THE assassination of anti-superstition activist Narendra Dabholkar in Pune is a black mark on Indian society. Forces of intolerance, superstition, irrationality and reaction killed him not because he threatened their faith or freedom, but because he was against exploiting people through black magic, sorcery, and sleights-of-hand while invoking supernatural powers.
http://www.sacw.net/article5457.
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Tuesday, 3 September 2013
Sunday, 6 May 2012
PHOTOS marking 22nd Anniversary of Hubble Telescope's Launch Into Space
In 1929 Dr. Edwin Hubble determined that "the farther a galaxy is from Earth, the faster it appears to move away." This formed the basis of the Big Bang theory, the prevailing cosmological model of the development of the universe... The Hubble Space Telescope launched on April 24, 1990, ushering in a new era in space exploration. From its low-earth orbit, the telescope can take pictures without interference from the planet's atmosphere, snapping photographs in visible light, ultraviolet and near-infrared wavelengths.
Link For Images From The Hubble Space Telescope
Named for astronomer Dr. Edwin Hubble, who established the notion that the universe is expanding, the images the telescope has produced over the past 20 years have similarly changed the course of astronomy, "[turning] astronomical conjectures into concrete certainties," according to the Hubble Space Telescope website. Its landmark discoveries include more accurately gauging the age of the universe--13 to 14 billion years--and unveiling the existence of dark energy, "a mysterious force that causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate."
Mystic Mountain galaxy
The Hubble has also detected gamma ray bursts from giant, collapsed stars, found protoplanetary disks where new planets are forming, and captured images of galaxies in different stages of evolution. Most recently, the telescope documented the first-ever auroras above Uranus. In celebration of the 22nd anniversary of the telescope, the Hubble science team released a mosaic image of stars forming in the Tarantula nebula.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/hubble-space-telescope-anniversary-photos_n_1460494.html?ref=science
Also see: Saturn's Moons In High Resolution:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/02/saturn-photo-moons-tethys-enceladus_n_1471365.html?ref=science
And: Stunning Photos of the Very Small:
http://www.livescience.com/16369-nikon-small-world-photos-2011.html
Link For Images From The Hubble Space Telescope
Named for astronomer Dr. Edwin Hubble, who established the notion that the universe is expanding, the images the telescope has produced over the past 20 years have similarly changed the course of astronomy, "[turning] astronomical conjectures into concrete certainties," according to the Hubble Space Telescope website. Its landmark discoveries include more accurately gauging the age of the universe--13 to 14 billion years--and unveiling the existence of dark energy, "a mysterious force that causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate."
Mystic Mountain galaxy
The Hubble has also detected gamma ray bursts from giant, collapsed stars, found protoplanetary disks where new planets are forming, and captured images of galaxies in different stages of evolution. Most recently, the telescope documented the first-ever auroras above Uranus. In celebration of the 22nd anniversary of the telescope, the Hubble science team released a mosaic image of stars forming in the Tarantula nebula.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/hubble-space-telescope-anniversary-photos_n_1460494.html?ref=science
Also see: Saturn's Moons In High Resolution:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/02/saturn-photo-moons-tethys-enceladus_n_1471365.html?ref=science
And: Stunning Photos of the Very Small:
http://www.livescience.com/16369-nikon-small-world-photos-2011.html
Quantum computers are leaping ahead
The reality of the universe in which we live is an outrage to common sense. Over the past 100 years, scientists have been forced to abandon a theory in which the stuff of the universe constitutes a single, concrete reality in exchange for one in which a single particle can be in two (or more) places at the same time. This is the universe as revealed by the laws of quantum physics and it is a model we are forced to accept – we have been battered into it by the weight of the scientific evidence. Without it, we would not have discovered and exploited the tiny switches present in their billions on every microchip, in every mobile phone and computer around the world. The modern world is built using quantum physics: through its technological applications in medicine, global communications and scientific computing it has shaped the world in which we live.
Although modern computing relies on the fidelity of quantum physics, the action of those tiny switches remains firmly in the domain of everyday logic. Each switch can be either "on" or "off", and computer programs are implemented by controlling the flow of electricity through a network of wires and switches: the electricity flows through open switches and is blocked by closed switches. The result is a plethora of extremely useful devices that process information in a fantastic variety of ways.
Modern "classical" computers seem to have almost limitless potential – there is so much we can do with them. But there is an awful lot we cannot do with them too. There are problems in science that are of tremendous importance but which we have no hope of solving, not ever, using classical computers. The trouble is that some problems require so much information processing that there simply aren't enough atoms in the universe to build a switch-based computer to solve them. This isn't an esoteric matter of mere academic interest – classical computers can't ever hope to model the behaviour of some systems that contain even just a few tens of atoms. This is a serious obstacle to those who are trying to understand the way molecules behave or how certain materials work – without the possibility to build computer models they are hampered in their efforts. One example is the field of high-temperature superconductivity. Certain materials are able to conduct electricity "for free" at surprisingly high temperatures (still pretty cold, though, at well but still below -100 degrees celsius). The trouble is, nobody really knows how they work and that seriously hinders any attempt to make a commercially viable technology. The difficulty in simulating physical systems of this type arises whenever quantum effects are playing an important role and that is the clue we need to identify a possible way to make progress.
