There may well be tacit proof of alternate universes in the weekly, if not daily, celebrity magazines that tap into Brad Pitt’s & Angelina Jolie’s lives. These records, if taken as true (anything published must be true, my childhood assumptions tell me) they can’t possibly be the same couple. Thus it is not unreasonable to assume that the magazines are taping into various alternate lives and universes in order to sate the celebrity apetites of the masses. Which is quite considerate, really. But surely, if we charted the doppler shift (maybe even the Brownian Motion) of these various Brangelinians, in their various Brangiverses, we could make some sort of omni-dimensional topographic map of the multiverse.

This would not only be of great benefit to struggling sf television writers but go some length to justifying the very existence of these paparazzi rags at all. In any universe.

Here’s a block of copper. Doesn’t look like it, but it’s the best I could do. For now, let’s pretend that it has a mass of 0.1kg and is at a temperature of 100⁰C (which we ensure by dunking it for a while in some boiling water.) It isn’t but we’ll get to that later. In the meantime, we get some water, say 200g or 0.2kg in a polystyrene beaker (so we don’t have to worry about it receiving any heat) and take the temperature. Let’s say it’s room temperature, 20^oC which we can measure with a thermometer on the bench.

We drop the copper in the water and stir it gently. Looks easy, but it isn’t in practice. Probably the best way is to tie some cotton to the block and pretend it’s a teabag when we transfer it. The copper gives its heat to the water. After a short while, we take the temperature of the water again.

Heat lost by copper = heat gained by water

mass of copper x SHC of copper x temperature fall of copper = mass of water x SHC of water x temperature rise of water

We know that the SHC of water = 4200J/kg^oC – look it up in a book.

Let the final temperature be 23^oC

Temp fall of copper = 100-23 = 77^oC

Temp rise of water  = 23-20 = 3^oC

So, 0.1 x SHC_copper x 77 = 0.2 x 4200 x 3

Solving gives us SHC for copper = 327 J/kg^oC

The actual value is close to 400 J/kg^oC. Our measurement is too low. Why is this? Here’s a question. Is the copper at exactly 100^oC  when it goes into the water? If not, what might its actual temperature be? Suppose its actual temperature is close to 90^oC, because it loses some heat by convection and radiation on the way over. So the temperature of the copper falls by only 67^oC, giving us a value of 376 J/kg^oC, which is a little bit better.

Here’s the trick. Heat is always lost on transfer so measured SHC’s are always too low.

BONG BONG BONG BONG BONG! chig, chig, chig, chig, chig!!! WUH BUH BUH BUH BUH!!! Deedle leet deet, doodle doodle loot doot; deedle deedle leet, doodle loot doot doo.

NO! Don’t be quick and fix that I have gone mad again or got some spiral fever this time. It’s not me. It was Richard Feynman. Not again, even Feynman didn’t go crazy. It is about something else. Before I tell you that, let me ask you one thing. Have you asked a kid who isn’t yet even a teen, how much she loves the Ice cream, what did she say? If you remember it aCCuratley, she would have said something like this…

SSsOOOooooooo’(take a deep breath)…OOOOOO ooooooo…MMMmmuuuchhhhhhhhhhhhhzzzz!!!

When we were kids we were always like that. So much rhythmic in order to be accurate about how much we really feel it. But it gets lost somehow. We can’t be as innocent always. Though, there is no reason why we shouldn’t be. As we all try to behave grown-up’s we fake so many things and kill so much of ourselves. All of us would at least get excited when a child talks like that and before we get her a huge cup of ice cream we would certainly hurt the chick’s cheek by chewing it like real ice cream.

Secret: Actually girls really retain such childishness even after blooming and I have noticed them saying and doing child like things but always with someone else. It was never my cup of ice cream.

Ok let’s not get deviated. I was reading this Feynman’s book, ‘You must be joking’. It is a kind of autobio of his. I don’t know what his age was when he wrote it, but his story telling was like a child’s, especially when he was writing about his childhood. Above that he is very innovative. So his narration of his childhood is so much lovely and funny. After Anne Frank’s autobio, it is only Feynman’s I found so much amazing. In times like these, everybody seems to be taking the aid of a professional writer for their so called Autobio, it is a classic work and I thought I should bind an excerpt in this blog. May be it would excite you to read his book. May be it would make me little more expressive and accurate about my feelings.

