to disappoint with how interesting it is. Here's a fun thing for you to do: draw yourself a to-scale diagram (it's tough!) of the Sun, the Moon, and the Earth. Now, extend the Sun's radius by, oh, let's say about 40%, just for giggles. Draw those same lines you'd draw for the Corona's shadow -- both umbral and penumbral -- that you'd draw for the Sun's shadow.</p> <p>If you do, you'll see how much <em>less</em> coronal light gets through at the Moon's center than at the surrounding environs. That's the biggest reason why the Moon's disk appears dark in comparison to the region outside the Moon's disk, even when you're away from the visible corona itself.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/eclipse-1200x667.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36551" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/eclipse-1200x667-600x333.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="333" /></a> A simulated picture of the sky as it might have appeared during the total solar eclipse of August 21st. Regulus (next to the Sun), Mars (top) and Mercury (bottom) may all be visible with clear skies and favorable conditions. Image credit: E. Siegel / Stellarium. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/22/ten-surprises-for-scientists-and-skywatchers-during-the-total-solar-eclipse-synopsis/#comment-581959">Steve Blackband</a> on whether he saw Mars or not: "BTW I was starring hard, but I was pretty sure I saw Mars, close to and to the left of the sun, at about 11 o-clock. Am I deluded?"</p></blockquote> <p>No, but if it was to the <em>left</em> (east?) of the Sun, it was probably Mercury. If it was to the <em>right</em> (west) of the Sun, it could have been Mars. If it was either of those, they should have been about 12 degrees (throw heavy metal horns with your index and pinkie fingers, held at arm's length) off from the Sun. If it was much more than that, it was probably Jupiter (to the left) or Venus (bright, to the right), while if it was only about 1 degree off from the Sun, that was probably Regulus.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/07/Total-solar-eclipse-illustration.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36430" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/07/Total-solar-eclipse-illustration-600x450.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="450" /></a> An illustration of the Sun-Moon-Earth configuration setting up a total solar eclipse. The Earth's non-flatness means that the Moon's shadow gets elongated when it's close to the edge of the Earth. Image credit: Starry Night education software. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/22/ten-surprises-for-scientists-and-skywatchers-during-the-total-solar-eclipse-synopsis/#comment-581963">PJ</a> on eclipse mania: "Welcome to the club, Ethan. You seem to show the signs. More, more! Next eclipse, please! At least the next one will see you better prepared now you have first hand experience of the event."</p></blockquote> <p>2024, totality in the USA, and it should be more than twice as long as what I got to see. (Waco, TX, gets 4:15 of totality, while in Mexico they get to over 4:30.) If I get really ambitious, there's always the 2027 eclipse, just shy of my 50th birthday, which will go over the Iberian Peninsula and then peak near Luxor, Egypt. Maximum totality there is over 6 minutes, and should be among the most spectacularly dark eclipses of the 21st century.</p> <p>Yes, PJ, I've had my first taste and now... well, you know how I teach electric potential energy in college? Bringing in electric charges is like the crack dealer: the first one's free, but the second one costs you, and then subsequent ones cost more and more... and you'll pay it if you want it bad enough!</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/03/merger.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-35936" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/03/merger-600x301.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="301" /></a> As two neutron stars orbit each other, Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts orbital decay, and the emission of gravitational radiation. Image credit: NASA (L), Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy / Michael Kramer. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/23/beyond-black-holes-could-ligo-have-detected-merging-neutron-stars-for-the-first-time-synopsis/#comment-581980">Omega Centauri</a> on the possible types of gravitational wave signals: "I presume expected signals, gravity-wave, optical/X-ray, etc. have been worked out for the different sorts of compact object merger events.<br /> BH v BH<br /> BH v NS<br /> BH v WD<br /> NS v NS<br /> NS v WD"</p></blockquote> <p>Well, here's the thing: the above signal that you see works for all objects as long as they're spherical and not in physical contact with one another. But white dwarfs, about the size of Earth, touch each other (or whatever they're orbiting) way before something like LIGO would be sensitive to them. LIGO will not see white dwarfs.</p> <p>On the other hand, BH-BH mergers, BH-NS mergers, and NS-NS mergers have all been very thoroughly modeled. NS-NS mergers, in particular, are expected to produce gamma-ray bursts and leave the signatures I described to you in the article from this week. Are they correct, these predicted signatures? I have a feeling there will be a lot more to come on this topic as the coming weeks unfold...</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2015/01/1-18-Brightness-Distance.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-32321" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2015/01/1-18-Brightness-Distance-600x295.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="295" /></a> The brightness/distance relation for light, which is not the same as for gravitational waves. Image credit: E. Siegel. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/23/beyond-black-holes-could-ligo-have-detected-merging-neutron-stars-for-the-first-time-synopsis/#comment-581991">Klavs Hansen</a> on the unbearable lack-of-lossiness in gravitational wave astronomy: "A factor ten reduction in energy means that the event needs to be a factor ten closer to be detected?"</p></blockquote> <p>Yup. And it isn't obvious. Light, an electromagnetic effect, is a form of dipole radiation. If you go twice as far away, the brightness dims to one-fourth the original; if you're ten times as far away, the brightness is 1/100th. But gravitational radiation is <em>quadrupolar</em> radiation, not dipole radiation. It doesn't fall off as 1/r^2, but rather as 1/r. If you're ten times as far away, the magnitude is only 1/10th as great. This is good, because that radiation is so weak! It also means, if you wanted to visually detect what was going on with the original merging black holes that LIGO found, they'd need to have merged from within our Solar System, instead of over a billion light years away. There is no good non-technical explanation of this effect that I've yet figured out that's actually still correct.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/8298924277_f2f7634ca2_b.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36537" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/8298924277_f2f7634ca2_b-600x400.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /></a> Our fear of aliens, and their potential hostility towards humanity, has driven much of our public sentiment and presentation of extraterrestrial life. Image credit: plaits / flickr. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/24/afraid-of-aliens-the-science-doesnt-back-you-up-synopsis/#comment-582006">eric</a> on disagreeing about alien intents: "Consider the species on Earth with reasonably sized brains. most of them can communicate (albeit not like we do). All of them are more closely related to humans in brain structure, instinct, and emotional desires than any alien we will ever meet – hands down, no contest. And yet <i>practically none of them show any interest in wanting to communicate with humans</i>."</p></blockquote> <p>Huh. I suppose we've met different intelligent animals. Dogs, cats, dolphins, monkeys, Orang Utans... I've met <em>lots</em> of animals that not only want to communicate with humans in general (and me in particular), but that want us to play with them. Play is one of the highest forms of communication, IMO, so... my experience doesn't mirror yours, I suppose.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/Atomic_cloud_over_Nagasaki_from_Koyagi-jima.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36543" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/Atomic_cloud_over_Nagasaki_from_Koyagi-jima-600x464.jpg" alt="The cloud from the atomic bomb over Nagasaki from Koyagi-jima in 1945 was one of the first nuclear detonations to take place on this world. After decades of peace, North Korea is detonating bombs again. Credit: Hiromichi Matsuda." width="600" height="464" /></a> The cloud from the atomic bomb over Nagasaki from Koyagi-jima in 1945 was one of the first nuclear detonations to take place on this world. After decades of peace, North Korea is detonating bombs again. Credit: Hiromichi Matsuda. </div> <p>And finally, from <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/25/science-knows-if-a-nation-is-testing-nuclear-bombs-synopsis/#comment-582017">Elle H.C.</a> on the nuclear frontier and mass-energy conversion: "Is nuclear energy the last barrier where mass can be turned into energy, no sub-atomic conversion to worry about, anyone have a crystal ball to foresee ‘the future’?"</p></blockquote> <p>Oh no, not at all. You see, even chemical transitions, where electrons hop from one energy level to another, get their energy from mass-energy conversion. It's just 5-6 orders of magnitude less efficient. But in the other direction, matter-antimatter annihilation (or, in the case of boson-boson interaction, pure annihilation with no distinction between matter and antimatter) is 100% efficient, about 2-3 orders of magnitude better than nuclear energy. It's pretty incredible what we've achieved, but there are reminders that nature is both more subtle than we give it credit for and also capable of being more spectacular than anything we've ever yet made come true.</p> <p>Have a wonderful week, and we'll be back here tomorrow with more outstanding science on Starts With A Bang!</p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/startswithabang" lang="" about="/startswithabang" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">esiegel</a></span> <span>Sun, 08/27/2017 - 03:37</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/comments-week" hreflang="en">Comments of the Week</a></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-categories field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Categories</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/channel/life-sciences" hreflang="en">Life Sciences</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546051" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503821507"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Ethan,</p> <p>On the mass-energy conversion, so why do they say there's no energy released during particle collisions, like in a fission reaction for instance, or is this something I misunderstood?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546051&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="CyWa8UIYtLdwi99HQ7IE0cH_uNFe0XhhrGvdShQWk8o"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 27 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546051">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546052" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503823761"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I stated recently that Ethan is very dishonest and self serving.</p> <p>Now he confirms that he is actually proud of it in this week's comment replies:</p> <p>"From Michael Mooney on an intended insult that’s actually a compliment: “Ethan consistently makes statements as established facts even though they are theoretical, without empirical evidence and surrounded by debate in the world of physics.” ("Yes, you’re very welcome.")</p> <p>Presenting speculative theories as established facts is dishonest science, and Ethan not only admits it, he is proud of it.<br /> And he consistently confuses science fiction with real science (the objective kind with supportive evidence.) See his last piece on time travel.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546052&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="GeQvjGmPQBaZgJM30EPZ_HEe7qTJnjdHZmJGAm8e6K4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 27 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546052">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546053" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503829271"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ elle</p> <p>my explanation might be very simplistic, but here goes. Of course energy is released in particle collisions, who says it's not? It's precisely that energy released (most of it heat) that makes it possible to create new and exotic particles. New particles (like higgs) are inferred when there is "missing" mass/energy. Meaning, when you count all the new particles created after collision, if the product is less then what you started with, it means that some new particle was created that you didn't know about and account for.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546053&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="5h7doSRPJr34VnNs4xFCyNyXM7DKZg2i04IpE31uDJQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 27 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546053">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546054" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503839884"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL,</p> <p>Here's the explanation I got back in the days regarding you know what:</p> <p>Since nuclear fission is possible, due to an assymetrie between the strong-force and the electro/weak-force (for short distances the strong force is stronger for longer distances electro/weak is stronger and for very large distances gravity even exeeed electro/weak). Fission works in that way that Neutrons and Protons in a nucleus are rumbled in a way that their distance overcomes the critical distance where electro/weak- exceeds strong-force thus the repelling electroweak force will tear the nucleus apart.</p> <p>Such an effect is also thinkable for Protons instead of the Nucleus, and Quarks instead of the Protons and Neutrons, since also strong-force holds the quarks together and since the quarks are also charged particles where 2 of them have the same charge there is also a repelling electro/weak-force trying to tear the Proton apart (for the Neutron it even works but also without chainreaction). </p> <p>There are only 2 facts what make such an scensrio very unlikely:</p> <p>1. other then in the Nucleus where there are only positive and neutral charged particles (Protons and Neutrons) in the Protons (and also in the Neutrons) there are positive and negative charged Quarks together only in the Neutron these charges total to 0 units (2/3 + 2*(-1/3)=0) and in the proton they total to +1 unit (2*(2/3)+(-1/3)=3/3=1). Thus there are not only repelling electroweak-forces but always also electro/weak-forces pulling the particles together what in my eyes even without the strong force should be as stable as atoms and ions always containing positive and negative charges in some relationship.</p> <p>2. for fission the energy released by one decaying Atom is far less than the energy contained in the restmass of the Atom (only about 1/1000 of the energy as far as I know), but the energy to trigger the decay of the next atom is also much less than its restmass, so a chain-reaction is possible. There is as stated above no mechanism which releases more energy by any chemicalor physical process than is contained in the restmass of the particles taking part, usually it is rather much less. There is also no known effect to trigger the decay of a Proton or a Neutron in such a way that all its restmassenergy is released using only energies smaller than the restmass of one of these particles, even energies much larger than the restmass of the Proton did not yet trigger a spontanious decay of a Proton. Sure the LHC is build to destroy Protons by their collission, but such a destruction of a Proton up to now never resulted in energies large enough to destruct other protons, even if there is an avalange (like when cosmic particles hit the athmosphere) the energy becoms less in every step and the avalange stops after a very short time.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546054&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="vEMlW1B_-2E09n22q55l0o-AH8ONeBvgxBcVYfC5yJ4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 27 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546054">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546055" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503876865"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ elle</p> <p>maybe then it was the wording in your first question, since you said "released". Given your #4 you might have meant "created more then what was put in". I think that's what you're thinking about. In fission you get more out because of nucleus splitting, releasing that binding energy, and thus spending fuel (radioactive elements). </p> <p>But IMO particle collisions might be more akin to fusion. But due to very tiny cross-section of protons only a very tiny amount of those millions of protons colliding might actually fuse and create couple of atoms of helium. Given the energy needed to accelerate them and all, you still (i think) put a lot more in then you get surplus from a chance that those couple of atoms of helium being created. It's not sustainable.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546055&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ckLKy0hzcfh2-YS3u70mieNNwECmSYoMOMMBTB6QnJg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 27 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546055">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546056" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503885667"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL,</p> <p>Yeah, you're right.</p> <p>The bottom line is getting more energy out of it than put in, that's what I'm curious about. </p> <p>For nuclear fission a neutron is added and the Atom splits. What's used is enriched uranium which is a type of uranium in which the percent composition of uranium-235 has been increased through the process of isotope separation.</p> <p>For a (chemical) fire there's something similar happening, the wood is first dried out by the Sun and so the flashpoint is much lower, the same for the distillation of gasoline out of crude oil.</p> <p>What I'm saying is that a lot of work/energy has been put into both materials at forehand before the became easily 'combustible'.</p> <p>That's in line with my argument of high frequency and density of particle collisions at the LHC vs Cosmic Rays in nature. A high series of collisions could strain out surrounding Protons like with the glass that bursted due to the sound … and the last drop caused the snapping of the bonds … releasing more energy than (finally) put in.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546056&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="-V-EtFiKPxRQAiPCX9sg5AcE_paWA5mZOHTanQbBmSI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 27 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546056">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546057" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503885928"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Chelle,<br /> Some of the binding energy between two bound particles shows up as mass. Unbind them, and you can observe a change in the balance of mass and energy in the system. Take two unbound particles and bang them together, and you won't necessarily change the mass of the system. You might, if the collision affects the binding of subatomic particles in either object, but you don't have to.<br /> Note also this binding-energy-as-mass relationship can cause a system to gain *or* lose mass - both are possible. It depends on the thermodynamics of the binding. The ubiquity of mass-energy conversions in nuclear and subatomic reactions is probably the reason physicsts decided long ago to track particle mass energy (MeV) units. :)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546057&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="jCxskCqs4CCFmJgUail3aE9z2s3hsp_56cgSkfZAK6o"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Eric (not verified)</span> on 27 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546057">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546058" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503898849"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ elle</p> <p>Strain how? But never mind. </p> <p>"… releasing more energy than (finally) put in."<br /> Well, that would be wonderful actually, if it was real and doable. Means we would solve world's energy problems. But since you can't focus the proton beam to an arbitrary high precision in order to guarantee that most if not all would actually fuse to make hydrogen.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546058&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="d74FwZQAMj9UVWcGyRQhT9aJYri9KW1pNT7tlRQnpsk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 28 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546058">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546059" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503900235"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Eric,</p> <p><i>"Note also this binding-energy-as-mass relationship can cause a system to gain *or* lose mass"</i></p> <p>There's also the space filling Higgs field that bonds with Quarks giving them mass, with the Higgs bosons as a result of a vibrations in that field produced by high-energy collisions. </p> <p>So it aren't only GWs. Vibrations in the Higgs field could make surrounding Protons more massive or energetic, or extracting energy/mass like a fan.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546059&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="qTL1S49c0DJHrapiAk4MZhnejPwwtGzPhKT2ar2pt64"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 28 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546059">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546060" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503900860"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL,</p> <p>The question, if possible, is how to contain such a reaction? </p> <p>For nuclear fission you need heavy unstable Atoms, other Atoms are fairly unbreakable; something similar for molecules such as gasoline vs. water for example; but for Protons there's only one kind of them.