Sanqingshan is a relatively small National Park near the city of Shangrao in the Jiangxi province of China. What it lacks in size it makes up for in shear natural beauty. It is officially the 7th World Heritage Site designated in China and has been noted for its exceptional scenic attraction. The key mystique of this remarkable place is the combination of extraordinary granite geology in the form of weird outcrops and pillars combined with seasonal climate variations than often cause mists, fogs and striking sunsets. Those that have visited this place describe a feeling of overwhelming peace and tranquility. This effect is enhanced by the profusion of natural waterfalls, pools and springs. If you allow yourself, it is truly possible to see Earth, Water, Wind and Fire joined in time. | 
|
SANQINGSHAN - CHINA
Why are past, present, and future our only options?
In this week's "Ask a Physicist," we're going to figure out why the universe we inhabit isn't Flatland, Tesseractland, or Doubletimeland. Or, at very least, we're going to figure out why those worlds would suck at harboring complex life.
This week's question was posed by Richard Henretta via my facebook fan page. He asks:
This could easily be classified a stoner question, but what would the universe look like if there were 2 dimensions of time?
It is a stoner question, but that won't stop me from answering it. Let me dispense with the obvious. From a macroscopic perspective, there are three dimensions in space. I don't care if you call them up-down,left-right,and forward-back, or x,y,z, or whatever you like. The fact is that we can only move in three-d.
There is also just a single dimension of time, and the main difference between time and space is that unlike with space, you only get to move through time one way, and at a rate of 1 second/second. It's this succession of events through time that define our experiences. Within the timeline of a single individual, it always makes sense to say, "A came before B." Once you start with multiple observers and relativity, all bets are off, but let's not get distracted with that today. It doesn't change the fact that in any local frame, there's just one way for time to go.
But why is the universe made this way? Everything we know about the standard modelis built on the assumption that the universe has 3+1 dimensions, but it doesn't actually tell us why that has to be the case.
As hardcore geeks, many of you are probably familiar with M-theory, which says (among much else) that in reality, the universe has ten spatial dimensions and one for time. All but three of those spatial dimensions are presumably very small; they would essentially be a Pacman universe on scales not only much smaller than you and me, but also on scales smaller than atomic nuclei.
Suppose, for a moment, that M theory is right. Is there a place in the multiverse with more than 3 macro dimensions? Sure, there might be. But we couldn't live there, and as I'll try to argue below, neither could anything else.
I'm going to make a bunch of anthropic arguments, and somebody is going to get their panties in a twist by saying that we don't know that life has to be like it is here on earth. True enough, but I'm making some reasonable assumptions. That is, I'm assuming complex molecules and atoms heavier than hydrogen need to be able to form. Since we've never seen extra-terrestrial (let alone extra-universal) life, I could be wrong. That's a chance I'm willing to take.
So what's the (weak) anthropic argument? The basic idea is that there isn't just a single set of physical parameters that describe the universe, but that you'll only find intelligent (or any) creatures trying to be physicists in regions of the universe that are conducive to life. We talk a fair amount about this in the "User's Guide to the Universe", where we address, for example, why physical constants might actually vary in different patches of the multiverse.
So what's wrong with anything but 3+1?
Why not live in Flatland?
We'll start easy. I'm sure many of you have read Edwin Abott's belovedFlatland. If you haven't, the premise is that a (literal, geometric) square tells us all about the physics and civilization of his two-dimensional world. I assure you that it's more interesting than it sounds.
The problem with such a world is one of complexity. To pick a particularly gross example. Imagine yourself as a two-dimensional amoeba. A mouth-type opening takes in some food. How does your digestive system work? Well, presumably, there's a tube running through you, ending at your tuchus. The problem is that in 2-d, such a tube would split you in half. In other words, for your digestive system to work, your mouth would also have to serve double-duty as your butt.
Grossness aside, there's a general problem in two dimensions, let alone in one. Systems and organisms simply can't be complex enough to form anything approaching intelligence. For instance, because you can't cross things in 2-d, neurons wouldn't be able to cross one another, and brains (or anything like it) would be very, very limited.
Sculpture by Rob Millar
How about a Tesseractland with 4 dimensions?