It was American physicist Richard Feynman who, in 1981, first recognised that nature evidently does not need to employ vast computing resources to manufacture complicated quantum systems...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/may/06/quantum-computing-physics-jeff-forshaw
Although modern computing relies on the fidelity of quantum physics, the action of those tiny switches remains firmly in the domain of everyday logic. Each switch can be either "on" or "off", and computer programs are implemented by controlling the flow of electricity through a network of wires and switches: the electricity flows through open switches and is blocked by closed switches. The result is a plethora of extremely useful devices that process information in a fantastic variety of ways.
Modern "classical" computers seem to have almost limitless potential – there is so much we can do with them. But there is an awful lot we cannot do with them too. There are problems in science that are of tremendous importance but which we have no hope of solving, not ever, using classical computers. The trouble is that some problems require so much information processing that there simply aren't enough atoms in the universe to build a switch-based computer to solve them. This isn't an esoteric matter of mere academic interest – classical computers can't ever hope to model the behaviour of some systems that contain even just a few tens of atoms. This is a serious obstacle to those who are trying to understand the way molecules behave or how certain materials work – without the possibility to build computer models they are hampered in their efforts. One example is the field of high-temperature superconductivity. Certain materials are able to conduct electricity "for free" at surprisingly high temperatures (still pretty cold, though, at well but still below -100 degrees celsius). The trouble is, nobody really knows how they work and that seriously hinders any attempt to make a commercially viable technology. The difficulty in simulating physical systems of this type arises whenever quantum effects are playing an important role and that is the clue we need to identify a possible way to make progress.
It was American physicist Richard Feynman who, in 1981, first recognised that nature evidently does not need to employ vast computing resources to manufacture complicated quantum systems...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/may/06/quantum-computing-physics-jeff-forshaw
Monday, 23 April 2012
Fang Lizhi: distinguished professor of astrophysics (1936–2012)
Fang Lizhi, a distinguished professor of astrophysics, luminary in the struggle for human rights in contemporary China, and frequent contributor to The New York Review, died suddenly on the morning of April 6...News of his passing spread quickly on the Chinese Internet. Students whom he had taught in the 1980s and admirers of his eloquent championing of human rights wrote their accolades. State Security officials noticed, and within hours ordered Internet police to delete all messages that mentioned the words “Fang Lizhi.” After that, tweets about Fang on weibo (the Chinese version of Twitter) disappeared about a minute after posting...
Fang’s father was a postal clerk and he grew up in modest circumstances. But soon it became clear that Fang had a brilliant mind, and his outstanding work as a student led him to the Physics Department of China’s elite Peking University in the early 1950s. The campus atmosphere of optimistic socialism attracted him, and he joined the Communist Party. In courting his girlfriend (a fellow student who later became his wife, the physicist Li Shuxian), he once invited her to “watch me grow into a good Communist.” During Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution in the late 1960s, he was persecuted and confined in a reeducation camp at a coal mine in southern Anhui province. It was this treatment that led him to specialize in theoretical astrophysics, which he later told me was “the only field of physics I could pursue without equipment.” After Mao died Fang’s star rose again, and in 1984 he became vice-president of China’s prestigious University of Science and Technology in Anhui.
By then he had shed his attachment to Marxist dogma and, in addition to teaching physics, began delivering trenchant speeches on human rights and democracy. For example, when the government of Deng Xiaoping began using the slogan “modernization with Chinese characteristics” (i.e., modernization without power-sharing by the Communist Party), Fang responded satirically by asking students if they believed in physics with Chinese characteristics. Students were charmed; the authorities were not. In January 1987 they fired him from his university job (for this and other speeches), expelled him from the Party, and compiled excerpts from his speeches that they then distributed to campuses all across China as examples of “bourgeois liberalism” that students should avoid. But students found the excerpts themselves far more attractive than the warnings, and Fang suddenly became famous everywhere in China. He became the spirit behind the nationwide pro-democracy demonstrations in the spring of 1989. He lived on the outskirts of Beijing at the time, but refused to go to Tiananmen Square. He wanted to make it clear to the authorities that the students were acting autonomously.
After the June 4 massacre that ended the protests, the government published a list of people wanted for arrest. Fang Lizhi and Li Shuxian were numbers one and two. On June 5 they took refuge in the US embassy in Beijing, where they lived for thirteen months in a basement apartment that had no windows. On being told that Deng, in a conversation with Henry Kissinger, had said he wanted him to write a confession, Fang wrote one in the form of a forthright statement of human rights principles. In June 1990 the Japanese government negotiated the release of Fang and Li by offering economic concessions to China, and for the next nearly twenty-two years they lived in exile.
Fang’s path through life observed a pattern that is common to China’s dissidents: a person begins with socialist ideals, feels bitter when the rulers betray the ideals, resorts to outspoken criticism, and ends in prison or exile... http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/apr/13/on-fang-lizhi/
Fang’s father was a postal clerk and he grew up in modest circumstances. But soon it became clear that Fang had a brilliant mind, and his outstanding work as a student led him to the Physics Department of China’s elite Peking University in the early 1950s. The campus atmosphere of optimistic socialism attracted him, and he joined the Communist Party. In courting his girlfriend (a fellow student who later became his wife, the physicist Li Shuxian), he once invited her to “watch me grow into a good Communist.” During Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution in the late 1960s, he was persecuted and confined in a reeducation camp at a coal mine in southern Anhui province. It was this treatment that led him to specialize in theoretical astrophysics, which he later told me was “the only field of physics I could pursue without equipment.” After Mao died Fang’s star rose again, and in 1984 he became vice-president of China’s prestigious University of Science and Technology in Anhui.