Here it goes…

“Finally one day at the end of the class, Professor Robinson went on giving lecture “wugga mugga mugga wugga wugga . . . and everybody got excited! They were all talking to each other and discussing, so I figured he’d said something interesting, thank God! I wondered what it was. I asked somebody, and they said, “We have to write a theme, and hand it in four weeks.”

“A theme on what?”

“On what he’s been talking about all year.”

I was stuck. The only thing that I had heard during that entire term that I could remember was a moment when there came this upwelling, “muggawuggastreamofconsciousnessmugga wugga,” and phoom!–it sank back into chaos.

We hand in our themes, and the next time our class meets, the professor reads one of them: “Mum bum wugga mum bum . . .” I can’t tell what the guy wrote.

He reads another theme: “Mugga wugga mum bum wugga wugga. . .” I don’t know what that guy wrote either, but at the end of it, he goes:

Uh wugga wuh. Uh wugga wuh

Uh wugga wugga wugga.

I wugga wuh uh wugga wuh

Uh wugga wugga wugga.

“Aha!” I say. “That’s my theme!” I honestly didn’t recognize it until the end.”

Was that funny?

You don’t need an IQ test to confirm that you are the dumbest one living if it wasn’t funny to you.

¡Qué chorrada! Todo el mundo sabe que las galaxias son eléctricamente neutras. Hagamos los cálculos. Si el superagujero negro en el centro de nuestra Vía Láctea emitiera un flujo radial de protones, el campo eléctrico resultante generaría energía, es decir, masa, que introduciría un término gravitatorio adicional a la fuerza newtoniana. ¿Qué predice dicho término? Lo mismo que la materia oscura. La masa “perdida” de la galaxia es del mismo orden de magnitud que la gravedad introducida por la energía total del campo eléctrico generado por el flujo de protones. ¿Una broma? No, solo un propuesta de Kenneth Dalton, “The Missing Mass of the Milky Way Galaxy,” ArXiv preprint, 22 May 2009 .

Un flujo de protones que genera un campo eléctrico cuya energía “pesa” como 10^10 masas solares. La galaxia es muy grande. El flujo de protones cerca del núcleo galáctico tiene que ser del orden de 2 × 10^−13 cm^−3 y algo menor a la distancia a la que se encuentra el Sol del orden de 10^(-16) cm^−3. ¿Mucho o poco? Un millón de veces menor que el flujo de rayos cósmico estimado que incide en la atmósfera terrestre (cuyo origen fundamental es el Sol), de unos 10^(-10) cm^-3. El número de protones que abandanorían el halo de nuestra galaxia sería de 0.5 ×10^(41) protones seg^(-1). Un flujo tan grande se “comería” toda la materia de la galaxia. Sí, salvo que la energía de los protones emitidos en el centro galáctica fuera menor que 10^18 eV.

Números razonables. ¿Dónde está la trampa? ¿Cómo es que nadie se había dado cuenta antes? 

Abstract: A model is proposed in which cosmic ray protons flow radially through the galaxy. The resulting electric field energy creates a gravitational force, in addition to the conventional Newtonian force. The model yields a rotation curve that agrees well with observation. In particular, it predicts the flat velocity profile found in the outer fringe of the galaxy. The total electric field energy is calculated. It is the missing mass of the galaxy.

New Diamond and Nano Carbons Conference

June 7-11, 2009
Grand Traverse Resort & Spa
Traverse City, Michigan, USA
Register Now | Conference Schedule | Lodging

PLEASE NOTE: Manuscript Submission Deadline has been extended to May 16, 2009

Join us for the third international New Diamond and Nano Carbons Conference (NDNC 2009). The conference will present high-impact scientific and technological advances, along with critical developments to enable the application of diamond, carbon nanostructures and related materials in a diverse range of products.

Conference History
The first NDNC conference was held in Osaka, Japan, in 2006, after the merger of the ADC (Applied Diamond Conference) and ICNDST (International Conference on New Diamond Science and Technology). The second conference followed in Taipei, Taiwan, in 2008. NDNC benefits from the long history of ADC and ICNDST, and has now become the home base for the fast-growing field.