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546060&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="U1KpqMi3exXPFmgkX2lBy6celnfLHtBYlTVg0nz7ix0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 28 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546060">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546061" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503901339"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Chelle, your word salad proclamations make it very hard to tell whether you really don't know something, or whether you just don't know the terminology. There are many kinds of nucleons besides protons and neutrons. They are all unstable, but some are less or more unstable than others. Transitions between them all involve changing masses, with consequent absorption or release of energy. Simple radioactive decay involves changing masses. </p> <p>Your attempts to restrict mass changes to some sort of "destructive" interaction is woefully naive, incorrect, and misleading both to yourself and others.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546061&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="I5JhHYBF9kwC3U1e7upcGVpM94_CHinLk5_8HGf4d7Y"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Kelsey (not verified)</span> on 28 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546061">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546062" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503902473"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"The question, if possible, is how to contain such a reaction? "</p> <p>like all other fusions reactions or anything dealing with plasma.. strong magnetic field.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546062&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="HvAqrP-LGuQWoN4s2LfgrjwXYaad-9Uv86eoshqNOKg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 28 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546062">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546063" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503907751"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL,</p> <p>Yes, sure magnets can keep the particles in place but would they also block the vibrations moving through SpaceTime / Higgs field? If not then you have no buffer.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546063&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="8MhWZ1KWhLjBLC9JPV8dSpkKbRspDpWgdL02IWLwjTI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 28 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546063">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546064" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503921018"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>buy a vibrator and stop with this vibration bs will you...</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546064&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="TYsdp_-WI0XVGyWulfvdAZAPMNb1j86oDF6GpiLK-yY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 28 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546064">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546065" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503921197"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Michael Kelsey,</p> <p><i>"Your attempts to restrict mass changes to some sort of “destructive” interaction …"</i></p> <p>I am only focusing on the idea of how vibrations might change the energy/mass levels of a Proton, and if that may lead to the disruption of a Proton. </p> <p>Please do explain to us what's so 'misleading' about this question.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546065&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="OYyjSM3WayFwuepl3F6TSO5Q27HBKYnRCJO7sNWM2bc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 28 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546065">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546066" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503921363"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL,</p> <p>Are you saying that collisions don't cause vibrations in the Higgs field and/or SpaceTime?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546066&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="TpCoOoBqHQdBgIgcqfgfiUrnbhC6cWwPykTVLz_c-5I"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 28 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546066">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546067" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503921787"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL,</p> <p>By Sean Carrol a theoretical physicist at Caltech:</p> <p><i>"… the Higgs boson is the particle we observe when we interact with a vibration in that field."</i><br /><a href="http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/12/07/how-to-explain-the-higgs-mechanism/">http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/12/07/how-to-explain-the-…</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546067&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="oH4VuNCexWd3daoYx3EIW33aTCBDm_KJ4vXdYS6EXrQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 28 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546067">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546068" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503946661"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Elle @6 : your metaphoric ideas are stil inconsistent with reality, since in every single example you cite, we can observe individual events in a lab setting, but your claimed proton disintegration is not observed.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546068&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="89e06C9gV_sk-jPM31OdNXEPNOx9dtqoA35wxb5xwCc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Eric (not verified)</span> on 28 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546068">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546069" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503954181"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Eric,</p> <p><i>"your claimed proton disintegration is not observed."</i></p> <p>That's true, and that's why it is a hypothesis, similar to 'passive' Proton decay (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay</a>).</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546069&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="3e0mnntib5IuEzRLKBdIowSxEzFjmQAHwVXPDL4d0gw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 28 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546069">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546070" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503968770"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ elle</p> <p>higg's boson is an excitation of the higg's field. Just like a photon is an excitation of the EM field. What does that have to do with protons? </p> <p>since you wrote... higgs boson could make protons more massive/energetic. Why? How? that's not a hypothesis.. that's just statement. It's same as me saying "Sun spots could cause frogs to fly".</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546070&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="OTLJ2kncUVunPHBL4tXiiOSEzIx2gKXczDU6XCE2LXc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 28 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546070">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546071" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503975122"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL,</p> <p><i>"Higg’s boson is an excitation of the higg’s field. Just like a Photon is an excitation of the EM field. What does that have to do with Protons?"</i></p> <p>Energy can be transferred into the Proton via vibrations in the Higgs field as with Compton scattering in the EM field, where the Photon transfers part of its energy to the Proton and scatters off at a lower energy/frequency, the Proton taking up the energy-momentum balance. Heating up!</p> <p>BTW the excited states of the Proton involve rearrangements of the energy and angular momentum inside. The transition energies are in the 100MeV to 1GeV range which is beyond visible light, but Gamma Rays can excite such transitions and be absorbed, hence also the ~126 GeV Higgs boson.</p> <p>--</p> <p><i>"since you wrote… higgs boson could make protons more massive/energetic. Why? How?"</i></p> <p>See above. Energy vibrating through the Higgs field after every collision (Wave–particle duality).</p> <p>--</p> <p>"that’s not a hypothesis.. that’s just statement."</p> <p>Yeah, sure it's a statement, bravo! But the argument of making Protons burst or implode is an hypothesis, like it or not.</p> <p>FYI</p> <p><b>hypothesis</b><br /> hʌɪˈpɒθɪsɪs/<br /> noun<br /> 1. a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546071&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="pZcaeTw0wJToIpc0Af2-TPZK9h734cZ8UFMnlspqxEw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 28 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546071">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546072" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503981680"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"Energy can be transferred into the Proton via vibrations in the Higgs field"</p> <p>- citation please</p> <p>"as with Compton scattering"<br /> - this involves stable particles, higgs lifetime is 10^-22 s, thus I see no parallel nor evidence that this ever happening. </p> <p>re: hypothesis<br /> - you offered NO explanation (talking about other things unrelated to your claim is not an explanation), and offered exactly zero evidence. No evidence is not limited evidence. Thus it's not a hypothesis. It's statement not even based on science.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546072&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ZX2zcUECO7ilMJSDu78QW1XqbopAU8U09hdwPLK8zYA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546072">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546073" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503983007"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Besides, suppose a Higgs boson does interact with a proton causing it to enter an excited state. Suppose even further that the proton thus excited decays into some other particle. While that would certainly be interesting new physics, from the "this is going to cause a catastrophic explosion that will kill us all" point of view that Elle is putting out there, so what? What would be the great tragedy that would cause calamitous damage should a single proton undergo some decay? Even should the full 126 GeV energy of a Higgs boson be released, that would be barely noticeable on a macroscopic level. </p> <p>I know, Elle, chain reactions. But what is the mechanism? Why would such chain reactions occur when we cannot seem to generate even a single such event? If such a single proton decay is so improbable that we haven't seen in in literally trillions (or more) particle interactions, what makes you think there's a danger of even TWO such events occurring in close succession, let alone a major chain reaction that will cause macroscopic damage?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546073&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="YCEGLLeo3kTvXOvmGgN0XYPX8oSCjplu4qAVZa1N6mM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546073">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546074" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503990939"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Sean T,</p> <p><i>" What would be the great tragedy that would cause calamitous damage should a single proton undergo some decay?"</i></p> <p>If a Proton would disappear out of a nucleus the remaining system would become a negative ion of the element left of the original one on the periodic table. It would also be in a mixed-up quantum state with all the electrons wanting to readjust, and some of the electrons released be lost, along with a bunch of photons, this along with the Proton itself that converts mass into energy, and I'm talking here about only one Proton in the Nucleus.</p> <p>Now for a single 'conversation' there's little harm, but my argument is that the LHC has about a billion collisions per second within a few mm's, now if you look at the double-slit experiment those Photons 'touch' the 2nd slit, my point is that those waves spread out a few mm's. </p> <p>So the hypothesis is that the vibrations of those billions of collisions, happening hours in a row, strain the Protons surrounding that collision spot, and start to charge them so to speak, making them ready to snap. Now for a cm^3 of solid matter surrounding the collision-spot we get ~10^24 charged Protons, if they all would snap then that would be an incredible burst of energy, and a possible ignition for the chain-reaction.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546074&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="5c4Vno6ewqP4nHKSF5jmBaoD0zq_qMQrgo34bi8UvLY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546074">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546075" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503992437"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>so how come these "ignitions" and "chain reactions" haven't happened in i.e. in the middle of stars? you have billions of more proton-proton collisions in the stars, over a much larger area and happening for 13 billions years.... </p> <p>and another thing... there is no solid matter or any elements in the tube of LHC. it's vacuum chelle. otherwise the whole thing would have melted a long long time ago...</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546075&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="67fP6QQNg0K3vFos0XW9yjB1CyvuBGYICFpRYVE8BCQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546075">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546076" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503992532"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>p.s.<br /> just to be clear.. there are chain reactions in stars... but for completely different reasons and well understood. not because of "vibrations in higgs field" or glass shattering</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546076&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="BMQBnRqLL8DIdzrkH9NeDjPhscntYChMwEbSbv3t4IY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546076">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546077" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503997219"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL,</p> <p><i>"so how come these “ignitions” and “chain reactions” haven’t happened in i.e. in the middle of stars?"</i></p> <p>Photons aren't crushed within Stars, the temperature in LHC is 5.5 trillion °C. That's 100,000 times hotter than the centre of the Sun.</p> <p>--</p> <p><i>"there is no solid matter or any elements in the tube of LHC. it’s vacuum"</i></p> <p>Sure the inside is vacuum, but the tube itself is solid.</p> <p>--</p> <p><i>"there are chain reactions in stars… but for completely different reasons and well understood. not because of “vibrations in higgs field”</i></p> <p>Indeed, the proton–proton chain reaction is a fusion reaction by which stars convert hydrogen to helium. But there are no Protons destroyed in the Process, the temperature is lower, these are 'normal' nuclear reactions.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546077&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="oWvU5L_XBq-L2shZU28gT6M9i4H8dCFPRPMbtJnZ8G0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546077">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546078" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503997325"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Correction:</p> <p>Photons aren’t crushed … -&gt; P<b>r</b>otons aren’t crushed …</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546078&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="GIeR-40gGIpR6xTqnfMuPdAyUZ53dDJSF-k2118ZttQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546078">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546079" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503997567"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Elle,</p> <p>Okay, you have a hypothesis. Let's test it out. How long has the LHC been operating? About two years I believe at its current energy and luminosity. Where are the proton decays? Where are the chain reactions? That's the thing about a SCIENTIFIC hypothesis; when faced with actual data that refutes it, you are supposed to reject the hypothesis. It's time you do so; there is no evidence for the calamites you suppose will occur at the LHC.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546079&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="eNRFJ-NgXgo6h_iqg3slA_ZmgPQxbm8hVoFlmxc-b5s"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546079">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546080" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503997923"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Elle,</p> <p>Let's also get quantitative here. If I'm understanding the Wikipedia article on the LHC correctly (and if the article is correct) the LHC is colliding protons at a rate of 40 MHz, meaning that the collisions occur 25 ns apart. This seems like a quite rapid rate of collision, but as subatomic physics goes, this is actually quite SLOW. As mentioned above by Sinisa, the lifetime of a Higgs boson is about 10^-22 seconds, which means that 250 trillion Higgs lifetimes pass between each proton-proton collision. This indicates that your chain reaction cannot occur -- there simply are no Higgs particles left from the previous collision to cause an interaction with the next collision. Your high luminosity is not high at all; it's in fact quite low in comparison with the hypothesized mechanism of your "doomsday reaction". Let it go.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546080&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="mIUfZtR8qAOyOSA8qYksq9r4Pr3jJ3K-4BN2XHZIFTI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546080">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546081" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503998488"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Elle, </p> <p>You like analogies and big numbers sometimes are hard to comprehend, so let me expand on my previous post. </p> <p>Suppose I throw a baseball at a brick wall. The energy of that baseball is certainly insufficient to break or damage that wall. (I am not a very good pitcher). However, you are arguing, and with some merit, that if I throw baseballs at that wall at the right frequency, I CAN damage that wall. </p> <p>Let's make that frequency analogous to the frequency of the proton collisions in the LHC, though. If we assume that the vibrations caused by a baseball impact dissipate within about 1 millisecond, that would be analogous to the Higgs lifetime in the LHC experiment. I need then to wait 250 trillion x 1 millisecond = about 7922 years before throwing my next baseball. Surely, you won't argue that my throwing a baseball every 7922 years against a wall would have a cumulative resonant effect would you? </p> <p>There is absolutely no possible interaction between one proton-proton collision and the next based on your hypothesized mechanism. Can't happen; the timing just doesn't work out.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546081&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="-yScOmCeg8jEU1KYzuY8D9nkm9caftT6dFoUOpE2DJ4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546081">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546082" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503999886"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Sean T,</p> <p><i>"That’s the thing about a SCIENTIFIC hypothesis; when faced with actual data that refutes it"</i></p> <p>I haven't put any numbers on a 'flashpoint' so what are you talking about? Besides that the idea is to increase the energy and luminosity of these colliders … increasing the risk.</p> <p>--</p> <p><i>"the lifetime of a Higgs boson is about 10^-22 seconds, which means that 250 trillion Higgs lifetimes pass between each proton-proton collision."</i></p> <p>Yes, but you need to look at how long it takes for the Protons to renormalize between every collision-peak.</p> <p>In your example you need to look at how fast the wall cools down, how fast the Higgs boson dissipates is irrelevant.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546082&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="M1kCjiAS7-PfdaC0TmXt21R-MZn0a-90sfewEKKqvLA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546082">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546083" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504005017"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"Yes, but you need to look at how long it takes for the Protons to renormalize"</p> <p>do you even know what you are talking about? I think not, in fact I think you've spewed out so much nonsense that even you have no idea what you're on about now. </p> <p>What protons? Two batches of protons are aimed one another. Due to the very small cross-sections, some of them simply pass by one another and don't collide, those that do collide create a bunch of new particles, and are no more. What protons are you talking about? Where are they from? </p> <p>Secondly, your fixation with higgs field is just that.. a fixation. Without any merit. Do you understand how rare a higgs boson event is?? Why do you think it took years of collision just to get a small data sample. It takes about 10 billion collisions to get even one higgs boson (your wanted vibration). And it lasts for 10^-22s...</p> <p>Reality isn't what you think it is.<br /> "I haven’t put any numbers " you say.. well, science has. So sulk all you want. Data has shown that your "oh it's increasing in frequency" is bullocks.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546083&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="7mfIIyZO0syM9Bn3qxn95NYZhGqOjEuE3FhQmedJowI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546083">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546084" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504008312"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL,</p> <p><i>"What protons are you talking about? Where are they from?"</i></p> <p>Read again my comment at #6:</p> <p><i>"A high series of collisions could strain out <b>surrounding Protons</b> like with the glass that bursted due to the sound … "</i></p> <p>The Proton-Proton collisions are shaking up the Higgs field / SpaceTime and those waves/vibrations shake up the surrounding Protons, the tube of solid material remember.</p> <p>Did you really not get this?