By then he had shed his attachment to Marxist dogma and, in addition to teaching physics, began delivering trenchant speeches on human rights and democracy. For example, when the government of Deng Xiaoping began using the slogan “modernization with Chinese characteristics” (i.e., modernization without power-sharing by the Communist Party), Fang responded satirically by asking students if they believed in physics with Chinese characteristics. Students were charmed; the authorities were not. In January 1987 they fired him from his university job (for this and other speeches), expelled him from the Party, and compiled excerpts from his speeches that they then distributed to campuses all across China as examples of “bourgeois liberalism” that students should avoid. But students found the excerpts themselves far more attractive than the warnings, and Fang suddenly became famous everywhere in China. He became the spirit behind the nationwide pro-democracy demonstrations in the spring of 1989. He lived on the outskirts of Beijing at the time, but refused to go to Tiananmen Square. He wanted to make it clear to the authorities that the students were acting autonomously.
After the June 4 massacre that ended the protests, the government published a list of people wanted for arrest. Fang Lizhi and Li Shuxian were numbers one and two. On June 5 they took refuge in the US embassy in Beijing, where they lived for thirteen months in a basement apartment that had no windows. On being told that Deng, in a conversation with Henry Kissinger, had said he wanted him to write a confession, Fang wrote one in the form of a forthright statement of human rights principles. In June 1990 the Japanese government negotiated the release of Fang and Li by offering economic concessions to China, and for the next nearly twenty-two years they lived in exile.
Fang’s path through life observed a pattern that is common to China’s dissidents: a person begins with socialist ideals, feels bitter when the rulers betray the ideals, resorts to outspoken criticism, and ends in prison or exile... http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/apr/13/on-fang-lizhi/
Steven Weinberg on The Crisis of Big Science
Last year physicists commemorated the centennial of the discovery of the atomic nucleus. In experiments carried out in Ernest Rutherford’s laboratory at Manchester in 1911, a beam of electrically charged particles from the radioactive decay of radium was directed at a thin gold foil. It was generally believed at the time that the mass of an atom was spread out evenly, like a pudding. In that case, the heavy charged particles from radium should have passed through the gold foil, with very little deflection. To Rutherford’s surprise, some of these particles bounced nearly straight back from the foil, showing that they were being repelled by something small and heavy within gold atoms. Rutherford identified this as the nucleus of the atom, around which electrons revolve like planets around the sun.
This was great science, but not what one would call big science. Rutherford’s experimental team consisted of one postdoc and one undergraduate. Their work was supported by a grant of just £70 from the Royal Society of London...Nuclear physics soon got bigger. The electrically charged particles from radium in Rutherford’s experiment did not have enough energy to penetrate the electrical repulsion of the gold nucleus and get into the nucleus itself. To break into nuclei and learn what they are, physicists in the 1930s invented cyclotrons and other machines that would accelerate charged particles to higher energies...
After World War II, new accelerators were built, but now with a different purpose. In observations of cosmic rays, physicists had found a few varieties of elementary particles different from any that exist in ordinary atoms. To study this new kind of matter, it was necessary to create these particles artificially in large numbers. For this physicists had to accelerate beams of ordinary particles like protons—the nuclei of hydrogen atoms—to higher energy, so that when the protons hit atoms in a stationary target their energy could be transmuted into the masses of particles of new types. It was not a matter of setting records for the highest-energy accelerators, or even of collecting more and more exotic species of particles, like orchids. The point of building these accelerators was, by creating new kinds of matter, to learn the laws of nature that govern all forms of matter. Though many physicists preferred small-scale experiments in the style of Rutherford, the logic of discovery forced physics to become big.
In 1959 I joined the Radiation Laboratory at Berkeley as a postdoc. Berkeley then had the world’s most powerful accelerator, the Bevatron, which occupied the whole of a large building in the hills above the campus. The Bevatron had been built specifically to accelerate protons to energies high enough to create antiprotons, and to no one’s surprise antiprotons were created. What was surprising was that hundreds of types of new, highly unstable particles were also created. There were so many of these new types of particles that they could hardly all be elementary, and we began to doubt whether we even knew what was meant by a particle being elementary. It was all very confusing, and exciting... Read more:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/may/10/crisis-big-science/?pagination=false
This was great science, but not what one would call big science. Rutherford’s experimental team consisted of one postdoc and one undergraduate. Their work was supported by a grant of just £70 from the Royal Society of London...Nuclear physics soon got bigger. The electrically charged particles from radium in Rutherford’s experiment did not have enough energy to penetrate the electrical repulsion of the gold nucleus and get into the nucleus itself. To break into nuclei and learn what they are, physicists in the 1930s invented cyclotrons and other machines that would accelerate charged particles to higher energies...