Scientific Program
The conference will span four days and feature oral and poster presentations covering:

• Diamond Science and Technology
• Nanocarbon Science and Technology
• Graphene, Carbon Fibers and Other Nanocarbon Applications
• Diamond-Like Carbon Science and Applications
• Biological and Electrochemical Applications
• Sensor, Electronic and Optical Applications
• Emerging Topics in Diamond and Nanocarbons
• Commercial Applications and Business Opportunities

Conference Venue
Traverse City and the Grand Traverse Resort & Spa are situated in the northwest corner of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula, on Lake Michigan’s East Grand Traverse Bay. With over 250 miles of Lake Michigan shoreline, dozens of inland lakes, and thousands of acres of heavily forested trails, this is an ideal conference and vacation destination. In addition, the Grand Traverse Resort & Spa features 3 championship golf courses. Find out more or reserve your lodging.

http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/sec.asp?CID=18269&DID=233991

***

Strange Matter

• printer-friendly

WHAT IS Strange Matter?
Following an extensive period of research and development, the Materials Research Society (MRS), along with the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Ontario Science Centre developed “Strange Matter” – a traveling interactive exhibit where users enter the fascinating, practical, occasionally bizarre and often beautiful world of materials science through over a dozen hands-on experiences.A dynamic and interactive Web site (www.strangematterexhibit.com) accompanies the exhibit, and provides a number of elements that supplement the exhibit experience. (Since its launch, the Strange Matter Web site has garnered significant acclaim, from sources such as Newsweek, Yahoo! Picks, The American Association for Advancement of Science, The American Library Association, and more.)

In addition to the Strange Matter exhibit and Web site, the Strange Matter team has developed a teacher curriculum/activity guide designed to assist teachers with integrating materials science into their 5th-8th grade science curriculums. The hands-on activities, based on the National Science Education Standards, are designed to encourage exploration and inquiry. We invite you to find out more about the Strange Matter Teacher’s Guide.

Strange Matter will be touring North America through 2010.  Here’s a list of current and upcoming venues.

---

SPONSORS
Funding for Strange Matter provided by the NSF, Alcan, Dow, Ford Motor Company Fund, Intel Innovation in Education, and 3M Foundation .

---

MEDIA INFORMATION
To find out the very latest information regarding Strange Matter, please view our most recent press releases. A press kit and photographs are available for download to members of the media.

http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/sec.asp?CID=1911&DID=84057

***

http://www.strangematterexhibit.com/jump.html

Strange Matter Exhibition – definitely visit this page – go halfway down and explore some of this stuff – it is amazing! – my note

{and – it seems interesting to me – }

Smallest incandescent lamp uses single C-nanotube
The world’s smallest incandescent lamp, using a filament made from a single carbon nanotube that is only 100 atoms wide, has been demonstrated in an effort to explore the boundary between thermodynamics and quantum mechanics, two fundamental yet seemingly incompatible theories of physics theory. To the unaided eye, the filament is completely invisible when the lamp is off, but it appears as tiny point of light when the lamp is turned on. With less than 20 million atoms, the nanotube filament is both large enough to apply the statistical assumptions of thermodynamics and small enough to be considered as a molecular that is, quantum mechanical system.

***

Other really great stuff -

http://www.biochemj.org/bj/default.htm
Biochemical Journal – Biochem

30th International Symposium on Free Radicals. 25th – 30th of July 2009. Savonlinna, Finland

http://www.helsinki.fi/kemia/FRS2009/

***

http://pubs.acs.org/page/jpchax/index.html
Journal of Physical Chemistry

I just wanted to give a quick shout out to a series of videos on Youtube – Creationist Astronomy Propoganda Debunked (or CrAP Debunked ) – which address numerous bogus claims made by creationists regarding astronomy…

Since much of the whole discussion of creationism focuses on biology, I wanted to pass these videos along to show that these pseudoscientific nutters hold all of science in contempt, not just biology.  Please take some time to watch and pass them on!

Hay un ejercicio interesante dentro de un libro de física moderna^[1], del cual tomaremos la siguiente información:

El ojo humano, bajo condiciones favorables, puede detectar una energía de . Pero… ¿qué tanto es eso?. Bueno, veamos, se supone que una dieta «normal» debe ser de más o menos   calorías. Pero, hay un detalle con el término caloría usado en alimentos. Ellos llaman caloría a lo que en realidad es una «Caloría Grande» es decir, 1000 calorías de esas que enseñan en la escuela, por lo que si la dieta es de , en realidad son o lo que es lo mismo, 2 millones de calorías. Poniéndolo en términos de notación científica sería . Pero en el SI(Sistema Internacional), la energía se mide en Joules, donde , por lo que , o sea, casi 8 millones y medio de Joules.