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546084&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="imrQc_aKcpdzL4UBismQGicJNwhRaPKQAMXUZsRNdMw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546084">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546085" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504045553"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>And here I was, thinking that you were worried about something dealing with the actual components of the collisions causing some armagedon. Instead you're worried about things which are not in direct contact with collisions in the first place due to physics which don't exist. Cooool.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546085&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="03D42Othbp8J6p7dn4A8Bl0LNOBwCj42Th3pQZI9_3E"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546085">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546086" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504046870"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL,</p> <p><i>"things which are <b>not in direct contact</b> with collisions"</i></p> <p>Yes, that's it. </p> <p>The surrounding Protons are <b>indirectly</b> connected through the Higgs field / SpaceTime.</p> <p><i>"due to physics which don’t exist."</i></p> <p>No. There is proof that the Higgs field exists and that Gravity waves travel through SpaceTime, thanks to the LHC and LIGO.</p> <p>What's unknown is what the impact is of these vibrations on those surrounding Protons. It's a bit similar to global warming and what environmental impact automobiles have while heating up the Atmosphere.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546086&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="36t_c9zJ9B63RoPbIx0YMObj88OkBtOpsv9oZMq6Feg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546086">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546087" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504055225"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"No. There is proof that the Higgs field exists and that Gravity waves travel through SpaceTime,"</p> <p>Yes, there is proof of that, but it's unrelated to your "shatter" statement. No, there is no proof or even a hint, even theoretical, that what you propose is even remotely plausible within the laws of physics. So your statement is just as valid or invalid as my statement that son spots could cause frogs to fly. </p> <p>"What’s unknown is what the impact is of these vibrations on those surrounding Protons."<br /> Well, it was you who said that you talked with people at CERN and they said that the impact of gravitational waves was known and it was 20 orders of magnitude too small to even bother writing a sentence about it. So by your own claims, it's known.</p> <p>" It’s a bit similar to global warming and what environmental impact automobiles have while heating up the Atmosphere."<br /> no, it's not similar, not even a bit. Not with gravitational field or higgs field. It seems you are stuck in a world of analogies with no physical connection with one another. Why you don't actually study the actual subject matter and instead rest all your arguments on un-related analogies is beyond me.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546087&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Pkjf_oXULfx_myOsShdGKRY0zjgi42KbMaclpWiUmOc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546087">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546088" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504061658"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL,</p> <p><i>"“What’s unknown is what the impact is of these vibrations on those surrounding Protons.”<br /> Well, it was you who said that you talked with people at CERN and they said that the impact of gravitational waves was known and it was 20 orders of magnitude too small to even bother writing a sentence about it."</i></p> <p>It didn't take into account the high frequency and density of the collisions.</p> <p>It would be like saying the emissions of one car has no effects on the environment, but as we all know it are the billions of cars that are messing up our environment, increasing the Global temperature and melting the ice.</p> <p>What you are doing here is like 'Denier' just looking at one or two elements but staying blind for all the rest.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546088&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Anc3U7DEskzYNHoonOCoIO7xONn5FEBgEVPzWuX16Yk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546088">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546089" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504061995"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>So where are these proton decays? If your hypothesis is true, why haven't we observed these events? 2 years of collisions at 40 million collisions per second -- that's over a QUADRILLION collisions. Not a single one has caused the event your ranting on about.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546089&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="bM4cV7WQoNzoBmJwANpWsjPlR1dd5_H3nuXHZjWcpQ4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546089">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546090" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504062432"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Sean T,</p> <p><i>"If your hypothesis is true, why haven’t we observed these events?"</i></p> <p>Two possibilities: maybe my hypothesis isn't true; but if it's true than it's because the energy of the collisions are still too low and we need more energy.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546090&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="xljN8ZhnLkbd3k5NC0USXxlADvVLjIoaBKo9WXuKYMA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546090">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546091" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504064911"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"It didn’t take into account the high frequency and density of the collisions."</p> <p>they told you that what they do causes (or doesn't cause) anything. AFAIK LHC increased it's power by several TeV from initial runs. Hardly even one magnitude, let alone 20. So what high frequency and density. Making stuff up again?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546091&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="RCgzPLuCVJ_ghm-DAkVwaRNvUz4PLOF21BcvUub-h9I"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546091">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546092" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504066229"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL,</p> <p><i>"So what high frequency and density."</i></p> <p>One of the LHC safety argument is that collisions are safe because there are Cosmic Rays with 50 times more energy. But the frequency and density of those is a billion times lower than at the LHC as shown in this graph: <a href="https://goo.gl/PNYKCp">https://goo.gl/PNYKCp</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546092&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="PZslIHwH_kr6VE8SalJGocv9dZWTLcky95n6NPuMhKo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 30 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546092">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546093" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504068626"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>LHC has been running for years now without any issue, you're safety concern has been shown to be unfounded at best and crazy talk at worst, so why are you bringing it up again eh?</p> <p>Secondly, in every collision only about 20 protons actually do inelastic collision, and by the time a second one comes along, it's all gone. Like I wrote in #37.. better actually read and study some actual physics instead of copy pasting your bable from years ago. By this time any sane person that is actually serious about his ideas would either come up with a valid explanation or realized that he's wrong...</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546093&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="dAV2D5xx9cqKjtNvP33x3jO4654tcajRLhqNQF4zXCM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 30 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546093">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546094" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504070817"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL,</p> <p>I'm sorry but you're hardly a reference to listen to.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546094&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ibgr6hU-2poC6-zoH9bE3BW08YgI5IAdDHYKiNC13x4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 30 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546094">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546095" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504073032"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>LOLZ.. oki doki :D as far as I can see.. you're not listening to anyone. cheers!</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546095&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="PDrgrgQ7nPNANNHlqH_2Q86z4U7DyJ9r1XOfR-gxMTM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 30 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546095">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546096" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504096551"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL #43,</p> <p><i>"Secondly, in every collision only about 20 protons actually do inelastic collision"</i></p> <p>BTW That's also something 'Denier' would bring up …</p> <p>Those 20 collisions add up to a total of 600 million inelastic events per second, and once the beam is at full strength the LHC generates collisions for somewhere between 10 and 20 hours.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546096&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ihsuSb-35WFH5YBmlob8XsVtz1Sw3DTFVY0t49vvgg4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 30 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546096">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546097" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504101570"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Too many threads on the black hole debate.<br /> Here is a quote i found today from Kip Thorne (2014, I think) on the facts of the matter according to Kip:</p> <p>" The hole’s space is bent downward in some higher dimensional “hyperspace” that is not part of our universe."</p> <p>This is metaphysical mysticism. It has no place in the emerging science of black holes (extremely massive gravity wells.)<br /> If i find the right thread for this I will transcribe it.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546097&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Ghkf6_B-nNJEV6_OCPQbZctDGvpDVIIxCaK5zXCQxsI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 30 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546097">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546098" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504109816"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Elle @38:<br /></p><blockquote>It would be like saying the emissions of one car has no effects on the environment,</blockquote> <p>But we observe the emissions of a single car. </p> <p>You are again reasoning from an analogy, but picking an analogy that would support the conclusion "your hypothesis is false." ALL your analogies, in fact, support the conclusion that your hypothesis is false. Because in physics, the individual processes that contribute to a 'chain reaction' are observable too. But yours aren't. Which means your hypothesis runs counter to observation.</p> <p>Elle @40:<br /></p><blockquote>maybe my hypothesis isn’t true; but if it’s true than it’s because the energy of the collisions are still too low and we need more energy.</blockquote> <p>Sean T already covered this in @30. The collision rate is 14 orders of magnitude slower than the Higgs wave decay rate. Thus any hypothesis (like yours) that relies on successive waves constructively interfering to create a bigger effect will not happen.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546098&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="cQ4R4X5gZ-KImBOGxYgDdXJnmCLa57Nte-cmaoCrU0g"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 30 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546098">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546099" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504125181"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Eric,</p> <p><i>"But we observe the emissions of a single car.</i></p> <p>You are again reasoning from an analogy …</p> <p>True but the analogy was related to something I said previous time which SL brought up again, namely the feedback I got from someone at CERN that the GWs produced by LHC collisions are something like 50 to 100 orders of magnitude too weak to be detected, numbers obtained with the quadrupole formula.</p> <p>--</p> <p><i>"Sean T already covered this in @30. The collision rate is 14 orders of magnitude slower than the Higgs wave decay rate"</i></p> <p>And I responded at #32:</p> <p><i>"Yes, but you need to look at how long it takes for the Protons to renormalize between every collision-peak."</i></p> <p>Also read #34</p> <p>Bottom line is the question if Protons can be charged and ultimately shaken apart due to vibrations?</p> <p>Your answer seems to be a definite 'NO' based on your gut feeling, my viewpoint is that maybe they can, I don't know.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546099&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="AwoYQbFfoZ9fU7kajsVHituru2uLNNGdv3YISyrobdo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 30 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546099">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546100" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504126508"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>What you guys are kind of doing is ignoring the obser.<br /><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546100&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="HFJAHsSqIARwPAliANjFyllYsO6AK-WEJfcXdFOvOms"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 30 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546100">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546101" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504147419"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ chelle<br /> "BTW That’s also something ‘Denier’ would bring up …"</p> <p>lol.. well, you exhibit a lot of things a 'Crank' would bring up:</p> <p>- Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making any rational debate a futile task and rendering them impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference.<br /> - Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.<br /> - Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.<br /> - Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.<br /> - seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting<br /> - stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone entails that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error, claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically by secret intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their revolutionary insights becoming widely known,<br /> - exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,<br /> - misunderstand or fail to use standard notation and terminology,<br /> - ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.</p> <p>etc...<br /><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)</a><br /> -</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546101&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="pMy3eQs_QIi2xfiJ8HCGuyesqDfEWJElHVn0KtsNxm4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 30 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546101">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546102" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504149063"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Anybody else here that thinks I'm a crank for questioning if Protons can be shaken apart?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546102&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="I-qtYbetwJtOss1KfEDbAfcw9MNJsneq-NlMyH0TsEs"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 30 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546102">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546103" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504153104"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I think everybody is okay as long as there is respect and no excessive posting etc. Diversity is good. We should not take ourselves too seriously here. We are just commenting.<br /> (Especially watching tactics of people like MM is pure fun :-)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546103&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="5MhJIukdfNQ5vlZC7GfvtmZIvy_V1yq7Jg2N4Rxmi-I"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Frank (not verified)</span> on 31 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546103">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546104" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504156220"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Ok, I took your idea seriously, elle, but you have yourself refuted it in your post #46. There are 400 million events per second. That's 25 quadrillion events in the two years that CERN has been running at its current luminosity and energy. How many proton decays have occurred during these 25 quadrillion chances for them to occur? The probability of a proton decay such as you posit seem to be less than one in a quadrillion. You expect TWO successive such decays to occur? The probability of that occurring is less than 1e-30! That's what it would take to start a chain reaction, though.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546104&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="8wmFO1FS9AAsyRFJfms_8aKL8y8kfvElebyyls2lGQU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 31 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546104">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546105" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504158314"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Sean T #54,</p> <p>I already answered to this at #40 It's a question of reaching a flashpoint 'temperature' as I told you also at #32. You keep bringing up the same argument.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546105&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="MavOMcfr0FUbGPtWMVISD2POtorOejoSlNjzWzYHncM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 31 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546105">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546106" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504159339"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Elle:<br /></p><blockquote>the feedback I got from someone at CERN that the GWs produced by LHC collisions are something like 50 to 100 orders of magnitude too weak to be detected,</blockquote> <p>We can detect gravitational forces much lower than "destruction of Earth" level. Probably at least several orders of magnitude lower (I'm being facetious - it's going to be many. But let's go with 'several' to be safe). So if it takes 50+ orders of magnitude for mere detection, its going to take at least 53+ orders of magnitude for your scenario to happen. But there hasn't been 53 orders of magnitude of events in the entire LHC's history (see @54), and you'd need that number to occur in <i>less than 10E-20 seconds</i> (approximately) for them to have a chance of constructively interfering! Combining this info, it appears that the only way we can't see an effect now and yet there to be a earth-shattering effect, it would have to occur at intensities ~75 orders of magnitude higher than what we can currently achieve.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546106&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Cpocfwb5gginKxMNT7c-Aok9Lkc_LlPK6p5kDlbcoaE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 31 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546106">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546107" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504160118"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>Anybody else here that thinks I’m a crank for questioning if Protons can be shaken apart?</p></blockquote> <p>No, I think you're a crank for claiming the LHC poses a credible destruction-of-Earth risk the way it currently operates.</p> <p>If you want to produce metaphors about how a proton is like a glass or car or ice cream cone, and conclude from those metaphors that there is a never-before-seen photon decay modes, feel free. That doesn't make you a crank. <i>Insisting particle physics experiments be halted</i> merely because your metaphor leads you to think there is a risk makes you a crank. There are many many steps you need to take between "I posit a new, dangerous, proton decay" and "stop the LHC from operating." You have to come up with a mechanism for your decay. You have to figure out how to test whether that mechanism actually exists or not. You have to then do the test. You have to show some results consistent with your mechanism existing. Very likely, you'd then have to convince another group to reproduce your results (though if you've done the earlier steps right, that shouldn't be too hard). <i>Only then</i> does your suggestion "stop the LHC" move from crankiness to credible.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546107&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="OdaHdWBg44O4bDAHpCscz-wyF36JjmYwFHD1ohlvUUE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 31 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546107">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546108" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504165681"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>OK elle, you are making many different arguments at once. I thought it was Higgs particles that caused the problem. These have a lifetime far too short to worry about cumulative effects, so we can rule them out. </p> <p>Next you talk about temperatures (which really is just energy for a single particle). The energy of an excited state particle is dissipated rapidly by spontaneous emission. The rate of such emission scales as the cube of the energy of the transition. For protons, this would be quite high, so again time frames on the order of 10^-20 seconds would be expected, again far too short for cumulative effect. Positing that a higher energy will be required only makes matters worse as higher energies will result in even faster relaxation times. </p> <p>Now you seem to be going on about gravitational waves. eric did a good job discounting that possibility in hs post #56. What's next? I am sure that no matter how many mechanisms get discounted, you will come up with something new. </p> <p>So the answer is yes, you are a crank for thinking protons can be shaken apart, at least under conditions that prevail in the LHC. Unless of course at some point you admit defeat and admit that the evidence does not bear out your hypothesis. Cranks are people who cling to an idea in the face of contrary evidence; you are getting perilously close to that.