After World War II, new accelerators were built, but now with a different purpose. In observations of cosmic rays, physicists had found a few varieties of elementary particles different from any that exist in ordinary atoms. To study this new kind of matter, it was necessary to create these particles artificially in large numbers. For this physicists had to accelerate beams of ordinary particles like protons—the nuclei of hydrogen atoms—to higher energy, so that when the protons hit atoms in a stationary target their energy could be transmuted into the masses of particles of new types. It was not a matter of setting records for the highest-energy accelerators, or even of collecting more and more exotic species of particles, like orchids. The point of building these accelerators was, by creating new kinds of matter, to learn the laws of nature that govern all forms of matter. Though many physicists preferred small-scale experiments in the style of Rutherford, the logic of discovery forced physics to become big.
In 1959 I joined the Radiation Laboratory at Berkeley as a postdoc. Berkeley then had the world’s most powerful accelerator, the Bevatron, which occupied the whole of a large building in the hills above the campus. The Bevatron had been built specifically to accelerate protons to energies high enough to create antiprotons, and to no one’s surprise antiprotons were created. What was surprising was that hundreds of types of new, highly unstable particles were also created. There were so many of these new types of particles that they could hardly all be elementary, and we began to doubt whether we even knew what was meant by a particle being elementary. It was all very confusing, and exciting... Read more:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/may/10/crisis-big-science/?pagination=false
Monday, 16 April 2012
In pursuit of an invention
Anadish Pal, now 48, is the country's only independent inventor with nine US patents. His house in Pitampura, Delhi, resembles a laboratory-cum-library with a plethora of equipment such as gravitational modulator, laser beam walker, spectrum analysers, gyroscopes, optoelectronic sensors, among others. As a child, Pal - who was born in Delhi and brought up in Gorakhpur in eastern Uttar Pradesh - was fascinated by literature and science. He had designed a crystal radio at the age of 14 and Thomas Alva Edison was his hero. Pal always believed that his calling lay in electronics and he could do without formal education. So, when he quit AIIMS, Pal decided not to attend any formal studies again.
But dropping out of the prestigious medical institute meant he needed to prove himself to many people, including his father, who taught psychology at Delhi University. "Now, the burden to prove myself was on me because I had voluntarily taken the decision to quit formal studies," says Pal. For the next three years, he just could not come to terms with the death of his mother and sought solace in the books of Henry James, Samuel Becket and Ernest Hemingway. This made his father worried as he could see Pal falling deep into a hole.
Pal recalls an incident, "One day, the door bell in our house got burnt. My father knew my passion for electronics, so just to divert me, he asked in a challenging manner if I could repair it. I agreed and designed a timer with a new circuit to ensure that it never burns again," says Pal, showing the touch bell which is still working after almost three decades at his house. His father's trick had worked: Pal had rediscovered his calling. In 1984, he landed a contract for designing electronic controls and sound generators for various rides at Appu Ghar, just before its inauguration. He earned about R60,000 for a project lasting 10 days. "It was a lot of money those days. Everyone said I had put my sad past behind and had a great future ahead," says Pal.
That was just the beginning. The project established his reputation as an ace circuit designer and a 'quickie engineer'. Many freelance projects began to come his way. Between 1990 and 2000, he worked as a freelancer for companies such as Maruti, Honda, Duracell and the Nationally Institute for the Visually Handicapped. However, it was his marriage to Ritu Chowdhary, six years junior to her and his father's student, in 2000 that marked a new chapter in his life. "My wife wanted me to be a creative person and not just a circuit designer," says Pal. So, he shifted his focus to research and invention.
In the past few years, he has received as many as nine US patents for his inventions: For the use of induction motor as a sensor, a Personal Mobility Vehicle (PMV), a contact-less non-optical computer mouse suitable for 3D applications, a robotic platform, an electromagnetically controlled valve-less internal combustion engine, a revolutionary electromagnetic gas-operated gun with smooth bore, a BVI-noise reduction technique for helicopters, a linear motor for electromagnetic launch and a very high torque electric motor. Despite all these achievements, Pal is disappointed as he could not peddle his concept for a PMV - a diwheel car with a canopy, which he got patented in 2006, to auto companies. "The PMV can offer a good solution to short distance transportation on congested streets in Delhi. It can also be used as a personal transport to and from Delhi Metro, replacing the cycles at the stations. I wrote to Delhi Metro in this regard but got no response," says Pal...
http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/In-pursuit-of-an-invention/Article1-840732.aspx
But dropping out of the prestigious medical institute meant he needed to prove himself to many people, including his father, who taught psychology at Delhi University. "Now, the burden to prove myself was on me because I had voluntarily taken the decision to quit formal studies," says Pal. For the next three years, he just could not come to terms with the death of his mother and sought solace in the books of Henry James, Samuel Becket and Ernest Hemingway. This made his father worried as he could see Pal falling deep into a hole.
Pal recalls an incident, "One day, the door bell in our house got burnt. My father knew my passion for electronics, so just to divert me, he asked in a challenging manner if I could repair it. I agreed and designed a timer with a new circuit to ensure that it never burns again," says Pal, showing the touch bell which is still working after almost three decades at his house. His father's trick had worked: Pal had rediscovered his calling. In 1984, he landed a contract for designing electronic controls and sound generators for various rides at Appu Ghar, just before its inauguration. He earned about R60,000 for a project lasting 10 days. "It was a lot of money those days. Everyone said I had put my sad past behind and had a great future ahead," says Pal.