It's easy to think about 2 dimensional universes, because we can draw them on paper or computer screens. It's far harder to visualize what life would be like in a universe with more than three dimensions. We have to at least consider the possibility, however. If M theory is right and there really are 10 dimensions, why are so many of them compact, and only three of them big? You've probably already seen Rob Bryanton's "Imagining the tenth dimension", but if you haven't, you should check it out.
It's easy to think about 2 dimensional universes, because we can draw them on paper or computer screens. It's far harder to visualize what life would be like in a universe with more than three dimensions. We have to at least consider the possibility, however. If M theory is right and there really are 10 dimensions, why are so many of them compact, and only three of them big? You've probably already seen Rob Bryanton's "Imagining the tenth dimension", but if you haven't, you should check it out.
Just because we can imagine a 10 dimensional universe doesn't mean that we (or anything like us) could ever live in one. I'm going to drop a little old-school classical mechanics on you. You may remember, dimly, something about gravity being an inverse square law. The idea is that if you double the distance between two objects, their force of gravity drops by a factor of four. The same rule holds for electromagnetism.
The inverse square law isn't an accident. It turns out that it's entirely a function of the fact that we live in a three-dimensional universe. If we lived a four-dimensional one then we'd have an inverse cube law.
It turns out, though, that an inverse square law is very special. Higher dimensional universes (with their inverse cube or inverse-fourth gravity laws or whatever) don't have any stable orbits. In other words, in a 4-dimensional universe, the earth would either spiral in toward the sun or fly away. We wouldn't get to enjoy the five billion or so years of nearly constant sunlight that we do in our universe.
This is true for all orbiting bodies (including planets, comets, stars in the galaxy and so on), but the situation gets even worse — at least from an anthropic point of view. Because electromagnetism also obeys an inverse square law, it turns out that atoms wouldn't be stable. They'd all spontaneously collapse. It's really hard to imagine complex life without atoms, and even tougher to imagine having this conversation without the existence of life.
A note to the experts. Somebody is likely to point out in the comments section that electrons don't "orbit" atoms in the same way that planets do the sun. True enough, but if you grind through the equations in quantum mechanics and do the problem correctly, you hit the same problem. No stable atoms. Sorry.
What's so weird about 2 dimensions of time?
So we're limited to three dimensions in space, but what about perhaps having more than one dimension of time?
To put it bluntly, the universe would be confusing. Even talking about it is confusing. MIT Physicist Max Tegmark has a very nice discussion of what life would be like in a universe with two dimensions of time, and I'm quite shamelessly borrowing from his work here. (Warning: the original paper is a bit on the mathematical side).
Every person (and particle, for that matter) would move through two different times, t1 and t2. But these two times can't proceed at exactly the same rate, because if they did, it would be exactly the same as if the universe had only one dimension of time. More generally, if you're alone in this freaky universe, you probably wouldn't even notice that anything is wrong.
But things get awkward if you have a friend. (Use your imagination if necessary.)
Normally, if you meet up with someone, it's because you're at (more or less) the same coordinates in space during an overlapping period of time. The problem is that if the two people are moving through the different time coordinates at different rates then even though they might remain in the same place, they won't remain in the same time.
Put more simply, while your personal clock may run normally, unless your loved ones are all on the same world-lines you're destined never to see them again.
But even supposing you're an angry loner, living in a two-spatial-dimensional universe is going to be tough. The big thing (and the one must likely to spawn debate in the discussion section) has to do with the fact that with 2 time dimensions (and at least two space dimensions), you can't say anything useful about the "future." One of the things that makes an intelligent observer is that I (assuming I am one) can look around and based on the state of things around me, determine with some probability what will happen elsewhere at some point in the future. With two dimensions of time, you simply can't do that. I'll skip the math, but the basic idea is that the "future" isn't very well defined if you've got two time dimensions. If there's no inference, there's no prediction and no science. It's very hard to imagine how creatures in those sorts of circumstances could make any decisions at all.
Life is unpredictable enough with one dimension of time; two would just be ridiculous.
Top 10 Schools of Philosophy
10. Solipsism
Nothing exists;
Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it;
Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it can’t be communicated to others.
Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it;
Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it can’t be communicated to others.
- Gorgias (485-375 BC)
Solipsism is the idea that one can only know that one’s self exists and that anything outside the mind, such as the external word, can not be known to exist. Solipsists place emphasis on a subjective reality, and that what we perceive to be true for one person may not be true for another. It was first theorized by Greek pre-Socratic philosopher Gorgias and expounded upon by philosophers such as Plato and Descartes.