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546108&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="nu-_IRoSd8HG1DWPcIFmcZNNphWQdYraQh1kX94EOpA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 31 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546108">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546109" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504166040"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Another point: even if a proton is "shaken apart", what is it "shaken apart" into? What happens to it? Why is it a disastrous thing for a proton to be "shaken apart"? </p> <p>I know, I know "chain reaction" and all that. Chain reaction is not an explanation, though. You have to state WHY there is expected to be a chain reaction. For nuclear fission, there is a chain reaction because the initial fission event is triggered by neutron absorption and the result of the fission is the formation of four new neutrons, which can trigger more fission events. </p> <p>You have postulated gravitational waves, Higgs particles, high energy, and who knows what else as triggering mechanisms for protons "shaking apart". Why would a shaken apart proton produce a Higgs particle? If it's just energy, why would a proton "shaking apart" produce energy rather than absorb that energy and produce more massive decay products? Why would it produce gravitational waves sufficiently strong to cause a new event? </p> <p>Absent such a chain reaction, the decay of a single proton would likely go unnoticed by anyone without a particle detector. It would hardly be a dangerous event.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546109&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="4ODRVk2qWp03NYwDRBDFHcT6HQ2TPM__-KtdEB7fTDM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 31 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546109">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546110" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504166419"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Eric,</p> <p><i>"So if it takes 50+ orders of magnitude for mere detection, its going to take at least 53+ orders of magnitude for your scenario to happen."</i></p> <p>In most cases in physics yes, but not in the case of the glass that snaps. In the latter it is the build of small bits of energy that ultimately make the glass snap! So the 'input energy' can be 50 to 100 orders smaller. It's a matter of time it takes to strain the Protons until 'boiling point', with the right pitch. Perhaps until some energy nothing is 'absorbed'.</p> <p>--</p> <p><i>"Insisting particle physics experiments be halted merely because your metaphor leads you to think there is a risk makes you a crank."</i></p> <p>Yes, that's something I have realized, so that's not something I'm asking ATM. But had expect that the LHC safety paper had included a study on the relationship between the collisions and surrounding matter, but it's handwaved away. </p> <p>We have serious studies checking if mobile phone signals in the electromagnetic field aren't dangerous, and we know that nuclear radiation can cause cancer over a long period of time, but when it comes to the LHC there's nothing to find on the subject if vibrations in the Higgs field have any harming potential. All the studies are only focused on the collisions themselves. As mentioned in a previous post with the Atom bomb there was the thought of setting the atmosphere on fire, and so the did the calculations.</p> <p>--</p> <p><i>"even if a proton is “shaken apart”, what is it “shaken apart” into? What happens to it? Why is it a disastrous thing for a proton to be “shaken apart”?"</i></p> <p>That's something I already (partly) answered at #21</p> <p>But as you know I'm not an expert, therefore I had expected that expert had explored this path in the Safety paper.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546110&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="4HDleU4zxqnXrEKF0f3mRsCsHV64ZCD4PyK4y9rirPY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 31 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546110">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546111" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504166758"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Eric,</p> <p>Also check #24 for your last question.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546111&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="0bKx_Oi9I38yirXdiT8tTJHJNxnlnJwASWt90kb_nOk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 31 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546111">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546112" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504166917"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Oops, there has been a mixup, I thought that Sean T's post at #58 was also by Eric.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546112&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="qNJaWsycKMDoXuuw3ksyds31n2kXeSGJZ6UauSzh26M"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 31 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546112">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546113" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504194918"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>We have serious studies checking if mobile phone signals in the electromagnetic field aren’t dangerous, and we know that nuclear radiation can cause cancer over a long period of time, but when it comes to the LHC there’s nothing to find on the subject if vibrations in the Higgs field have any harming potential.</p></blockquote> <p>Goodness, that's treating very different cases as similar. The first case is one where we know the mechanism, we observe the emissions, we know and observe their effects, and conclude <i>scientifically</i> there's no risk...but because there is lots of litigation and lots of public fear, people do the studies anyway. In the second case we know the mechanisms, observe the emissions, we know and observe the effects, and they have documented health effects that we've known about for more than sixty years. In the third case, the mechanism is hypothesized but no evidence for it exists. Nobody has ever observed the emissions. The effects are extrapolated from one person's preferred metaphors - not even a quantitative model! </p> <p>So yes, it's not surprising that the third case is not treated like the first or second cases. Why should it be? You're missing the fundamental basis that even the cranks claiming cell phone radiation risk have.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546113&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="gqoKjUV4u3bNckH0hUxQoOTjK10W5uM8jDK5Sei86Do"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 31 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546113">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546114" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504541990"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>We have serious studies checking if mobile phone signals in the electromagnetic field aren’t dangerous, and we know that nuclear radiation can cause cancer over a long period of time, but when it comes to the LHC there’s nothing to find on the subject if vibrations in the Higgs field have any harming potential.</p></blockquote> <p>Those are three very different situations. In the first, the physics is largely known, there's no predicted risk, and the studies get done mostly because of litigation and public demand, not because scientists think it's a fruitful area that will yield new knowledge. In the second, the physics is largely known, the risk and health effects are known, and pretty much everyone accepts it. In the third case, you have no quantified physics. You have a metaphor which may not even be apt.</p> <p>Chelle, there are an infinite number of potential risks we are not studying. Vibrations in the higgs field! Quadrupole motion in quantum foam! Octupole motion in the hydrogen wavefunction!<br /> We can't investigate them all. We probably don't even have the money and resources to investigate all the risks <i>we have evidence for</i>, let alone the ones for which no evidence exists. Why should we treat your unevidenced claim any different from the practically infinite number of other unevidenced claims other people make?</p> <p>The scientific way of dealing with this issue of "more hypotheses than we have resources to investigate" is to put the onus of initial investigation on the proposers/defenders of that hypothesis. That treats all hypotheses (whether mainstream or counter-mainstream) equally, and separates the serious proposers from the less serious ones by asking such people to commit their own time and money to their idea (or the time and money they can raise from investors), before anyone else is asked to do so.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546114&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="5TTn3pemk7bsQK1xXjhuR5hVLcOOHS4mvhC5ficyBTI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 04 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546114">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546115" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504559341"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Eric?</p> <p>1st I'm asking, who am I the public, so it's exactly the same.</p> <p>2nd we only knew later on that nuclear radiation was dangerous enough people got serious injured or died in the early days, the most famous Marie Curie.</p> <p>3rd my 'metaphor' is one of the most basic elements in physics, every security report takes a look at what risks there are for an event to spread out.</p> <p>And sure there's enough money for this, F**K if there is one thing on this planet where there should be money for is to check if you're not blowing up the planet. BTW when something 'new' at the LHC is discovered suddenly 200 papers show up to explain what it is even when it still might be nothing. Surely a 5th of these theoretical scientists could take a few days to investigate the risk of the high frequency and density of the collisions in relation to the 'aether' and the surrounding matter. This is pure basic, not like multi universes etc., are they perhaps too elitist to do an official investigation on something plain and simple?</p> <p>Again for f**ks sake the standard model is 40 years old, nothing significantly new since at least some people could have had the time to do a check on the proposed 'vibrating' effects of the collisions. What's most important ATM in theoretical physics?</p> <p>What I'm reading from your part are a lot of excuses. Why don't you just say; "cool let real scientists investigate it and write up an official paper, so we know officially"?</p> <p>How much would the state lose on this, not a penny.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546115&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="bgDY8HlXyEUXSqf5CjTiYK-9t_upF0WmleUDRq4fWvI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 04 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546115">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546116" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504622592"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>, F**K if there is one thing on this planet where there should be money for is to check if you’re not blowing up the planet. </p> <p>People can come up with all sorts of hypotheses that end with the planet blowing up. And they will all, like yours, initially have zero evidence for them. So unless you're demanding we commit resources to investigate every possible planet-blowing-up hypothesis, why should we privilege yours more than any of the others?</p> <p>To borrow from Stephen Roberts, when you understand why you dismiss the risk of octupole motion in the hydrogen wavefunction as not worthy of investigation, you will understand why I dismiss yours.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546116&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="92BkyYgLuQsvBXYTwZXjv7ekT3rgkJHrUiMFxeWKUJk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 05 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546116">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546117" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504649951"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Eric,</p> <p><i>"So unless you’re demanding we commit resources to investigate every possible planet-blowing-up hypothesis, why should we privilege yours more than any of the others?"</i></p> <p>All the others have been investigated, but not one takes the high frequency and density of the collisions into account. You just keep on making excuses. </p> <p>You know very well what the problem is, for individual events we have references of Cosmic Rays with higher energies, so it's safe to say there is no risk. But when taking the high frequency and density into account there is no reference, this situation is unique in the universe so one has no idea if this is dangerous or not, and who dares to publish that they don't know if there's a risk even of it's 1 in a billion. The same goes for Ethan's response here playing it safe saying there is 'nothing' vibrating, the official way to look at space, not wanting to be the one saying their 'might' be something vibrating.</p> <p>Anyway does one have proof of String theory? No, but there's no risk for the community to publish one paper after the other … in contrast to a paper that might give the slightest hint of any risk with particle collisions.</p> <p>It's like with global warming being contested by conservatives because it might harm their business or way of life, or tobacco companies who refused to look at the bigger picture:</p> <blockquote><p>"Tobacco companies have capitalized on this philosophical objection and exploited the doubts of clinicians, who consider only individual cases, on the causal link in the stochastic expression of the toxicity as actual disease.</p> <p>There have been multiple court cases on the issue that tobacco companies have researched the health effects of tobacco, but suppressed the findings or formatted them to imply lessened or no hazard. - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco#Studies">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco#Studies</a></p></blockquote> <p>Scientists protecting their industry, this is typical human behavior.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546117&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="b3vF8lGQBw5tjua-Iou-xY3zYgYzBH5h5qwuGLG219k"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 05 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546117">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546118" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504662758"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I suggest you start small. I would first try to complain to local city authorities that the side wall of your building was never tested to resist the impact of 10 000 mosquitoes. They might have tried with one.. on tried with some bigger objects.. but never with repeated hits with 10 000 mosquitoes. No one bothered to test. How negligent of them.<br /> Just saying... doesn't require new physics. 'Cause it sounds like you're asking that theoretical physicists at CERN should stop doing what they're doing and instead concentrate their combined brain power and invent some new extension to the standard model that allows for your "vibrations" to exist and affect the "surrounding" protons in just a way that you claim. Then run experiments that this is in fact real or not, and then update their security assessments that another thing was ruled our or not. </p> <p>Based on what, from your side? You yourself said: " you are right to point out why I am wrong,". Seems that the world ought to do a whole lot for something you admit being wrong about?!</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546118&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="962cT-wwYCXOCCURv4Olu3odqyhHfsnd-jtvaplgEkE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 05 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546118">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546119" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504664605"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>You know very well what the problem is</p></blockquote> <p>I do not <i>know</i> that photons act like glasses that are subjected to acoustic waves; that's your premise, but it isn't mine. I do not <i>know</i> that high energy physics collisions violate Einstein's photoelectric effect. That is your premise, but it isn't mine. I do not <i>know</i> how particles with halflives expected to be about 1E-20 seconds, last long enough to create a constructive interference effect when they're only produced at a rate of a packet every 1E-9 seconds. And I do not <i>know<i> that this unknown hypothesized reaction will produce gravity waves.</i></i></p> <p>So while yes I <i>understand</i> your hypothesis, I do not <i>know</i> it to be credible. You must convince me of that <i>before</i> I will treat it as credible. And the way you convince scientists that you have a credible hypothesis is you go out and get data that supports it. Or, if you're a theorist, you can alternately show quantitatively how it does a good job of explaining some currently unexplained observed phenomena. That will also peak peoples' interest. </p> <blockquote><p>The same goes for Ethan’s response here playing it safe saying there is ‘nothing’ vibrating, the official way to look at space, not wanting to be the one saying their ‘might’ be something vibrating.</p></blockquote> <p>I'll say it. There might be something vibrating. So what? You're still missing all the hard work you need to do between <i>might be</i> and <i>credible threat</i>.</p> <blockquote><p>It’s like with global warming being contested by conservatives because it might harm their business or way of life</p></blockquote> <p>Well if you want to descend into the crankery of implying that all scientists everywhere are acting in a big conspiracy to avoid a truth that might cost LHC experimenters their jobs, you are welcome to. But I'm not going to engage you on that point. Perhaps you an Axil can work together to decide whether it's the same secret group that keeps the LHC operating and prevents free energy from being developed.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546119&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="g956es9XJHYRTNGdvB-vU_C12bQpayiXAZD1wUl9FXs"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 05 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546119">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546120" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504665023"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL,</p> <p>Are you kidding, the beam of the LHC will blow a hole through your wall as if it is nothing. You do realize that it is build to pulverize matter don't you?!</p> <p><i>"Seems that the world ought to do a whole lot for something you admit being wrong about?!"</i></p> <p>You sound like MM not getting the point of how one can be wrong within a certain framework, but not within an other. Mind-boggling isn't it!</p> <p>Seems you like also prefer to ignore the quote of the Professor where he said that Space is like glass … and my argument of breaking the glass with a repetitive high pitch.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546120&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="QmlHn0GWRsdkFb8WFWxi_D8ljA9DsjUEsRS0oN-yaWo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 05 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546120">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546121" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504665704"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Eric,</p> <p><i>"the way you convince scientists that you have a credible hypothesis is you go out and get data that supports it."</i></p> <p>That's true, and it's something I'm trying to do.</p> <p><i>"all scientists everywhere are acting in a big conspiracy …"</i></p> <p>It's not a conspiracy, it's a basic instinct not to jeopardize your own career over some 'foolish' idea. It's something we see all to often that people keep their mouths shot. As in this clip on how a spark killed an Apollo crew: <a href="https://youtu.be/m8chx10UbI8">https://youtu.be/m8chx10UbI8</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546121&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="39wgtcSNZBrxfA6srRBhZvy4fPHoveSjsq-3MKnHwI0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 05 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546121">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546122" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504675101"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>IMHO there are good arguments and counter-arguments from both sides. Appreciated :-)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546122&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="nyJwUh8IoJBTWbGv8f2rM8KQLmdzZZbMkD0AoKOGX9I"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Frank (not verified)</span> on 06 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546122">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546123" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504683014"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Elle,</p> <p>You have neither high energy, nor high frequency. The numbers SEEM big, but for the phenomena involved they are not. Statements like "You do realize that it is build to pulverize matter don’t you?!" make it quite clear that you fail to understand the processes involved. Sinisa's mosquito comparison is in fact quite apt. A 1 gram mosquito flying at 1 m/s (a bit over 2 mph), would have a kinetic energy of 1/2*(.001)*(1^2) = .0005 J. A 7 TeV proton has an energy of about 0.000002J. It takes about 250 7 TeV protons to equal the energy of a single mosquito. Hardly energy sufficient to "pulverize matter" as you put it. </p> <p>Besides which, my main point to you still stands. The possibility of an earth-shattering event caused by p-p collisions at 13 TeV and 40 MHz IS being investigated. It just isn't being investigated in the manner you wish. The scientists at CERN HAVE been investigating the possibility for the last two years, and there's no evidence of anything unsafe. </p> <p>BTW, comparing yourself to Mooney certainly isn't going to lend you any credibility on here. Most rational posters here recognize him for what he is, a crank pure and simple. Your hypothesis is not crankbait in and of itself -- a hitherto unknown resonance, particle reaction, etc. is certainly a legitimate focus for scientific study. Your contention, without proposal of a legitimate underlying mechanism, that such a reaction could be a real threat to life on earth IS crankbait. You had been focusing on the former and distancing yourself from the latter. Unfortunately, that seems no longer to be the case.