That was just the beginning. The project established his reputation as an ace circuit designer and a 'quickie engineer'. Many freelance projects began to come his way. Between 1990 and 2000, he worked as a freelancer for companies such as Maruti, Honda, Duracell and the Nationally Institute for the Visually Handicapped. However, it was his marriage to Ritu Chowdhary, six years junior to her and his father's student, in 2000 that marked a new chapter in his life. "My wife wanted me to be a creative person and not just a circuit designer," says Pal. So, he shifted his focus to research and invention.
In the past few years, he has received as many as nine US patents for his inventions: For the use of induction motor as a sensor, a Personal Mobility Vehicle (PMV), a contact-less non-optical computer mouse suitable for 3D applications, a robotic platform, an electromagnetically controlled valve-less internal combustion engine, a revolutionary electromagnetic gas-operated gun with smooth bore, a BVI-noise reduction technique for helicopters, a linear motor for electromagnetic launch and a very high torque electric motor. Despite all these achievements, Pal is disappointed as he could not peddle his concept for a PMV - a diwheel car with a canopy, which he got patented in 2006, to auto companies. "The PMV can offer a good solution to short distance transportation on congested streets in Delhi. It can also be used as a personal transport to and from Delhi Metro, replacing the cycles at the stations. I wrote to Delhi Metro in this regard but got no response," says Pal...
http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/In-pursuit-of-an-invention/Article1-840732.aspx
Sunday, 15 April 2012
Freedom of Expression Under Attack by the Catholic Church in India: Rationalist under threat of arrest for exposing the “miracle”
Dear friends,
On 10th March, Sanal Edamaruku, President of the Rationalist International, flew to Mumbai. The TV channel TV-9 had invited him to investigate a “miracle” that caused local excitement. He went with the TV team to Irla in Vile Parle to inspect the crucifix standing there in front of the Church of Our Lady of Velankanni. This crucifix had become the centre of attraction for an ever growing crowd of believers coming from far and wide. The news of the miracle spread like wild fire. For some days, there were little droplets of water trickling from Jesus’ feet. Hundreds of people came every day to pray and collect some of the “holy water” in bottles and vessels. Sanal Edamaruku identified the source of the water (a drainage near a washing room) and the mechanism how it reached Jesus feet (capillary action). The local church leaders, present during his investigation, appeared to be displeased. See the investigation in detail on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUqhq9MuRG8
Some hours later, in a live program on TV-9, Sanal explained his findings and accused the concerned Catholic Church officials of miracle mongering, as they were beating the big drum for the drippling Jesus statue with aggressive PR measures and by distributing photographs certifying the “miracle”. A heated debate began, in which the five church people, among them Fr. Augustine Palett, the priest of Our Lady of Velankanni church, and representatives of the Association of Concerned Catholics (AOCC) demanded that Sanal apologize. But Sanal refused and argued against them. The whole TV program is recorded. You can watch an abridged version of it on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfJ6_ftih0s
When they saw Sanal refused to bow to their demands, they threatened to file a blasphemy case against him. And they did. Yesterday (10th April,2012) Sanal received a phone call from a Police official of Juhu Police Station in Mumbai directing him to come to the said police station to face the charges and get arrested. He also said that FIRs have also been filed in Andheri and some other police stations u/s 295 of Indian Penal Code on the allegations of hurting the religious sentiments of a particular community. Mumbai police has announced that they were out to arrest him. It is apprehended that he can be arrested any moment. The filing of FIRs by Mumbai police and threatening to arrest a well known rationalist who has been exposing miracles and superstitious beliefs for more than three decades is a serious attack on the freedom of expression. Clause (h) of Article 51-A of Constitution of India states that: ‘It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to develop the scientific temper, humanism and spirit of inquiry and reform.’ In exposing the said miracle, Sanal was performing his fundamental duty enshrined in our constitution. It is distressing that the Mumbai police has chosen to harass and victimize him for doing his fundamental duty.
‘Sanal Edamaruku Defence Committee’ appeals to all progressive individuals and organizations to protest and oppose the reprehensible steps of the Maharashtra police in filing FIRs against Sanal and stand behind him in solidarity for the cause of scientific thinking and freedom of expression
N.D.Pancholi; Convenor, Sanal Edamaruku Defence Committee; 11 April, 2012
PS. Please have a look at "www.rationalistinternational.net."