Ahora comparemos el dato de la energía que puede detectar el ojo humano con lo que debemos ingerir en una comida, que son tenemos que es 836 seguido de 22 ceros, que puesto en letras sería «ocho cuatrillones trescientos sesentamil trillones» de veces. Es decir, el ojo humano puede detectar una «cuatrillonésima parte» de la energía de la que ingerimos en una comida. ¿Interesante, no?.

El ojo humano detecta longitudes de onda de entre 400 y 700 nanómetros, si tomamos el promedio, sería . Ahora bien, tomando un poco de física moderna, sabemos que la energía está dada del siguiente modo: . Donde es la constante de Planck y es la frecuencia, en éste caso específico, de la luz. Pero también sabemos, de el estudio básico de ondas, que , donde es la velocidad de la luz y la longitud de onda, por lo que, sustituyendo en la fórmula de la energía, tenemos . Ahora supongamos tratamos con un solo fotón, y que ese fotón tiene una longitud de onda en el rango de funcionamiento del ojo humano, llamémosle a esa energía por estar los rayos gamma compuestos de fotones. Por lo que la energía de un fotón con es y sustituyendo los valores tenemos

y resolviendo la operación se obtiene que la energía del fotón es

Y sabíamos ya que la energía mínima que puede detectar el ojo humano es de donde es la energía total que puede captar el ojo y ésta tiene que ser un múltiplo de la energía de un solo fotón, ya que, al menos, la luz que ve el ojo tiene eso, un fotón. Expresándolo de otro modo queda

Es decir, la energía total es «n veces» la energía del fotón. ¡Tan sólo nos queda despejar para saber cuantos fotones podemos ver!.

Y sustituyendo las cantidades que obtuvimos

una cantidad sin unidades. Traducción:

¡El ojo humano es capaz de detectar 3 fotones!.

Creo que éste hecho es bastante interesante. Lo único que no me queda claro, es de donde saca el libro que el ojo humano puede detectar , sería bueno encontrar una referencia por ahí.

Saludos.

Update: Gracias a Clmns por las correcciones de escritura.

Teoría E8 de Todo de Garrett Lisi con música de Philip Glass (al menos la música merece la pena).

Todo físico teórico que salta a la fama se arriesga a hacer el ridículo de su vida. 2008 fue el año de la “Lisimanía:” Garrett Lisi es el físico teórico “guaperas” y surfista que propuso una “Teoría de Todo” revolucionaria, basada en descomponer el grupo de Lie excepcional E8 en un conjunto adecuado de subgrupos que contenía tanto al Modelo Estándar como a la supergravedad. Ya lo contamos en este blog: sólo álgebra, puro álgebra, ¿dónde está la física de la teoría?  Lisi proponía un mecanismo extremadamente técnico por el cual la física aparecería en su teoría. Lisi no domina estas técnicas (cuantización BRST), prácticamente imposibles de aplicar a una teoría tan compleja como la que el propone. El asume que la belleza de la teoría es garantía suficiente de que alguien, algún día, será capaz de lograrlo.

La manera más fácil de “demostrar” que la teoría de Lisi no funciona es encontrar un error en su álgebra (también muy técnica, por cierto). El artículo (puramente matemático, prácticamente sin física) de Jacques Distler, Skip Garibaldi, ”There is no “Theory of Everything” inside E8,” ArXiv, Submitted on 16 May 2009 , analiza la estructura de subgrupos de E8 propuesta por Lisi y muestra que no cumple con ciertas propiedades “físicamente” necesarias para que se pueda construir una “representación” física adecuada (la representación de la teoría es la que “produce” el espectro de partículas elementales modeladas por la teoría). La verdad es que no tengo conocimientos suficientes para entender todos los detalles técnicos.

Garrett Lisi no se ha quedado callado. Afirma que Distler y Garibaldi no entienden todos los detalles de su teoría y que han confundido ciertos “detalles” técnicos. Lo que Distler y Garibaldi afirman que no se puede deducir de la teoría de Lisi, según Lisi no es lo que él realmente deduce. Así que, para Lisi, su teoría de todo sigue tan “viva” como siempre.

Más sobre Garrett Lisi en este blog:

Garrett Lisi y su nueva teoría algebraica sobre todo (o a la Lisimanía le falta la geometría y la física cuántica) Publicado el Octubre 24, 2008

La belleza de la teoría de grupos en física de partículas (o más sobre Garrett Lisi y E8) Publicado el Octubre 28, 2008

¿Por qué se utiliza la teoría de grupos en física de partículas elementales? Publicado el Octubre 27, 2008