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546123&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="fcnSf3YawBJ9slUEkcl2WICAGrl7b94TNdQyqkPvrJc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 06 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546123">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546124" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504686285"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Frank,</p> <p>Thanks.</p> <p>--</p> <p>@Sean T,</p> <p><i>"Hardly energy sufficient to “pulverize matter” as you put it."</i></p> <p>Have you never seen the guy that got hit by a Proton beam that blasted through his head?</p> <blockquote><p>"The left half of Bugorski's face swelled up beyond recognition and, over the next several days, started peeling off, revealing the path that the proton beam (moving near the speed of light) had <b>burned through parts of his face, his bone and the brain tissue underneath.</b>" - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoli_Bugorski">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoli_Bugorski</a></p></blockquote> <p>--</p> <p><i>"The scientists at CERN HAVE been investigating the possibility for the last two years, and there’s no evidence of anything unsafe."</i></p> <p>The LSAG is from 2003 and the latest addition was from 2011 can you give a link to the investigation you talk about. </p> <p>Note, as mentioned in a previous comment they all deal with individual collisions like your tiny mosquito, and not taking the whole blast, that blows a hole through your head, into account. Please read the previous comments before posting a comment.</p> <p>--</p> <p><i>"BTW, comparing yourself to Mooney …"</i></p> <p>Uh, in a previous post I compared SL with him not myself.</p> <p>--</p> <p>A. <i>"Your hypothesis is not crankbait in and of itself"</i></p> <p>B. <i>"Your contention, without proposal of a legitimate underlying mechanism, that such a reaction could be a real threat to life on earth IS crankbait."</i></p> <p>So I can propose the mechanism (A.) but it's taboo to speculate on what the effects may be (B.) because that makes me a crank.</p> <p>It's like the Apollo disaster linked to hear above, a form of peer pressure to better not speak up that it might be dangerous. Be humble and shut up.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546124&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Gezadfpm8ou9JLLRz4AC3xPeh2Nzq4_1QrgGGu6jWM0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 06 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546124">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546125" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504689466"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>No doubt that a proton beam can produce radiation that's deadly to humans, or in the case of the lucky researcher you cited, harmful. (Lucky he didn't die, that is). Still, the kinetic energy of the proton is certainly insufficient to "pulverize matter". This researcher suffered from radiation poisoning due to the proton beam collision; he was not pulverized. </p> <p>I think you missed my point in a couple of respects. The CERN researchers ARE investigating, at least unintentionally so, whether p-p collisions at 40 MHz and 13 TeV are potentially dangerous. They are doing so by actually carrying out such collisions. Where are the earth-shattering proton decays? Why are we still here to debate about it? Obviously, this is NOT a cause for concern, at least at current energies. Physics DOES give an answer to how much energy is needed for such collisions to cause effects like you posit, namely the Planck energy. We are quite far below such energies, and there is no prospect of ever reaching them, though.</p> <p>Also, no, working through the consequences of your hypothesis is fine. However, show me where you have actually done so. In fact, your "idea" really does not even qualify as a hypothesis. It basically boils down to "given enough energy and a high enough frequency of collision, something might happen". You've tried several different "soemthings" in that statement: Higgs field vibrations, gravity waves, proton excitations, etc. Which one is it? If all, show mechanisms for each. What is the threshold energy at which harmful effects might be observed? What is the mechanism for the chain reaction that you posit? Why have we not observed even a hint of such mechanisms at the current 13 TeV energy and 40 MHz frequency? Answer some of these questions and you might just go from crank to an actual hypothesis (which may yet turn out to be false, but at least it would be something testable). </p> <p>Finally, my apologies about the MM reference. I misread your comment in that regard.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546125&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="yvygdONJlqBf6MrceFS9V5CJYu7pguGTn7EUijOq4i0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 06 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546125">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546126" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504689707"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>BTW, elle, you are leaning heavily toward the "crank" end of the scale right now for another reason. You have a choice of two options:</p> <p>1. The entire physics community currently is so hell-bent on keeping their jobs and running their experiments that they are willing to knowingly endanger all of humanity to keep their jobs and run their test. </p> <p>OR</p> <p>2. Elle HC might just not have a complete and better understanding of the physics involved with the experiments at CERN than the physics community does. </p> <p>You seem to be heavily leaning toward option 1 above. I would hypothesize that you lacking understanding is quite a bit more probable than a grand conspiracy among the physics community to risk destruction of the earth.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546126&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="1sPqzW0akTdgzjQ-phd0y2kk67uGPGzXdi3JbTHrAKc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 06 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546126">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546127" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504694116"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Sean T,</p> <p><i>"This researcher suffered from radiation poisoning due to the proton beam collision; he was not pulverized."</i></p> <p>Yeah right.</p> <p><b>pulverize</b><br /> ˈpʌlvərʌɪz<br /> verb<br /> reduce to fine particles.<br /> "the brick of the villages was pulverized by the bombardment"<br /> synonyms:<br /> grind, crush, pound, crumble, powder, turn to dust; mill, crunch, squash, etc.</p> <p>--</p> <p>The rest of your comment has already been discussed, no need to go round in circles.</p> <p>Take care.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546127&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="q_xmAnSB66iIFlA-pwLHIwE8vR9AOCu2_p033Ql_3sg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 06 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546127">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546128" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504714556"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>It’s not a conspiracy, it’s a basic instinct not to jeopardize your own career...</p></blockquote> <p>How are the careers of physicists not working on the LHC jeopardized by deveolping a revolutionary new understanding of proton physics that would call into question the LHC's safety?</p> <p>I mean you're basically talking about a Nobel Prize level of discovery. And you're trying to claim <i>every particle physicist on the planet</i> is refusing to consider it because of some loyalty to CERN. You don't see the conspiracy nuttiness in that?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546128&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="qsMsBF__lN7CHlBYxI3Jmb1NMTESNwTzJaF6g-mfeps"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 06 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546128">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546129" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504715178"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>So I can propose the mechanism (A.) but it’s taboo to speculate on what the effects may be (B.) because that makes me a crank.</p></blockquote> <p>As I said in @57, proposing a novel mechanism doesn't make you a crank. Demanding physicists shut down a facility based on one person's unevidenced, metaphoric, unquantified concept makes you a crank. And within the last two days, claiming that no physicist <i>in the entire world</i> would consider the idea because of job security also makes you a crank. For goodness' sake, Elle, what the heck do you think would make a Chinese scientist withold that info? They're peer competitors and would (IMO) happily stick a finger in the eye of the US/European science establishment. (IMO) Their government practically encourages it. The same is true (IMO) for the BJP in India. It takes a real crank to think all scientists on the entire planet have a shared interest in this. It also takes a crank to think every significant physics job in the entire world is dependent on it's occupant not saying bad things about the LHC.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546129&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="oBeEN-GM_x_AHQ0D39msui1hBolbgQLrhfUFqxKnahg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 06 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546129">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546130" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504730352"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Eric,</p> <p><i>"As I said in @57, proposing a novel mechanism doesn’t make you a crank."</i></p> <p>I already discussed this with you at #59:</p> <p><i>"“Insisting particle physics experiments be halted merely because your metaphor leads you to think there is a risk makes you a crank.”</i></p> <p>Yes, that’s something I have realized, so that’s not something I’m asking ATM. But had expect that the LHC safety paper had included a study on the relationship between the collisions and surrounding matter, but it’s handwaved away.</p> <p>Are you drunk or so that you already forgot what I said before perhaps just dumb or blissfully ignorant?</p> <p>Like I said to Sean T read what's already been written because we're going round in circles.</p> <p>Take care.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546130&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ZyStQm-MemeF698CMLd0Xmhz9GnYjayQNkt235U1Yl8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 06 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546130">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546131" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504749918"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>we’re going round in circles.</p></blockquote> <p>As long as you have no new evidence for your position, we will continue to repeat the same mainstream arguments to point out why you're (inductively, provisionally, with the conclusion subject to revision should new evidence come along etc...) wrong. As with all "challenger" ideas in science, the burden of proof is really on you to show why we should give any credence to your idea - there's no burden on us to come up with new or novel counter-arguments every time you repeat your same contention.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546131&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="VTLxz68Ub2gHJF-Bgp0hipieTsCXfTFSJd0VyJ6xj0Y"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 06 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546131">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546132" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504758375"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Eric,</p> <p><i>"As long as you have no new evidence for your position, we will continue to repeat the same mainstream arguments to point out why you’re … wrong."</i></p> <p>Ok.</p> <p>But the last few post were no longer about that, for instance you wrote:</p> <p>A. <i>"How are the careers of physicists not working on the LHC jeopardized by deveolping a revolutionary new understanding of proton physics that would call into question the LHC’s safety?</i></p> <p>I mean you’re basically talking about a Nobel Prize level of discovery."</p> <p>B. <i>"Demanding physicists shut down a facility based on one person’s unevidenced, metaphoric, unquantified concept makes you a crank."</i></p> <p>It is the same argument as the one by 'Sean T' @ #71 that I responded too @ #72.</p> <p>You see the irony also in your example, where on the one hand such a theory deserves the Nobel prize (if correct), but if you'd give the slightest hint that there's a hazard, before you have any proof, that would make you a crank.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546132&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="bTv4RcFzzr2GCeMVI5QX9R7XwAGufVyCa29jyPwFQQA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 07 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546132">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546133" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504774877"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>For the record... for newbies and lurker-readers, in reply to Sean T's slander in #71: "BTW, comparing yourself to Mooney certainly isn’t going to lend you any credibility on here. "...</p> <p>My latest criticism here was that Ethan presents statements as facts which are only theoretical, not supported by any evidence, and that he is proud of it, as if my exposing his dishonesty were a compliment.</p> <p>My criticisms of relativity are based on objective realism... that the physical cosmos is as it is independent of differences in observational frames of reference. Examples are ubiquitous: The lengths of physical objects and the distances between them does not depend on observational differences, in spite of the "Lorentz Transformation" by which the slower one's clock is ticking (after acceleration to higher speed) the shorter the distance traveled... etc.<br /> "Length contraction" ("length is not invariant" according to SR) also includes shrinking trains, flattened planets, variable depth of Earth's atmosphere and reduced distance between stars, depending on the traveler's speed.</p> <p>Also, "spacetime" is not a malleable entity. It's a geometric/ math MODEL presented as a substantial "real world" entity. (Dishonest science) Plus it is supposed to allow "time travel" via the "block universe" MODEL, turning science fiction into "credible science." That's enough scare quotes for one post.</p> <p>All of the above makes me a crank here, a target for endless personal attacks.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546133&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="SYPEpji1tGnIllnnNdZqT8zILAbqVkDF5MJ7yemFgzw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 07 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546133">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546134" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504801021"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>You see the irony also in your example, where on the one hand such a theory deserves the Nobel prize (if correct), but if you’d give the slightest hint that there’s a hazard, before you have any proof, that would make you a crank.</p></blockquote> <p>Where is the irony? Any discovery that radically overturns our current understanding is a likely candidate for the Nobel prize. Admitted. Agreed. That doesn't mean I think every claim that would radically overturn current understanding is worth investigating. To paraphrase Carl Sagan; the fact that some genius ideas were laughed at does not mean every idea that is laughed at is genius.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546134&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="iJzjOiDd5yKNfjuJlCIyP2zUGi22bdJ1pFJh7yPshoc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 07 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546134">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546135" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504820171"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Eric,</p> <p><i>"Where is the irony?"</i></p> <p><i>"the fact that some genius ideas were laughed at does not mean every idea that is laughed at is genius."</i></p> <p>No, that's not it. You exactly defined the reason to switch from possibly acceptable to definitely crank, and it is when the idea becomes a threat:</p> <p>• <i>"Demanding physicists shut down a facility based on one person’s unevidenced, metaphoric, unquantified concept makes you a crank.”</i></p> <p>• <i>"Your contention, without proposal of a legitimate underlying mechanism, that such a reaction could be a real threat to life on earth IS crankbait.”</i></p> <p>You both give someone the benefit of the doubt, but not when someone is saying there might be a hazard. It is defense mechanism, perhaps because you experience it as an attack. </p> <p>Someone objective wouldn't make that 'ironic' switch from possible genius to definitely crank because of the possible consequences.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546135&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="feH_4rjINFQlFlyPM4xfes9BLGFdsqz2mv-w0l_sxSE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 07 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546135">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546136" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504847595"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Elle,</p> <p>I guess the part you missed is "underlying mechanism". What is the underlying mechanism in your idea. So far, all you've given is "maybe Higgs field vibrations" or "maybe gravitational waves". What you have failed to do is show HOW such phenomena would result in a dangerous situation. Your analogies to resonance in glasses fail because glasses are aggregates of massive numbers of particles, whereas the CERN tests are collisions involving only two particles (two protons). The remnants of those collisions can further interact with other particles, but (discounting three or more-way interactions which are of very low probability), they will always be two particle interactions. Phenomena like resonance are emergent phenomena involving aggregates of particles, not microscopic interactions. Even a concept such as "temperature" really doesn't have meaning for a single particle. That's why your arguments by analogy are not good ones. </p> <p>Now, if you came up with some chain reaction mechanism by which a microscopic two-particle interaction could propagate throughout a macroscopic mass, then you might be on to something and might be taken seriously. You would need to show how the energy from one interaction is propagated in such a way as to produce subsequent interactions. The example of a fission reactor is a good one. A neutron is absorbed by a fissionable nucleus. The subsequent fission of that nucleus produces four more neutrons, which can go on to trigger subsequent fission events. That's a legitimate mechanism for a chain reaction. </p> <p>In your proposal, what is it that triggers the initial reaction (akin to the neutron absorption in the fission case)? What is it that the reaction produces (more neutrons?) What mechanism is it that allows the products to continue to propagate the reaction? (obvious in the case of fission, since neutrons can directly trigger further reactions. This mechanism need not be so direct). </p> <p>Start talking about things like this, and stop talking about conspiracies among the physics community to hide the threat so that they can keep their jobs. I am not personally a physicist and am not involved with CERN in any way. I really don't care if they keep their jobs or not (beyond my human compassion to not want to see people suffer needlessly). So far you have given no serious evidence that there may be a danger. </p> <p>Your argument is akin to me saying that the quantum flux of the Higgs field might destroy your house if you reply to this message. It's word salad; it's not a real idea based on a real understanding of physics. You can't prove I'm wrong, but I have no evidence that I'm right. If I expect you to take my warning seriously, then it is incumbent upon me to provide evidence that my warning is actually credible. I cannot do so. Neither can you in the case of your warning.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546136&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Ob71gjZmWtO8L3NicF5Day_W-4vbk9w3pOSSKg4NP98"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 08 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546136">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546137" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504849933"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Sean T,</p> <p>I haven't spoken of conspiracies, don't pin that on me.</p> <p><i>"Your argument is akin to me saying that the quantum flux of the Higgs field might destroy your house if you reply to this message. It’s word salad; it’s not a real idea based on a real understanding of physics. You can’t prove I’m wrong, but I have no evidence that I’m right."</i></p> <p>That's nonsense and a way to ridicule my argument.</p> <p>What you should compare it to in your example, is starting construction works next to your house and drilling heavily … now one can ask the question could the intensity of the drilling shake my your property apart? Or think of an earthquake and a tsunami that travels hundreds of miles ripping up the ocean shores.</p> <p>That's what (particle) collisions are about, generatin waves and waves and waves of energy that spread out, hitting everything in their path.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546137&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="VnJ69T-BibYTRie2hGb4SUqRhmnIpB6U5SgO6vWHWnw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 08 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546137">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546138" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504855287"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Again, your analogies fail. We know the mechanisms by which tsunamis and construction site drilling can damage properties. We DON'T know the mechanism for how 13 TeV (which have MUCH less energy than construction site drills or tsunamis); could destroy the earth. Until you can explain that mechanism, I am afraid your argument IS in fact nonsense.