Solipsism is often associated with nihilism and materialism.
9. Determinism
Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper.
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Determinism is the philosophical theory that every event, including human cognition and behaviour, decision and action, is determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. Determinists generally believe in only one possible future, though deny that humans lack free will. Determinism can take many forms, from theological determinism, which suggests that one’s future be predetermined by a god or gods, to environmental determinism, which suggests that all human and cultural development be determined by environment, climate and geography.
30 Year Continuous Power Laptop Battery
Your next laptop could have a continuous power battery that lasts for 30 years without a single recharge thanks to work being funded by the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory. The breakthrough betavoltaic power cells are constructed from semiconductors and use radioisotopes as the energy source. As the radioactive material decays it emits beta particles that transform into electric power capable of fueling an electrical device like a laptop for years.
Although betavoltaic batteries sound Nuclear they’re not, they neither use fission/fusion or chemical processes to produce energy and so (do not produce any radioactive or hazardous waste). Betavoltaics generate power when an electron strikes a particular interface between two layers of material. The Process uses beta electron emissions that occur when a neutron decays into a proton which causes a forward bias in the semiconductor. This makes the betavoltaic cell a forward bias diode of sorts, similar in some respects to a photovoltaic (solar) cell. Electrons scatter out of their normal orbits in the semiconductor and into the circuit creating a usable electric current.
The profile of the batteries can be quite small and thin, a porous silicon material is used to collect the hydrogen isotope tritium which is generated in the process. The reaction is non-thermal which means laptops and other small devices like mobile phones will run much cooler than with traditional lithium-ion power batteries. The reason the battery lasts so long is that neutron beta-decay into protons is the world's most concentrated source of electricity, truly demonstrating Einstein’s theory E=MC2.
The best part about these cells are when they eventually run out of power they are totally inert and non-toxic, so environmentalists need not fear these high tech scientific wonder batteries. If all goes well plans are for these cells to reach store shelves in about 2 to 3 years.
A proposal to classify happiness as a psychiatric disorder.
Bentall RP. 1992 Jun;18(2):94-8.
Source
Department of Clinical Psychology, Liverpool University.
Abstract
It is proposed that happiness be classified as a psychiatric disorder and be included in future editions of the major diagnostic manuals under the new name: major affective disorder, pleasant type. In a review of the relevant literature it is shown that happiness is statistically abnormal, consists of a discrete cluster of symptoms, is associated with a range of cognitive abnormalities, and probably reflects the abnormal functioning of the central nervous system. One possible objection to this proposal remains--that happiness is not negatively valued. However, this objection is dismissed as scientifically irrelevant.
#5.
The Asch Conformity Experiment (1953)
The Setup:
Solomon Asch wanted to run a series of studies that would document the power of conformity, for the purpose of depressing everyone who would ever read the results.
Subjects were told that they would be taking part in a vision test, along with a handful of people. The participants were then shown pictures, and individually asked to answer very simple and obvious questions. The catch was that everybody else in the room other than the subject was in on it, and they were were told to give obviously wrong answers. So would the subject go against the crowd, even when the crowd was clearly and retardedly wrong?
The Result:
Questions the subjects were asked were like the puzzle shown here:
Questions the subjects were asked were like the puzzle shown here:
All they had to do was say which line on the right matched the one on the left. As you can see, Asch wasn't exactly asking these people to design the next space station. Really, the only way you could get the line questions honestly wrong is if you took two doses of LSD that morning and rubbed them directly on your eyeballs (which would have made for an even more awesome experiment, but we're getting off the point).
Yet, sadly, 32 percent of subjects would answer incorrectly if they saw that three others in the classroom gave the same wrong answer. Even when the line was plainly off by a few inches, it didn't matter. One in three would follow the group right off the proverbial cliff.
What This Says About You:
Imagine how much that 32 percent figure inflates when the answers are less black and white. We all tend to laugh with the group even when we didn't get the joke, or doubt our opinion we realize ours is unpopular among our group. So much for those lectures you got in elementary school about peer pressure and "being brave enough to be yourself."
Imagine how much that 32 percent figure inflates when the answers are less black and white. We all tend to laugh with the group even when we didn't get the joke, or doubt our opinion we realize ours is unpopular among our group. So much for those lectures you got in elementary school about peer pressure and "being brave enough to be yourself."