*************************************************
Also see: INDIA: SELECTED POSTS FROM COMMUNALISM WATCH
=======================================
Riots in Hyderabad: Press Conference By Social Activists
http://communalism.blogspot.in/2012/04/riots-in-hyderabad-press-conference-by.html
India: Hindutva Far Right desecrated temple in Hyderabad to trigger riots
http://communalism.blogspot.in/2012/04/india-hindutva-far-right-desecrateed.html
India Supreme court asks Gujarat govt to stop probe against Teesta Setalvad
http://communalism.blogspot.in/2012/04/india-supreme-court-asks-gujarat-govt.html
BJP Led Madhya Pradesh State Subsidy for pilgrimages
http://communalism.blogspot.in/2012/04/madhya-pradesh-state-subsidy-for.html
CFP - Salvage and Salvation: Religion, Disaster Relief, and Reconstruction in Asia
http://communalism.blogspot.in/2012/04/cfp-salvage-and-salvation-religion.html
NB: Indian secularism - You tolerate my nonsense and I'll tolerate your nonsense. And we will together smash anyone who objects to nonsense. DS
On 10th March, Sanal Edamaruku, President of the Rationalist International, flew to Mumbai. The TV channel TV-9 had invited him to investigate a “miracle” that caused local excitement. He went with the TV team to Irla in Vile Parle to inspect the crucifix standing there in front of the Church of Our Lady of Velankanni. This crucifix had become the centre of attraction for an ever growing crowd of believers coming from far and wide. The news of the miracle spread like wild fire. For some days, there were little droplets of water trickling from Jesus’ feet. Hundreds of people came every day to pray and collect some of the “holy water” in bottles and vessels. Sanal Edamaruku identified the source of the water (a drainage near a washing room) and the mechanism how it reached Jesus feet (capillary action). The local church leaders, present during his investigation, appeared to be displeased. See the investigation in detail on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUqhq9MuRG8
Some hours later, in a live program on TV-9, Sanal explained his findings and accused the concerned Catholic Church officials of miracle mongering, as they were beating the big drum for the drippling Jesus statue with aggressive PR measures and by distributing photographs certifying the “miracle”. A heated debate began, in which the five church people, among them Fr. Augustine Palett, the priest of Our Lady of Velankanni church, and representatives of the Association of Concerned Catholics (AOCC) demanded that Sanal apologize. But Sanal refused and argued against them. The whole TV program is recorded. You can watch an abridged version of it on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfJ6_ftih0s
When they saw Sanal refused to bow to their demands, they threatened to file a blasphemy case against him. And they did. Yesterday (10th April,2012) Sanal received a phone call from a Police official of Juhu Police Station in Mumbai directing him to come to the said police station to face the charges and get arrested. He also said that FIRs have also been filed in Andheri and some other police stations u/s 295 of Indian Penal Code on the allegations of hurting the religious sentiments of a particular community. Mumbai police has announced that they were out to arrest him. It is apprehended that he can be arrested any moment. The filing of FIRs by Mumbai police and threatening to arrest a well known rationalist who has been exposing miracles and superstitious beliefs for more than three decades is a serious attack on the freedom of expression. Clause (h) of Article 51-A of Constitution of India states that: ‘It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to develop the scientific temper, humanism and spirit of inquiry and reform.’ In exposing the said miracle, Sanal was performing his fundamental duty enshrined in our constitution. It is distressing that the Mumbai police has chosen to harass and victimize him for doing his fundamental duty.
‘Sanal Edamaruku Defence Committee’ appeals to all progressive individuals and organizations to protest and oppose the reprehensible steps of the Maharashtra police in filing FIRs against Sanal and stand behind him in solidarity for the cause of scientific thinking and freedom of expression
N.D.Pancholi; Convenor, Sanal Edamaruku Defence Committee; 11 April, 2012
PS. Please have a look at "www.rationalistinternational.net."
*************************************************
Also see: INDIA: SELECTED POSTS FROM COMMUNALISM WATCH
=======================================
Riots in Hyderabad: Press Conference By Social Activists
http://communalism.blogspot.in/2012/04/riots-in-hyderabad-press-conference-by.html
India: Hindutva Far Right desecrated temple in Hyderabad to trigger riots
http://communalism.blogspot.in/2012/04/india-hindutva-far-right-desecrateed.html
India Supreme court asks Gujarat govt to stop probe against Teesta Setalvad
http://communalism.blogspot.in/2012/04/india-supreme-court-asks-gujarat-govt.html
BJP Led Madhya Pradesh State Subsidy for pilgrimages
http://communalism.blogspot.in/2012/04/madhya-pradesh-state-subsidy-for.html
CFP - Salvage and Salvation: Religion, Disaster Relief, and Reconstruction in Asia
http://communalism.blogspot.in/2012/04/cfp-salvage-and-salvation-religion.html
NB: Indian secularism - You tolerate my nonsense and I'll tolerate your nonsense. And we will together smash anyone who objects to nonsense. DS
Friday, 13 April 2012
Correspondence between Werner Heisenberg & Robert Jungk, author of "Brighter Than a Thousand Suns"
NB: Brighter than a Thousand Suns: A Personal History of the Atomic Scientists (1956), by Robert Jungk, is the first published account of the Manhattan Project and the German atomic bomb project. It studied the making and dropping of the atomic bomb from the view of the atomic scientists. The book is largely based on personal interviews with the people who played a leading part in the construction and deployment of the bombs. Here are some exchanges he had with the famous German physicist Werner Heisenberg in 1956-57.
An extract: Jan. 18th, 1957;
Dear Dr. Jungk!
Many thanks for your letter, asking me to write in a little more detail about my Copenhagen conversations with Bohr during WWII. In my memory which may, of course, deceive me after such a long time, the conversation roughly unfolded the following way. My visit to Copenhagen took place in the fall of 1941; I seem to remember that it was about the end of October. At that time, as a result of our experiments with uranium and heavy water, we in our "Uranium Club" had come to the following conclusion: It will definitely be possible to build a reactor from uranium and heavy water which produces energy. In this reactor (based on a theoretical work by v. Weizsäcker) a decay product of 239-uranium will be produced which just like 235-Uranium is a suitable explosive in atomic bombs. We did not know a process for obtaining of 235-Uranium with the resources available under wartime conditions in Germany, in quantities worth mentioning. Even the production of nuclear explosives from reactors obviously could only be achieved by running huge reactors for years on end. Thus we were quite clear on the fact that the production of atomic bombs would be possible only with enormous technical resources.