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546138&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="fGUEAg4VQztGGsnPzG2puxq6NDmc69j4NF-vY6cKLNc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 08 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546138">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546139" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504855778"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Sean T,</p> <p><i>"We know the mechanisms by which tsunamis and construction site drilling can damage properties."</i></p> <p>Yes, through Goldstone bosons:</p> <blockquote><p>“The most familiar goldstone bosons are the phonons that carry sound through solids. If you hit your fist on a table that sound is being propagated through the material by goldstone bosons moving through the material.”</p></blockquote> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546139&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="bVBMGklfAEKIV0qkg1YaSCzW5WINqtsbehTfJ32fHVQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 08 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546139">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546140" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504856221"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Elle,</p> <p>You do understand, right, that there MUST be a chain reaction to cause any kind of serious macroscopic damage. The power output of the LHC assuming 40 MHz luminosity and 13 TeV collision energies is about 83W, just a bit more than a typical household light bulb. Things like resonance are NOT microscopic phenomena; they are properties of large aggregates of particles acting in concert. There ARE no such aggregations of particles in the LHC system; it's a pretty good vacuum. As such, resonances are pretty much ruled out. The only way to build up energy is for some hitherto unknown reaction to have a chain mechanism that spirals out of control. What is that mechanism? </p> <p>There's a big jump between "there may be a hitherto unknown particle decay that might be observed at the collision energies at which the LHC operates" and "there is a possibility that such a hitherto unobserved reaction could cause macroscopic energy release."</p> <p>It's the same difference as the difference between ordinary radioactivity and nuclear fission. Ordinary radioactivity, while it can be biologically harmful, is NEVER going to cause damage to macroscopic structures, regardless of how much radioactive material is present or how active such material is. We can observe rapid beta decay for as long as we want, and there will never be any reason to worry that the building we are sitting in will be destroyed. Fission, as I have tried to point out previously is a different animal. Fission is triggered by neutrons and produces more neutrons than it consumes. This leads to a potentially runaway chain reaction that can destroy a city. </p> <p>The mechanism by which this occurs is known, though. What we don't know is the mechanism by which your hypothesized proton decay will cause an uncontrollable chain of such decays. If you want to get out of crank territory, specify that mechanism so that others can evaluate the probability of its occurrence. You are still getting mixed up on where the burden of proof lies. It does NOT lie upon the scientific community to disprove your idea. It's up to you to provide your evidence for it. Such and such a reaction MIGHT happen is not evidence.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546140&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="6zVuisN07QSI1pVpqWB0G3Lok_bDagjdQUnyWp2_9bw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 08 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546140">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546141" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504859719"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Sean T,</p> <p><i>"There ARE no such aggregations of particles in the LHC system; it’s a pretty good vacuum."</i></p> <p>Seriously, plz go check post #35 that's the time when SL realized what the mechanism is that I am suggesting, this after a long explanation from my part over multiple posts.</p> <p>You should also read what others write, it is really annoying to explain the same things over and over again.</p> <p>Now regarding your 'pretty good vacuum' this is how the Higgs field is considered:</p> <blockquote><p>"The Higgs mechanism is a type of superconductivity which occurs in the vacuum. It occurs when all of <b>space is filled with a sea of particles</b> which are charged" - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism#Landau_model">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism#Landau_model</a></p></blockquote> <p>An other Professor said:</p> <blockquote><p>"Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that <b>space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with ‘stuff’ </b>that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is <b>a relativistic ether.&gt;/b&gt;"</b></p></blockquote> <p>Now go look up what the connection is between those 'Goldstone bosons' and the Higgs Boson.</p> <p>I hope that this time you can finally put all the pieces together and graps what I am actually talking about.</p> <p>BTW how much Watt does a spark need to have to start a Wildfire?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546141&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="jZ3Svxg7SKDAVenZs9CQA_eaT3HLP8tDnIDiyWNjiiA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 08 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546141">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546142" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504866743"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>You both give someone the benefit of the doubt, but not when someone is saying there might be a hazard. It is defense mechanism, perhaps because you experience it as an attack.<br /></p><blockquote> <p>LOL even if you stop saying we should shut down the LHC, and limit yourself to claiming high intensity proton reactions will create a cascade of gravity waves, I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt. I don't think that happens, and I would want you to show me evidence supporting it before I accepted that it happens.</p> <p>But, as to your accusation that I'm being "defensive," maybe an analogy would help. Let's say I live in LA and my neighbor Elle tells me she fears North Korea may launch a successful nuclear ICBM at LA. I personally think this is not credible, but if her response to this belief is to watch the news every day, I won't think she's acting particularly crazy. She's collecting more data; testing her initial belief. Responding to a low-credibility fear with a low expenditure of resources. But if she goes before the HOA and demands it use $millions of our HOA money to build a big nuclear bunker under our neighborhood, I'm going to oppose it and think she's nuts. Is my opposition to her bunker-building demand "defensive"? Is it ironic that my response to her claim differs depending on what she does about it? I don't think so; I think it's perfectly normal to see a low-grade response to a low-grade fear as okay, but a high-grade response to a low-grade fear as irrational. </p> <blockquote><p>Someone objective wouldn’t make that ‘ironic’ switch from possible genius to definitely crank because of the possible consequences.</p></blockquote> <p>In that case I will avoid giving the impression that I ever thought your ideas was 'possible genius' in the future, as I didn't mean to do that. I thought it was obvious that I was putting your idea in the second of Sagan's categories, not the first. But I guess that wasn't obvious so I apologize for any confusion that might have caused.</p></blockquote> </blockquote> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546142&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="GYA6MTc7DedJTFPHkcEqeGekiaS2EVNJqeUuFdwLUVU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 08 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546142">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546143" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504867906"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Eric,</p> <p><i>"LOL even if you … limit yourself to claiming high intensity proton reactions will create a cascade of gravity waves, I’m not going to give you the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think that happens, and I would want you to show me evidence supporting it before I accepted that it happens.</i></p> <p>Someone who works at CERN has told me that there are GWs at the LHC but that they are "something like 50 to 100 orders of magnitude too weak to be detected".</p> <p>SL even asked how he knew this and the guy told me that he "plugged in numbers into the quadrupole formula".</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546143&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="7TBCGLTK9hyrK9Ku-AM6VntxnOxta_kby96dv0oOtFw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 08 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546143">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546144" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504895990"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>Someone who works at CERN has told me that there are GWs at the LHC...the guy told me that he “plugged in numbers into the quadrupole formula”</p></blockquote> <p>Oh lordy. I think even the Enquirer would need more than that.</p> <p>Do you think maybe your game of telephone might have been referring to <a href="https://home.cern/about/updates/2017/09/constructive-interference-cern-and-gravitational-waves">this</a>? It even uses the term 'constructive interference,' though here it's being used as a double entendre rather than scientific term of art.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546144&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="MSyNUZ0xoHEJ_Dwi9DFnz1ZBHw0f_wnBGBGpF0UaI58"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 08 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546144">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546145" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504907813"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Eric,</p> <p><i>"Oh lordy. I think even the Enquirer would need more than that."</i></p> <p>Ethan already explained quadrupolar radiation here above in his comment to 'Klavs Hansen', and I already told you this at #49.</p> <p>Anyway, if you don't believe me go ask 'mfb' at 'physicsforums . com'<br /><a href="https://www.physicsforums.com/members/mfb.405866/">https://www.physicsforums.com/members/mfb.405866/</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546145&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="l5zrQqb6S88_R1nCwYoDp8CVkeFWY0Op8kLqbwcFfcU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 08 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1546145">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/startswithabang/2017/08/27/comments-of-the-week-174-from-growing-black-holes-to-nuclear-bombs%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Sun, 27 Aug 2017 07:37:38 +0000 esiegel 37080 at https://scienceblogs.com Comments of the Week #173: From quantum uncertainty to Earth's final total solar eclipse https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/20/comments-of-the-week-173-from-quantum-uncertainty-to-earths-final-total-solar-eclipse <span>Comments of the Week #173: From quantum uncertainty to Earth&#039;s final total solar eclipse</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>“It will shine still brighter when night is about you. May it be a light to you in dark places, when all other lights go out.” ―Galadriel, LOTR, J.R.R. Tolkien</p></blockquote> <p>The scientific stories we've covered this week have been out-of-this-world here at <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/">Starts With A Bang!</a> But the greatest show is still to come. Right now, I'm on my way down to the path of totality in Oregon, along with millions of others hoping to catch a glimpse and enjoy the experience of a sight unlike any others on Earth. When the sunlight goes completely out, some truly wonderful things will be revealed, and I hope to see them all! For everyone who's joining me, across the path of totality, I wish you clear and cloud-free skies, and a fabulous viewing experience!</p> <p>And now, onto the scientific stories we covered this past week:</p> <ul><li><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/08/12/ask-ethan-where-does-quantum-uncertainty-come-from/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Where does quantum uncertainty come from?</a> (for Ask Ethan),</li> <li><a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/08/14/five-things-you-must-not-do-during-totality-at-the-solar-eclipse/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Five things you must not do during totality at the solar eclipse</a> (my most-read article ever, for Mostly Mute Monday),</li> <li><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/08/15/will-scientists-ever-discover-life-without-a-home-planet/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Will scientists ever discover life without a home planet?</a>,</li> <li><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/08/16/why-you-cant-see-the-moon-during-a-total-solar-eclipse/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Why you can't see the Moon during a total solar eclipse</a>,</li> <li><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/08/17/voyagers-cosmic-map-of-earths-location-is-hopelessly-wrong/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Voyager's 'cosmic map' of Earth's location is hopelessly wrong</a>, and</li> <li><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/08/18/earths-final-total-solar-eclipse-will-happen-in-less-than-a-billion-years/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Earth's final total solar eclipse will happen in less than a billion years</a>.</li> </ul><p>As the release date of <a href="http://amzn.to/2wX6B3Y">Treknology</a> approaches (less than two months now!), there will be a slew of talks and events occurring in Oregon and Washington to promote it and meet me, with more to come around the country as time goes on. Look for it! And now, onto the main event: our <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/category/comments-of-the-week/">comments of the week</a>!</p> <blockquote><p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/13/comments-of-the-week-172-from-sodium-and-water-to-the-most-dangerous-comet-of-all/#comment-581730">Steve Blackband</a> on X-rays at the airport: "On the banana thing and airport x-ray scanners, an issue is not the total dose but the distribution. TSA seems to divide by the whole body, but the dose is concentrated at the skin so the dose there is many times higher."</p></blockquote> <p>This is actually not true of X-rays in general. Yes, they hit the skin first, but X-rays are of an energy such that the overwhelming majority penetrates the skin and goes into your body. There are a portion of the X-rays, however, that hit the skin and reflect, and that's how the backscattering X-ray imaging works. It's kind of the opposite of traditional X-rays, which measure what goes <em>through</em> your body. But as with all things, we've got to be quantitative. For the airport scanner, you'd need to go through it 200,000 times to equal the radiation of one CT scan.</p> <p>By the way, there <em>is</em> radiation that primarily affects your skin: radioactive alpha-decay sources. They are the most harmless of all radiation, since the outer layer of your skin stops it. Only if you ingest or inhale an alpha-emitter are you in trouble.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/07/fig-nearterm_all_UPDATE_2017-panela-1.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36427" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/07/fig-nearterm_all_UPDATE_2017-panela-1-600x308.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="308" /></a> Correctly calibrated satellite data, as well as the more recent temperature data up through 2016, shows that climate predictions and observations are perfectly in line with one another. Image credit: HadCRUT4.5, Cowtan &amp; Way, NASA GISTEMP, NOAA GlobalTemp, BEST, via Ed Hawkins at Climate Lab Book. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/13/comments-of-the-week-172-from-sodium-and-water-to-the-most-dangerous-comet-of-all/#comment-581735">Denier</a> on what his true beef was with my response to Heartland's climate article: "The boiled down core of what I’m driving at is I felt you wanted a win so bad that you decided hitting below the belt was justified. It wasn’t just Spencer making that observation about 2013. Schmidt(2014) noted it, and it is even reflected in the Climate Lab Book alteration of the IPCC AR5 graph you posted in the article. Heartland made a cherry-picked but accurate statement, and rather than calling it out for what it was, you straw-manned them and made your own counter-factual statement that was not supported by the best science we have on the subject.<br /> A little lower in the article, Heartland did the same thing with a statistical decline in the strength of hurricanes making landfall in the US. 100% Accurate –and- 100% cherry picked. There again you failed to call it out for what it was and went with the cheap Ad Hominem about how the scientist citing the true statistic was biologically related to someone at Heartland.<br /> There is so much good science to support your viewpoint that you don’t need to stoop to these tactics. You don’t need to Straw-man. You don’t need to deny good science. You don’t need to resort to Ad Hominem attacks. I was disappointed in your tactics and felt they were beneath you. That uncharacteristic behavior combined with your talk of de-platforming certain ideas made me think we were losing you to tribalism."</p></blockquote> <p>I've been thinking a lot about tribalism and appearances lately as well, and maybe I need to go easier on people who are politically much farther to one side than I am. I think reviewing Alex's latest book brought that to my attention as well, and after some reflection (and some investigation), I think I understand why it hits so many of us so hard. We aren't impartial or objective, no matter how hard we try to be. We view our work and our opinions on issues in terms of what we value as important in this world.</p> <p>Imagine that politics is a left-right spectrum (I know that doesn't encapsulate it all, but we're oversimplifying for clarity), and you're somewhere on it. Let's assume you're near the center, but slightly to the left. Now there's someone you see who's also near the center, but slightly to the right. To the right of center, but also (and moreso) to the right of you. You both accept the same science facts about issues, but how you feel about and react to those issues are very different. How do you see the person to the right of you? Even if they write things that are both "anti-left" and "anti-right", you'll see the "anti-right" things they write as no-brainers, but then the "anti-left" things will appear biased to you. If you were instead far-right instead of left-of-center, you might see the converse: the "anti-left" things the author writes appear as no-brainers, but the "anti-right" things appear biased.</p> <p>You and I are always going to disagree about what's "good science" in this realm. I think if you're using the UAH data as it was before the calibration flaw found in 2014 was corrected, you're intentionally spreading falsehoods. That was my beef with what Heartland was doing on that particular issue. You and I may disagree about the egregiousness of cherry-picking data; we had an argument a year ago where you admitted that Newt Gingrich had done that with crime statistics, but you argued that his point was still valid based on the data he had selected. I think cherry-picking -- or "not looking at the full suite of evidence" as I often call it -- is just lying, usually with the intent to mislead.</p> <p>In any case, you haven't lost me to tribalism, but on certain issues, you and I view one another's positions as inherently flawed. More on that when we get to the comments about Alex's book.</p> <blockquote><p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/13/comments-of-the-week-172-from-sodium-and-water-to-the-most-dangerous-comet-of-all/#comment-581763">Steve Blackband</a> on speaking against Nazism: "I understand your frustration and feeling of powerlessness in the face of hatred and bigotry.<br /> But this is not the forum. Keep this a science blog, please, so i don’t have to troll through all these folks e-shouting at each other.<br /> Please!!"</p></blockquote> <p>Sorry, Steve, this is the <em>only</em> forum. This is the platform I have online where I get to go beyond my own science writing and get to talk about larger issues; I literally use ScienceBlogs as a Starts With A Bang forum. If I could write about science without people sending me death threats related to ovens, destroying my life, slurs against my ethnicity/religion/whatever-you-perceive-Jewishness-as, it might be a different story, but I hope not.</p> <p>Some people will always e-shout about what their opinions are, and my options are to either ban them or not. I've chosen not for the people who are still around. You can scroll past the parts you don't like, but there will still be plenty of science, so long as people are still commenting about it.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2015/03/neutron-star-black-hole-theory-1-02.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-32582" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2015/03/neutron-star-black-hole-theory-1-02-600x424.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="424" /></a> A spinning neutron star, with its magnetic field lines illustrated. Image credit: ESO/L. Calçada. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/13/comments-of-the-week-172-from-sodium-and-water-to-the-most-dangerous-comet-of-all/#comment-581764">eric</a> on neutron stars and magnetism: "if for <i>atomic number</i> you’re only going to count the core and not the surface, then when it comes to <i>charge and magnetic field</i> you should only count the core and not the surface too, right? Otherwise you’re arriving at your conclusion that a neutron star has a magnetic field but Z=0 only by flipping back and forth between two different definitions of “neutron star” – one that only counts the core, and one that includes the surface."