"Well, it's a good thing I'm a rebellious non-conformist," many of you are saying. Of course, for virtually all of you, the next step is to find out what the other non-conformists are doing ...
The Old Man of the Frontier Who Lost His Horse
There is a very famous Taoist story – I love it tremendously. The story is about an old Taoist farmer whose horse ran away:
This is the attitude of a man who understands what is accidental and what is essential. The accidental is always 'maybe'; it is a 'perhaps'. You cannot be certain about it, you need not be certain about it. People who become certain about the accidental are going to be frustrated sooner or later; their certainty is going to create much frustration for them. Their certainty will create expectations, and they cannot be fulfilled – because the universe is not there to fulfill your expectations. It has its own destiny. It is moving towards its own goal. It does not care about your private goals... |
English was not imported by the Anglo-Saxons
This is how the events of the 5th century AD and the origin of the English language are declared in every history book, in every schoolbook, worldwide :
The Anglo-Saxons imported the English language in the 5th century into Britain. The Anglo-Saxons were initially invited as mercenaries. When their wages could not be paid, they rebelled and took over the east of Britain. The Britons reacted by fighting bravely, but their efforts were hampered by treachery and unlawful collaboration with the enemy by some of their most high ranking members. Eventually the Anglo-Saxons managed to subdue the eastern population. They imposed their culture and language. A major part of the population fled west where the British resistance proved to be successful for a while.
So much for the official story.
So much for the official story.
But official history has several major inconsistencies:
1) | Strangely enough, no contemporary source mentions a language change. |
2) | English should have far more words of Welsh origin. Why can we not explain many place-names east of the Pennines in Welsh (e.g. London) nor in Latin? Why was there no similar language change on the continent after the collapse of the Roman Empire? |
3) | How could a very limited number of Anglo-Saxons conquer most of England? Is it true that the British were cowards as Gildas wrote in the 6th century? |
4) | Did the Anglo-Saxons wipe out the eastern population in Britain? Or was the entire population chased to Wales? How were the Anglo-Saxons able to replace 2.5 million eastern Britons? |
5) | Did east-England change its language twice within approx.1000 years? [1] Why was the alleged language transition so record-breakingly swift? |
Professor Simon James (University of Leicester) reminds us that the theory of the introduction of English was established in the 17th century under James I to suit the political needs of the time. The union of the crowns of Scotland and England was explained as re-union of (Celtic) Britain. State paid historians stated that Britain was ‘Celtic’ before the Roman age. This implied the existence of a Celtic language [2] all over Britain. The theory was used to quieten the critics who were against unification. The latter argued that the Scots always had been the eternal enemies of the English.
The English language was explained as an 'unfortunate and imported accident'.
Let there be no doubt: there is no historical proof whatsoever that the Anglo-Saxons imported English. I will also challenge the very existence of Celts as a distinct people, but not the existence of a Celtic culture.
Stating that (proto) English was there all the time not only explains much better what happened during the 5th century, plus later events, and the modern situation, it also can predict a number of facts. Assuming 2 languages in Britain, the 5th century puzzle can be solved and the modern situation makes far more sense.
For a brief summary click here .
MEANINGLESSNESS and EXISTENTIAL DEPRESSION
"It is here
that we encounter
the central theme of existentialism:
to live is to suffer,
to survive is to find meaning in the suffering."
- Victor Frankl
"Imagine a happy group of morons who are engaged in work.
They are carrying bricks in an open field.
As soon as they have stacked all the bricks at one end of the field,
they proceed to transport them to the opposite end.
This continues without stop and every day of every year
they are busy doing the same thing.
One day one of the morons stops long enough
to ask himself what he is doing.
He wonders what purpose there is in carrying the bricks.
And from that instant on he is not quite as content
with his occupation as he had been before.
I am the moron who wonders why he is carrying the bricks."
- suicide note,
that we encounter
the central theme of existentialism:
to live is to suffer,
to survive is to find meaning in the suffering."
- Victor Frankl
"Imagine a happy group of morons who are engaged in work.
They are carrying bricks in an open field.
As soon as they have stacked all the bricks at one end of the field,
they proceed to transport them to the opposite end.
This continues without stop and every day of every year
they are busy doing the same thing.
One day one of the morons stops long enough
to ask himself what he is doing.