So we knew that in principle atomic bombs could be built, although we estimated the necessary technical effort to be even rather larger than in the end it turned out to have been. This situation seemed to us to be an especially favorable precondition as it enabled the physicists to influence further developments. For, had the production of atomic bombs been impossible, the problem would not have arisen at all; but had it been easy, then the physicists definitely could not have prevented their production. The actual givens of the situation, however, gave the physicists at that moment in time a decisive amount of influence over the subsequent events, since they had good arguments for their administrations - atomic bombs probably would not come into play in the course of the war, or else that using every conceivable effort it might yet be possible to bring them into play.
That both kinds of arguments were factually fully justified was shown by the subsequent development; for, in fact, the Americans could not employ the atomic bomb against Germany any more. In this situation we believed that a talk with Bohr might be of value. This talk then took place on an evening walk in the city district near Ny-Carlsberg. Because I knew that Bohr was under surveillance by German political operatives and that statements Bohr made about me would most likely be reported back to Germany, I tried to keep the conversation at a level of allusions that would not immediately endanger my life. The conversation probably started by me asking somewhat casually whether it were justifiable that physicists were devoting themselves to the Uranium problem right now during times of war, when one had to at least consider the possibility that progress in this field might lead to very grave consequences for war technology.
Bohr immediately grasped the meaning of this question as I gathered from his somewhat startled reaction. He answered, as far as I can remember, with a counter-question "Do you really believe one can utilize Uranium fission for the construction of weapons?" I may have replied "I know that this is possible in principle, but a terrific technical effort might be necessary, which one can hope, will not be realized anymore in this war." Bohr was apparently so shocked by this answer that he assumed I was trying to tell him Germany had made great progress towards manufacturing atomic weapons. In my subsequent attempt to correct this false impression I must not have wholly succeeded in winning Bohr's trust, especially because I only dared to speak in very cautious allusions ( which definitely was a mistake on my part) out of fear that later on a particular choice of words could be held against me. I then asked Bohr once more whether, in view of the obvious moral concerns, it might be possible to get all physicists to agree not to attempt work on atomic bombs, since they could only be produced with a huge technical effort anyhow.
But Bohr thought it would be hopeless to exert influence on the actions in the individual countries, and that it was, so to speak, the natural course in this world that the physicists were working in their countries on the production of weapons. For an explanation of this answer one has to include the following complication which, although it was not talked about as far as I can remember, but of which I was conscious, and which may also have been on Bohr's mind, consciously or unconsciously. The prospect of producing atomic bombs while at war was at the time immeasurably greater on the American side than on the German, due to the whole prior history. Since 1933 Germany had lost a number of excellent German physicists through emigration, the laboratories at universities were ancient and poor due to neglect by the government, the gifted young people often were pushed into other professions. In the United States, however, many university institutes since 1932 had been given completely new and modern equipment, and been switched over to nuclear physics. Larger and smaller cyclotrons had been started up in various places, many capable physicists had immigrated and the interest in nuclear physics even on the part of the public was very great.
Our proposition that the physicists on both sides should not advance the production of atomic bombs, was thus indirectly, if one wants to exaggerate the point, a proposition in favor of Hitler. The instinctive human position "As a decent human being one cannot make atomic weapons" thus coincided with an advantage for Germany. How far this was influencing Bohr, I cannot know of course. Everything I am writing here is in a sense an after the fact analysis of a very complicated psychological situation, where it is unlikely that every point can be accurate. - I myself was very unhappy over this conversation. The talk was then resumed a few weeks or months later by Jensen, but was equally unsuccessful. Even now, as I am writing this conversation down, I have no good feeling, since the wording of the various statements can certainly not be accurate anymore, and it would require all the fine nuances to accurately recount the actual content of the conversation in its psychological shading.. Read more: http://werner-heisenberg.unh.edu/Jungk.htm
Also see: “Copenhagen” Play Portrays Bohr and Heisenberg. It is not often that a play comes along that is based on solid research in the history of science. It is even rarer that such a play becomes a considerable public success, while at the same time receiving high acclaim from historians of science and scientists alike. Michael Frayn’s play “Copenhagen,” based on the uncertainties surrounding the 1941 meeting between physicists Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg in German-occupied Copenhagen, is such a play. It has already played for nearly two years in London, has been extremely well received in several other European cities, and recently opened in New York City. The play has been published as a book in England and is forthcoming in the US. The book includes a “Postscript” in which Frayn explains why he wrote the play along with a competent discussion of some of the main historical issues involved. The Postscript shows that Frayn is not satisfied with showing the play, he also encourages discussion of it:
http://www.aip.org/history/newsletter/spring2000/copenhagen.htm
An extract: Jan. 18th, 1957;
Dear Dr. Jungk!