</p></blockquote> <p>So I will say that this poses an interesting question. If you have a neutral object like a neutron, and you spin it, do you get a magnetic field? Your intuition would say "no," but now consider that a neutron is made up of charged particles itself. If there's a charge separation in there at all, and those charges move around, you could get a magnetic field, couldn't you? Here's the thing: we can take a single neutron and measure its magnetic moment. For electric charges, a proton is +1, a neutron is 0, and an electron is -1. For magnetic moments? Electrons are -1, protons are +2.79, and neutrons are -1.91. You would have a magnetic field, after all.</p> <p>But it wouldn't be nearly as strong as the magnetic field if you include the neutron star's surface, which is no longer made up of neutrons, and which can no longer be treated as a single nucleus. How much stronger? We're not sure, but suffice it to say it's many orders of magnitude. Still, there's a big difference between a factor of 10,000 and a factor of 1,000,000,000, and I'm not sure where the core of the neutron star lies in this. An interesting consideration!</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/white-background-3.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36480" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/white-background-3-600x549.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="549" /></a> Front cover of the hard copy of the Little Black Book of Junk Science. Image credit: American Council on Science and Health. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/13/comments-of-the-week-172-from-sodium-and-water-to-the-most-dangerous-comet-of-all/#comment-581798">Alex Berezow</a>, who dropped by to comment on a comment about the content of his book: "You wrote: “Ive been telling everyone that this book taught me that hexavalent chromium isn’t cancerous”<br /> I explained in my book: “If inhaled, chromium-6 can cause lung cancer, but there is no reason it causes cancer when ingested.”"</p></blockquote> <p>When you've got a point to make, you're always going to appear biased to people who don't feel the same point is worth making when it comes to that particular issue. I think this is true for everyone; I get accused of my political bias in exactly that way every time I write about a science issue that's political also. And there are some issues with the Little Black Book of Junk Science that I have, but whether you think it's Alex's political bias or my political bias will depend on your politics. For example:</p> <ul><li>Natural gas is better than coal and oil for sure from a pollutant standpoint, but it still adds the same amount of CO2 for the energy you get out to the atmosphere.</li> <li>Oil pipelines are much safer and cleaner than any other method of transporting crude, but it also represents a commitment to burning 100% of what's buried in the ground, and represents a commitment to doing it faster, regardless of how dirty it is.</li> <li>Organic food is neither healthier nor does it deliver superior crop yields to conventional foods, but there are many problems inherent to our modern agricultural system that organic practices represent one small, incremental step towards improving, even though they've been co-opted by industrial agriculture.</li> </ul><p>When one writes about a topic and doesn't address what you believe the core, or most important, issue on that topic is, their writing is going to appear severely biased (or missing-the-point) to you. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it may mean it's misleading, depending on how you feel. I don't know that there's a solution to this, other than to acknowledge that most of these issues -- yes, even climate science -- are multi-faceted. Someone who disagrees with you may not be wrong as much as they possess different values and focus on different conclusions that the facts may also support.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2016/09/1-Yr4wE4q4x2BQ8DtbhqcuQw.gif"><img class="size-medium wp-image-35170" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2016/09/1-Yr4wE4q4x2BQ8DtbhqcuQw.gif" alt="" width="600" height="450" /></a> Visualization of a quantum field theory calculation showing virtual particles in the quantum vacuum. Image credit: Derek Leinweber. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/12/ask-ethan-where-does-quantum-uncertainty-come-from-synopsis/#comment-581697">Elle H.C.</a> on what particle/antiparticle pairs look like: "Cool to see the QCD animation of how particle/antiparticle pairs pop up, how connected ‘holes’ show up and how the Vacuum starts to be shake up. Curious if these tremblings differ very much from Gravity waves?!"</p></blockquote> <p>It's vital to remember, when you see either the animation above (representing quantum fields) or the <a href="https://blogs-images.forbes.com/startswithabang/files/2017/05/1-jTtmoTiIq5zlHOcaQGqHhQ.gif?">one from the original article</a> (representing individual pairs), that this is a visualization only. This is not what's actually, physically happening. Quantum field theory is a calculational tool, an extremely useful calculational tool, but it is not literally what's going on with the Universe. You can't grab these particles that "pop into existence" and scatter off of them. You can't bend through empty space because of their electric or magnetic fields. They would need to be "real" particles (like the valence quarks, gluons, or sea quarks inside a proton) for that to happen.</p> <p>But gravity waves are very different, and are produced by accelerating masses in a non-uniform spacetime. They're real. They do affect everything they pass through. They interact. They are more than just a calculational tool. That's the major difference.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/8-12-Uncertainty-1200x636.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36490" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/8-12-Uncertainty-1200x636-600x318.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="318" /></a> An illustration between the inherent uncertainty between position and momentum at the quantum level. Image credit: E. Siegel / Wikimedia Commons user Maschen. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/12/ask-ethan-where-does-quantum-uncertainty-come-from-synopsis/#comment-581710">D.C. Sessions</a> on quantum uncertainty: "Voltage and charge have a different product from the others?<br /> This is news to me."</p></blockquote> <p>There are all sorts of quantum commutation relations that go beyond "position and momentum" or "energy and time". I talked about the angular momentum one (for the Stern-Gerlach experiment) but there are others. Voltage and free electric charge, magnetic vector potential and electric current, and so on. If you obey the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_commutation_relation#Uncertainty_relation_and_commutators">canonical commutation relation</a>, i.e., your commutator is non-zero, you're in for a world of uncertainty.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/8188705798_20ba66d81f_o.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36514" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/8188705798_20ba66d81f_o-600x500.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="500" /></a> The Moon and Sun each take up approximately half a degree on the sky as viewed from Earth. When the Moon is slightly larger in angular size than the Sun is and all three bodies perfectly align, a total solar eclipse is the result, but only if you're in the path of totality. Image credit: Romeo Durscher / NASA / Goddard Space Flight Center. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/14/five-things-you-must-not-do-during-totality-at-the-solar-eclipse-synopsis/#comment-581766">eric</a> on eclipse safety during totality: "You can take your glasses off and look at the sun at totality <i>only if</i> you’re in the narrow region of the country where the eclipse is total."</p></blockquote> <p>Of course! If you're not in that region, you don't get totality. But this is worth saying: <em>do not take off your eye protection and look at the Sun if any part of the solar disk is visible</em>.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/totality.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36499" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/totality-600x359.jpg" alt="If you make the wrong decisions as far as what you do and look at during the moments of totality, you risk squandering the experience of a lifetime. Image credit: Luc Viatour / www.Lucnix.be." width="600" height="359" /></a> If you make the wrong decisions as far as what you do and look at during the moments of totality, you risk squandering the experience of a lifetime. Image credit: Luc Viatour / <a href="http://www.Lucnix.be">www.Lucnix.be</a>. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/14/five-things-you-must-not-do-during-totality-at-the-solar-eclipse-synopsis/#comment-581782">Brian Bassett</a> on the 5 things you mustn't do during totality: "Vague, regurgitated hash off other sites. Yawn!"</p></blockquote> <p>I know, right? It's almost like there's this vast body of knowledge that some group of people have been gathering and developing for centuries, distilling it down to its most important rules and essences, and then disseminating that knowledge and those conclusions worldwide. So boring, right? ;-)</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/starlightDeflectionFig3.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36525" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/starlightDeflectionFig3-600x565.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="565" /></a> The Newtonian and Einsteinian predictions for gravitational deflection of a distant radio source during the Earth's orbital period (1 year) due to the Sun. The black dots are 2015 data. Image credit: The deflection of light induced by the Sun's gravitational field and measured with geodetic VLBI; O. Titov, A. Girdiuk (2015). </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/14/five-things-you-must-not-do-during-totality-at-the-solar-eclipse-synopsis/#comment-581795">Anonymous Coward</a> on eclipse science since Eddington: "The bending of light experiment has been repeated many times since Eddington’s day. Astronomers from Lick Observatory went to Australia for the 1922 eclipse and repeated the observations. It was done again during an eclipse in 1952 by Yerkes Observatory astronomers who travelled all the way to Khartoum, Sudan to see it. In 1973, astronomers from the University of Texas went to the Chinguetti Oasis in Mauritania to do the same thing. Each time they found results reasonably consistent with General Relativity. It seems people are going to try to do the same thing with this upcoming eclipse. NASA has even given instructions on how to do it:<br /><a href="https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/testing-general-relativity" rel="nofollow">https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/testing-general-relativity</a>"</p></blockquote> <p>All of this is true, but I'll do you one better. Do you see the image above? That's a radio source that exists far beyond the Solar System. And the x-and-y-axes? That's how much its position deviates over the course of a year. The cause of that deviation? That's the gravitational influence of the Sun! If we could see stars during the day, we never would have needed solar eclipse's or Eddington's work to do the confirmation. As it stands, radio astronomy gives us that ability (not with every star, but with some bright-enough radio sources), and it agrees tremendously with General Relativity.</p> <p>You no longer need an eclipse to confirm relativity, even in the exact same fashion that it was first confirmed!</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/jhvhrdes3.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36502" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/jhvhrdes3-600x265.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="265" /></a> On this semilog plot, the complexity of organisms, as measured by the length of functional non-redundant DNA per genome counted by nucleotide base pairs (bp), increases linearly with time. Time is counted backwards in billions of years before the present (time 0). Image credit: Shirov &amp; Gordon (2013), via <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.3381">https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.3381</a>. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/15/will-scientists-ever-discover-life-without-a-home-planet-synopsis/#comment-581818">John</a> on life coming to Earth from space: "Drs. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe were serious proponents of Panspermia."</p></blockquote> <p>Yes, but.</p> <p>Before I go any further, panspermia, you must realize, can take many different forms. See that graph, above? At what stage do you think this life came to Earth? According to Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, it was "the advanced prokaryotes that gave rise to modern cell, like diatoms, were what came to Earth." Also, they argued, that life couldn't have begun on Earth at all, that the conditions were all wrong.</p> <p>Neither of these statements is likely to be correct. That they are part of a larger "panspermia" story, some of which may be true, does not translate into anything they said having any validity. Wickramasinghe continues to make the same claims he made in the 1970s... no matter what the modern evidence shows.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/10ECLIPSE-FLOATER-master768.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36498" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/10ECLIPSE-FLOATER-master768-600x373.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="373" /></a> No matter how you choose to experience the eclipse, I hope it's a spectacular one for you. Image credit: Beawiharta/Reuters. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/16/why-you-cant-see-the-moon-during-a-total-solar-eclipse-synopsis/#comment-581843">PJ</a> on eclipse wishes that we all share: "May good viewing fall upon those who venture out for Monday’s grand view."</p></blockquote> <p>May the entire path of totality be cloud-free. If you do have clouds, may they not lessen the spectacular nature of the show for you. May there be no hazes or wildfires affecting the attendees. May traffic move smoothly. May everyone be safe, and bring enough food, water, blankets, and comfort.</p> <p>Good luck out there; these wishes apply to me, too!</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/Voy_and_cover.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36511" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/Voy_and_cover-600x334.jpg" alt="The gold-plated aluminum cover (L) of the Voyager golden record (R) both protects it from micrometeorite bombardment and also provides a key to playing it and deciphering Earth's location. Image credit: NASA." width="600" height="334" /></a> The gold-plated aluminum cover (L) of the Voyager golden record (R) both protects it from micrometeorite bombardment and also provides a key to playing it and deciphering Earth's location. Image credit: NASA. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/17/voyagers-cosmic-map-of-earths-location-is-hopelessly-wrong-synopsis/#comment-581861">Candice H. Brown Elliott</a> on whether we should announce our presence to aliens: "Not that thought that creating even a perfect map was a good idea… frankly a truly sapient species would have understood that using Bayesian logic, that even if only a tiny handful of other species were dangerous, the risks aren’t worth taking and it would be better to keep one’s head down and NOT announce one’s presence to other sentients in the universe. (This is my favorite solutions to the Fermi Paradox.) But we are too foolish and too disunited to follow such a course."</p></blockquote> <p>A lot of people feel the way you do, Candice. Sometimes, Stephen Hawking expresses similar fears. So does Elon Musk, for example. In any great endeavor into the unknown, there are naysayers. There is the sentiment, "Beware! Here be dragons!"</p> <p>But the alternative goes against everything it means to be human. To remain here, alone, isolated, and "safe." Yes, sometimes curiosity kills the cat, but you cannot stop us from being curious. We want to know, we want to explore, and we want to find out. If that is how we'll meet our demise -- no matter how unlikely that possibility is -- we'll meet it exactly the way we should: by aiming for the best possible options humanity could ever aspire to. To shoot for the planets, the stars, and the Universe beyond.</p> <p>In short, I do not agree with your recommendation.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2016/05/1280px-Solar_evolution_English.svg_.png"><img class="size-medium wp-image-34683" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2016/05/1280px-Solar_evolution_English.svg_-600x428.png" alt="" width="600" height="428" /></a> The evolution of some of the Sun’s properties over time. Luminosity is what impacts the temperature here on Earth. Note how slightly the radius changes over the next billion years. Image credit: Wikimedia Commons user RJHall, based on Ribas, Ignasi (2010), “The Sun and stars as the primary energy input in planetary atmospheres”. </div> <p>And finally, from <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/18/earths-final-total-solar-eclipse-will-happen-in-less-than-a-billion-years-synopsis/#comment-581883">Omega Centauri</a> on the possibility of solar eclipses going away entirely: "The sun is also swelling due to evolution. As I understand it at this epoch, the surface temperature stays nearly constant, but the radius must increase to accommodate the increasing luminosity. Both the sun growing fatter, as well as the moon looking smaller push towards annular eclipse. Maybe it will happen faster than your calculation has it (assuming you only used one factor)?"</p></blockquote> <p>The swelling is only a few percent, however. Do keep this in mind; as the Moon spirals outward, the Sun grows, but only by about 1% every 250 million years. I thought this was taken into account in the 600-700 Myr calculation I did, but then Michael Richmond showed me that I was in error. As you can see from his graph, below, that tiny rate-of-growth makes a big difference!</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/sunmoon_a_color.png"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36526" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/sunmoon_a_color-600x420.png" alt="" width="600" height="420" /></a> The angular diameter of the Sun and Moon as seen from Earth, over time, with the top lines representing perigee/perihelion and the bottom representing apogee/aphelion. Image credit: Michael Richmond. </div> <blockquote><p>As <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/18/earths-final-total-solar-eclipse-will-happen-in-less-than-a-billion-years-synopsis/#comment-581905">Michael Richmond</a> noted: "The increase of the Sun’s radius due to solar evolution has a significant effect, too. Using the evolutionary models of from the Dartmouth Stellar Evolution website, one can show that the last total eclipse will occur around 450 million years in the future."</p></blockquote> <p>However, if, as <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/18/earths-final-total-solar-eclipse-will-happen-in-less-than-a-billion-years-synopsis/#comment-581881">Denier</a> says, the Earth-Moon system spirals away from the Sun during the red giant phase, then perhaps billions of years into the future, when the Sun quiets down to a white dwarf, the Moon's shadow will once again fall on the Earth. If it does, it will be approximately the size of the Moon, instead of just tens-to-hundreds of kilometers across, and solar eclipses will be truly spectacular once again on the charred remnant of our world.</p> <p>And on that note, have a great rest-of-your-weekend and enjoy tomorrow's eclipse!</p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/startswithabang" lang="" about="/startswithabang" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">esiegel</a></span> <span>Sat, 08/19/2017 - 23:00</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/comments-week" hreflang="en">Comments of the Week</a></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-categories field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Categories</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/channel/brain-and-behavior" hreflang="en">Brain and Behavior</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1545983" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503203575"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Ethan,</p> <p>And may good viewing be yours!</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1545983&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="EtUJG4XeVrOURtY3F5UDKSDIowtnYOSF2tCaZu7zBkU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John (not verified)</span> on 20 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1545983">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1545984" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503227029"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>If's you want a great souvenir to pass on, the US postal service is selling some cool eclipse stamps:<br /><a href="https://store.usps.com/store/browse/productDetailSingleSku.jsp?productId=S_475304">https://store.usps.com/store/browse/productDetailSingleSku.jsp?productI…</a></p> <p>" The Total Eclipse of the Sun stamp is the first U.S. stamp to use thermochromic ink, which reacts to the heat of your touch. Placing your finger over the black disc on the stamp causes the ink to change from black to clear to reveal an underlying image of the moon. "</p> <p>Mail it out tomorrow to a family or friend for a lasting treasured memory or just keep as a keep sake.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1545984&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="yzvgpn_r5zEcvmExny_lEYNBZif-1xRDtwHq3EOXQY8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Ragtag Media (not verified)</span> on 20 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1545984">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1545985" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503228438"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>OK, I should have been more specific and said hexavalent chromium 'isn't cancerous WHEN INGESTED'.<br /> The book implies it only causes cancer when inhaled.<br /> But there was a paper linking HC to cancer from China, from drinking water– a few years later a follow-up paper said it didn’t, but was retracted. This is what the Brockovich case rested on.<br /> Check out wiki<br /> “In July 2014 California became the first state to acknowledge that ingested chromium-6 is linked to cancer and as a result has established a maximum Chromium-6 contaminant level (MCL) of 10 parts per billion (ppb).