He wonders what purpose there is in carrying the bricks.
And from that instant on he is not quite as content
with his occupation as he had been before.
I am the moron who wonders why he is carrying the bricks."
- suicide note,
Does gravity travel at the speed of light? ?
We don't know, because gravitational waves are so weak that we cannot detect them in order to time them. However, gravitational radiation is described very accurately by Einstein's theory of general relativity and in particular his field equation for gravity. The basis of this theory is that the velocity of gravity is limited to the speed of light. A very precise study of the so-called Taylor-Hulst binary pulsar system shows that the system is loosing energy at exactly the rate proscribed by Einstein's field equation for gravity. This would only be the case if this equation represented the essential physics of the phenomenon of gravity with high fidelity. The key assumption is that, like all other forces, gravity travels at exactly the speed of light. I don't know if this is compelling evidence to the non- physicist, but to me it does. In the future, we may be able to test this directly if we can figure out some way of detecting under laboratory conditions a gravitational wave.
A 50-year quest to isolate the thermoelectric effect is now over: Magnon drag unveiled
In a paper published in Nature Materials, a group of researchers at the Catalan Institute of Nanotechnology (ICN, Spain) led by Prof. Sergio O. Valenzuela reports the observation of the magnon drag. This work ends a 50-year long effort to isolate this elusive thermoelectric effect.
Lost City of Helike
In the late 2nd century AD, the Greek writer Pausanias wrote an account of how (4-500 years earlier?) in one night a powerful earthquake destroyed the great city of Helike, with a Tsunami washing away what remained of the once-flourishing metropolis. The city, capital of the Achaean League, was a worship centre devoted to the ancient god Poseidon, god of the sea. There was no trace of the legendary society mentioned outside of the ancient Greek writings until 1861, when an archeologist found some loot thought to have come from Helike – a bronze coin with the unmistakable head of Poseidon. In 2001, a pair of archeologists managed to locate the ruins of Helike beneath the mud and gravel of the coast, and are currently trying to peice together the rise and sudden fall of what has been called the “real” Atlantis.
Electron Perfectly Round to One Part in a Million Billion, Experiment Finds
Physicists step up the search for particle's predicted deformity -- and hope to solve antimatter mystery along the way.
Explore the earth
Dapple makes it easy to find and visualize massive quantities of geoscientific data available on the Internet.
- Search the Web for spatial data.
- Search internal DAP servers and known Web servers for spatial data.
- View geoscience data, satellite imagery, remote sensing data, geology maps, geophysical data, and many other earth data sets of interest to geoscientists.
- Save an earth view and share your view with colleagues.
- Add new Geosoft DAP, WMS and ArcIMS servers of interest.
- View GeoTIFF files.
- View KML files (2.0.3 beta).
It's possible there is only one elctron in the entire universe
Pauls Dirac's equations denote the way that matter and antimatter collapse together to annhilate and give off radiation. So you end up having an electron exploding when it touches an anti-electron (positron). If the time value in Dirac's equation is positive it describes the movement of the electron, if it's negative it describes the motion of the positron.
So this means that it's possible that the positron that causes the annhilation, is actually the same electron that it annhilates with, but travelling backwards through time. This positron will then travel backwards through time until it annhilates again, switches time-direction and becomes an electron. You can imagine the timeline of the electron-positron looking like interstellar pong. Because we only see individual moments of time, we percieve there to be billions upon billions of elctrons, but it could be exactly the same electron, which would explain why they are all identical.
obviously there are some issues with this, like the unbalanced amount of anti-matter to matter ratio, and conservation of energy etc. I'm not a master physicist so I can't really answer these questions, but I heard this from Michio Kaku, so go bug him, also he deserves credit.
So this means that it's possible that the positron that causes the annhilation, is actually the same electron that it annhilates with, but travelling backwards through time. This positron will then travel backwards through time until it annhilates again, switches time-direction and becomes an electron. You can imagine the timeline of the electron-positron looking like interstellar pong. Because we only see individual moments of time, we percieve there to be billions upon billions of elctrons, but it could be exactly the same electron, which would explain why they are all identical.
obviously there are some issues with this, like the unbalanced amount of anti-matter to matter ratio, and conservation of energy etc. I'm not a master physicist so I can't really answer these questions, but I heard this from Michio Kaku, so go bug him, also he deserves credit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)