[30] [31] ”<br /><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_groundwater_contamination">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_groundwater_contamination</a></p> <p>On the x-ray scanner - the report by four UCSF professors turns out to wrong. I stand corrected. Although the radiation does indeed have a limited depth penetration, they used the right numbers, when they assumed they had it wrong. "....the imaging penetration experiment shows that 4.8 and 10 mm (0.19 and 0.39 in) plastic samples reduce the image darkness by 23% and 50% respectively. Dr. Smith states that those who calculate high skin dosage have incorrectly used the shallow imaging penetration value of a few millimeters (~0.16 in), whereas the actual dosage is calculated by the deeper dose penetration.[50]" So they did account for the area of dose and not the whole body correctly.<br /> Thanks! Very informative!!</p> <p>In Georgia right now waiting to be eclipserated. Thrilling. All enjoy!</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1545985&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="UE7r0czbTUorU8TKPq3tSjWR7KA1a_dx_xDhTpS1lYo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Steve Blackband (not verified)</span> on 20 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1545985">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1545986" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503230857"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ Ragtag<br /> "Mail it out tomorrow to a family or friend for a lasting treasured memory or just keep as a keep sake."</p> <p>would be cool if anyone still actually mailed anything anymore. Other than my bills, I haven't received or sent any mail for almost a decade</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1545986&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="G0Ri-FQyeHHaNSq9hESsAMDpbMipLYQ0s-svtndsAvY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 20 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1545986">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1545987" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503240017"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ Sinisa<br /> I was in London 3 months ago and the post cards I mailed JUST arrived last week. Now that is true snail mail.<br /> Still kinda cool to have special thermo ink stamp of the eclipse post marked on the day of it.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1545987&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="1D7i00Yzs7Vq1TUNnkDRBnBjlMx8rhUnNi63I0U0g_U"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Ragtag Media (not verified)</span> on 20 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1545987">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1545988" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503252479"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Thanks Ethan, for the indirect link. That picture and its caption was a big enough clue for me to find the paper by Titov and Girdiuk: "The deflection of light induced by the Sun's gravitational field and measured with geodetic VLBI." I'd heard about the radio measurements of light deflection from the sun but didn't know of any primary sources.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1545988&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="eTHPw7I_MKoW1L5XknitpYHe9leMt4_ktpCTX65_-fU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Anonymous Coward (not verified)</span> on 20 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1545988">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1545989" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503260305"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Ethan,</p> <p><i>"this is a visualization only"</i></p> <p>Sure, but it's about particles popping into existence, and they can let real Black Hole vaporize, so there's some real vibe going on when these fluctuations happen in reality. Perhaps not in this exact form, but it was the frequency into relation with gravity that I was curious about.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1545989&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Nco47IjBusc9jxSx94DQYsMJ0RAul7mOuVRzjEh8lLU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 20 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1545989">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1545990" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503275060"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ ragtag<br /> "I was in London 3 months ago and the post cards I mailed JUST arrived last week"</p> <p>wow... I thought waiting for electronics from alixpress for 45 days was bad :) I won't complain ever again.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1545990&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="YojoRxFwWBOqXAmYiIQ5hB1BdVTvecxJbtg4eb4cqyg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 20 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1545990">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1545991" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503300113"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Let's apply Ethan's 'feeling' that alien contact would be a 'good' idea... just because he's curious, and has watched too much Star Trek as he segues into bombastic Captain Picard like drivel when he says:<br /> ". If that is how we’ll meet our demise — no matter how unlikely that possibility is — we’ll meet it exactly the way we should: by aiming for the best possible options humanity could ever aspire to. To shoot for the planets, the stars, and the Universe beyond..."<br /> .<br /> If you wish to speak in euphemisms, fine.<br /> First, don't drag humanity into your incredibly expensive suicide. When you wish to use 'we' for stupidity like hailing down a dragon to chat for tea, you should very much stick to it being just 'you', and be quite certain it doesn't know where your little village is, as most of them probably don't want to be involved in being dragon-chow alongside you for your suicidal science experiment and 'I'm curious' ennui.<br /> .<br /> Second, inject your naïve curiosity into some historical context and watch what happens to people who scoff at dragons.<br /> .<br /> Long version:<br /> Let's pretend the Aztecs decided, 'What the hell, we're curious, let's send some boats out over the ocean with directions on how to get back to us, let's also send a message of how much gold we have, how vast our lands are, and make a show of how invincible our spears and arrows are, and how we'd just love to have house guests come over and play' and see what happens.'<br /> .<br /> What happens: The Aztecs (and the rest of America) would have been conquered much sooner than they were, and if those delightful Europeans they contacted didn't have the technology to build the boats to make the trip before, they certainly did soon after. It really doesn't pay to advertise about being the land of gold.<br /> .<br /> Short version (for Ethan's more visceral understanding of what he is scoffing at):<br /> Let's pretend we are a Jewish family hiding in Warsaw trying not to get dead in 1943. The husband brings his wife some literature his good 'friend' had just covertly passed to him.<br /> "Yaffa my dear, let us take our family and leave our hiding place and go to this nice Hotel Polski. My friend in the Zagiew passed me this brochure for the place and it looks lovely, it say's they will help us escape to South America!"<br /> .<br /> What happens: Yaffa and her beloved family end up in the maw of an oven in Auschwitz. Evil exists. There be dragons closer than you think, whether you believe in them or not, and they would very much like to entice you with sweet promises before they meet you.<br /> .<br /> What-ifs aside, The Earth is the most pleasant place humanity actually knows about. The vacuum of space and toxic worlds are not anywhere near as hospitable. If our species can not learn to at least live together on this nurturing world, there really is no point outside of brief entertainment value of going anywhere else far more inhospitable, as our problems will just follow us into the heavens the same way they followed us everywhere in this world, only to be played out with ever more powerful weapons. You can't run away from your problems if they are yourself.<br /> .<br /> Humanity has not yet discovered how to live with itself. Until it does, it should not even try to play with others.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1545991&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="0o3QR5cVNC44Fm9lsLE1lOSpAPLR9pngY2Xg7n18Lb0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CFT (not verified)</span> on 21 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1545991">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1545992" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503327392"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>CFT,</p> <p>If no man is an island, then neither is any species.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1545992&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="c3vt3jmNC5d2qTnJE_v-aXYNJEx_sTNTZOGwlz5fGOg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John (not verified)</span> on 21 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1545992">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1545993" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503362071"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I saw V.<br /> I also read up on the history of european arrival in the New World.</p> <p>I vote we discover them before they discover us.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1545993&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="5PPfpx-vsBZw4wWeQSU8-2hVDR_HgXaG8WjdhhjTTzs"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Craig Thomas (not verified)</span> on 21 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1545993">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1545994" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503380502"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Craig Thomas #11,<br /> I vote we not poke the hornets nest and think we can outrun the consequences.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1545994&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="c3cDg3RoRVoSdGOCBsbybTvQ8jQvcxYSmUba_KN2CoA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CFT (not verified)</span> on 22 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1545994">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1545995" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503415349"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>CFT: I'm skeptical this is anything but an academic question, but I don't think a few naive messages would set us up for being attacked anyway. Why not? Because if you're a nasty domination-bent civilization and you want to entice 'lesser' civilizations to show you where they are without giving away your intent, what would be a good way to do it? Send a naive lower-tech message out. Make them think (a) you're peaceful and (b) not much of a threat even if you aren't.</p> <p>So I doubt very much any alien civilization that would want to go all ID4 on us would accept a voyager-like invitation at face value. And similarly, if <i>we</i> discovered an unsophisticated alien message, I'm sure there would be many many humans arguing that we shouldn't give away our position in response, in case it's a honey pot/trap.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1545995&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ynZBHfZ0R76akCT6yclWAih13mXCG9cpHFiwXgjXLhM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 22 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1545995">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1545996" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503491032"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Hey Ethan,<br /> I continue to take issue with your airport scanner comments. Here is my comment and your reply.</p> <p>From Steve Blackband on X-rays at the airport: "On the banana thing and airport x-ray scanners, an issue is not the total dose but the distribution. TSA seems to divide by the whole body, but the dose is concentrated at the skin so the dose there is many times higher."</p> <p>This is actually not true of X-rays in general. Yes, they hit the skin first, but X-rays are of an energy such that the overwhelming majority penetrates the skin and goes into your body. There are a portion of the X-rays, however, that hit the skin and reflect, and that's how the backscattering X-ray imaging works. It's kind of the opposite of traditional X-rays, which measure what goes through your body. But as with all things, we've got to be quantitative. For the airport scanner, you'd need to go through it 200,000 times to equal the radiation of one CT scan.</p> <p>I agree the overwhelming majority enters the skin - thats is EXACTLY what we are worried about. So we need to know the dose where the X-rays go. The X-rays don't all pass through your body - some are absorbed by tissues to different amounts depending on the tissue (otherwise their would be no contrast in the image). The dose is low in an airport scanner, so it only penetrates a short distance into the tissue. Thus to get dose correctly you must divide by the volume of the penetration depth, not the whole body volume. If the depth were 1cm, the dose would be 35 x more in that region than if you divided by the whole body. If its 1mm, 350x more - numbers to be worried about. This is countered by the applied x-ray power being being lower, but you need to be concerned about tissues that may be more susceptible to x-ray damage than others, like skin. Or maybe the eye surface (cataracts anyone)?<br /> The UCSF guys were concerned but had the penetration depth too small. In the end its OK when you get quantitative as you say and they stood corrected - the dose is nothing to worry about. Science working as it should - a voiced concern, in depth study, and finally a clear answer.</p> <p>The same issue occurs in MRI - when we use rf magnetic fields to image they cause heating. If you calculate by just dividing by total body mass, you miss potential 'hot spots' caused by heterogeneity in the tissues susceptibility to heating, or hot spots caused by the rf coil design. For example we worry about the interior of the eye which is avascular and cannot carry heat away as well. Thus complex models have been made of the heterogeneity of rf heating in tissues.</p> <p>Hope that clear that topic up.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1545996&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="dqBHDHpxI8p66BTsWvKBRlQYNK6u1AHBOHGEieri5Do"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Steve Blackband (not verified)</span> on 23 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1545996">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1545997" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503491099"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>BTW is the guy in the grey beard and crown you?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1545997&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="yLxEzbX743TPplsa989XCwk83x09ew5bS-AnCyp1MMo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Steve Blackband (not verified)</span> on 23 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1545997">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1545998" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503505578"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>The dose is low in an airport scanner, so it only penetrates a short distance into the tissue.</p></blockquote> <p>The standard x-ray scanners used for luggage use transmission and probably aren't something you should regularly be exposed to.</p> <p>The more recent whole-body scanners use the Compton effect and x-ray backscattering. <i>Reflectance</i> (rather than transmission or absorbance) off of different types of surface, basically. Compton scattering is intentionally low intensity. </p> <p>Personally, I'm more worried about the technology being a waste of my taxpayer dollars (both in purchase and in operation) than I am it's safety.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1545998&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="neDa2XHRUf47rR3U5EG6Zdq_rjXXjrl8t_ThY12E_F8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 23 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1545998">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1545999" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503539367"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Eric,<br /> You imply that you can tailor the X-rays in some way so that they either transmit or reflect, or are absorbed. You cannot do that. When you irradiate with x-rays, most trnansmit into the sample, some are then absorbed, and if the power is high enough some get through. A small fraction reflect. The power you use determines how far into the sample the X-rays go. At higher powers they go all the way through, used for luggage and Xray imaging and CT. For scanning just the surface using backscattering the sensitivity is there so that you can use low power, and so what is transmitted is also relatively small. Back scattering isn't 'intentionally low intensity'. BUT you only need relatively low intensity to scan the surface and detect, say, guns and knives and stuff i.e. you only need relatively low spatial resolution. If you wanted to increase the resolution to detect smaller objects, like 1mm diameter ball bearings, you would have to increase the power of the applied x-rays to get the resolution. In that case the the back scattering would be 'intentionally high intensity'. Back scattering is not 'intentionally low intensity' - it is by its nature a small fraction of the applied power. Much like the incident, reflected and transmitted waves of light are determined by the properties of the material you shine the light onto and the angle of the applied light.<br /> The power, or density of the x-rays determines what you can see, the spatial resolution. It is possible to do x-ray microscopy, with microscopic (below 100 microns) spatial resolution - but the power of the applied x-rays is so high I would not recommend it for live people - think toast!! (but we do scan for example excised bone samples at microscopic resolution to look at trabecular structure, or small live samples that i am sure won't live long after they have been nuked).<br /><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_microscope">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_microscope</a></p> <p>Personally, I am worried about wasting tax payer dollars AND safety. The present governments dismantling of the EPA and head in the sand view of climate change depresses the hell out of me - I want my tax payer dollars spent there, not on a stupid useless multi-billion dollar wall that cannot work.<br /> .</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1545999&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="iD_Ux8pttANvVECdHXuraO2V3ZGFoL21KVwbM5poR-M"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Steve Blackband (not verified)</span> on 23 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/8520/feed#comment-1545999">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/startswithabang/2017/08/20/comments-of-the-week-173-from-quantum-uncertainty-to-earths-final-total-solar-eclipse%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Sun, 20 Aug 2017 03:00:48 +0000 esiegel 37074 at https://scienceblogs.com Comments of the Week #172: From sodium-and-water to the most dangerous comet of all https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/13/comments-of-the-week-172-from-sodium-and-water-to-the-most-dangerous-comet-of-all <span>Comments of the Week #172: From sodium-and-water to the most dangerous comet of all</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>"Life is not a miracle. It is a natural phenomenon, and can be expected to appear whenever there is a planet whose conditions duplicate those of the Earth." ―Harold Urey</p></blockquote> <p>It's been yet another fascinating week of scientific stories here at <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/">Starts With A Bang!</a> But as of the last 48 hours, there's something I absolutely have to talk about: the "Unite The Right" hate rally in Virginia, accompanied by violence and murder. They say that in order for evil to triumph, all that you need is for good people to stand by and do nothing. When I was a kid -- small, young, weak, inexperienced -- I saw lots of people get beaten up, taken advantage of, mugged, robbed... and I didn't do anything. Why? Because I was afraid for myself, for what would happen to me if I did. But I look at the world now, and I see it differently: what happens to us all if I <em>don't</em> do anything? What happens if none of us stop this madness? It's time to stand up alongside one another and demand equal treatment, legally, for everyone.</p> <p>We live in a country where a black man will be criticized and even blacklisted from his job for taking a knee during the national anthem because he's making a statement about equal rights and protections under the law, but the rights of neo-nazi murderers to hatch terrorism plots and violently attack counter-protesters (two pretty illegal things, by the way) are not even addressed by our country's leadership. In 2017, more than 70 years after the world united to defeat fascism and white supremacy and oppression, actions like these are not condemned by the president. My grandfathers fought those Nazis, alongside the rest of the free world. It is up to every one of us -- whether we're white or persons of color; whether we're men, women, or non-binary; whether we're Christian or not; whether we're cis or straight or citizens or not -- to recognize that we're all human beings, and that we have every right to demand those same human rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is what America is about.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/640px-Flag_of_Virginia.svg_.png"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36495" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/640px-Flag_of_Virginia.svg_-600x412.png" alt="" width="600" height="412" /></a> The (public domain) State Flag of Virginia. No joke. </div> <p>Virginia, you have the most hateful state flag in the entire country. You changed it in 1861, after you seceded, to make it about murdering what you perceived as a tyrannical leader, in a Shakespearian scene. Four years later, theatre actor John Wilkes Booth did exactly this, acting out a scene from his favorite play in a way, murdering Lincoln the same way Brutus and Cassius murdered Caesar. Those three infamous words, <em>sic semper tyrannis</em>, are from Shakespeare, are emblazoned on the Virginia flag, and were shouted by Booth as he shot Lincoln in the head. We have a long heritage of hate, slavery, and murder in this country,