Many thanks for your letter, asking me to write in a little more detail about my Copenhagen conversations with Bohr during WWII. In my memory which may, of course, deceive me after such a long time, the conversation roughly unfolded the following way. My visit to Copenhagen took place in the fall of 1941; I seem to remember that it was about the end of October. At that time, as a result of our experiments with uranium and heavy water, we in our "Uranium Club" had come to the following conclusion: It will definitely be possible to build a reactor from uranium and heavy water which produces energy. In this reactor (based on a theoretical work by v. Weizsäcker) a decay product of 239-uranium will be produced which just like 235-Uranium is a suitable explosive in atomic bombs. We did not know a process for obtaining of 235-Uranium with the resources available under wartime conditions in Germany, in quantities worth mentioning. Even the production of nuclear explosives from reactors obviously could only be achieved by running huge reactors for years on end. Thus we were quite clear on the fact that the production of atomic bombs would be possible only with enormous technical resources.
So we knew that in principle atomic bombs could be built, although we estimated the necessary technical effort to be even rather larger than in the end it turned out to have been. This situation seemed to us to be an especially favorable precondition as it enabled the physicists to influence further developments. For, had the production of atomic bombs been impossible, the problem would not have arisen at all; but had it been easy, then the physicists definitely could not have prevented their production. The actual givens of the situation, however, gave the physicists at that moment in time a decisive amount of influence over the subsequent events, since they had good arguments for their administrations - atomic bombs probably would not come into play in the course of the war, or else that using every conceivable effort it might yet be possible to bring them into play.
That both kinds of arguments were factually fully justified was shown by the subsequent development; for, in fact, the Americans could not employ the atomic bomb against Germany any more. In this situation we believed that a talk with Bohr might be of value. This talk then took place on an evening walk in the city district near Ny-Carlsberg. Because I knew that Bohr was under surveillance by German political operatives and that statements Bohr made about me would most likely be reported back to Germany, I tried to keep the conversation at a level of allusions that would not immediately endanger my life. The conversation probably started by me asking somewhat casually whether it were justifiable that physicists were devoting themselves to the Uranium problem right now during times of war, when one had to at least consider the possibility that progress in this field might lead to very grave consequences for war technology.
Bohr immediately grasped the meaning of this question as I gathered from his somewhat startled reaction. He answered, as far as I can remember, with a counter-question "Do you really believe one can utilize Uranium fission for the construction of weapons?" I may have replied "I know that this is possible in principle, but a terrific technical effort might be necessary, which one can hope, will not be realized anymore in this war." Bohr was apparently so shocked by this answer that he assumed I was trying to tell him Germany had made great progress towards manufacturing atomic weapons. In my subsequent attempt to correct this false impression I must not have wholly succeeded in winning Bohr's trust, especially because I only dared to speak in very cautious allusions ( which definitely was a mistake on my part) out of fear that later on a particular choice of words could be held against me. I then asked Bohr once more whether, in view of the obvious moral concerns, it might be possible to get all physicists to agree not to attempt work on atomic bombs, since they could only be produced with a huge technical effort anyhow.
But Bohr thought it would be hopeless to exert influence on the actions in the individual countries, and that it was, so to speak, the natural course in this world that the physicists were working in their countries on the production of weapons. For an explanation of this answer one has to include the following complication which, although it was not talked about as far as I can remember, but of which I was conscious, and which may also have been on Bohr's mind, consciously or unconsciously. The prospect of producing atomic bombs while at war was at the time immeasurably greater on the American side than on the German, due to the whole prior history. Since 1933 Germany had lost a number of excellent German physicists through emigration, the laboratories at universities were ancient and poor due to neglect by the government, the gifted young people often were pushed into other professions. In the United States, however, many university institutes since 1932 had been given completely new and modern equipment, and been switched over to nuclear physics. Larger and smaller cyclotrons had been started up in various places, many capable physicists had immigrated and the interest in nuclear physics even on the part of the public was very great.
Our proposition that the physicists on both sides should not advance the production of atomic bombs, was thus indirectly, if one wants to exaggerate the point, a proposition in favor of Hitler. The instinctive human position "As a decent human being one cannot make atomic weapons" thus coincided with an advantage for Germany. How far this was influencing Bohr, I cannot know of course. Everything I am writing here is in a sense an after the fact analysis of a very complicated psychological situation, where it is unlikely that every point can be accurate. - I myself was very unhappy over this conversation. The talk was then resumed a few weeks or months later by Jensen, but was equally unsuccessful. Even now, as I am writing this conversation down, I have no good feeling, since the wording of the various statements can certainly not be accurate anymore, and it would require all the fine nuances to accurately recount the actual content of the conversation in its psychological shading.. Read more: http://werner-heisenberg.unh.edu/Jungk.htm
Also see: “Copenhagen” Play Portrays Bohr and Heisenberg. It is not often that a play comes along that is based on solid research in the history of science. It is even rarer that such a play becomes a considerable public success, while at the same time receiving high acclaim from historians of science and scientists alike. Michael Frayn’s play “Copenhagen,” based on the uncertainties surrounding the 1941 meeting between physicists Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg in German-occupied Copenhagen, is such a play. It has already played for nearly two years in London, has been extremely well received in several other European cities, and recently opened in New York City. The play has been published as a book in England and is forthcoming in the US. The book includes a “Postscript” in which Frayn explains why he wrote the play along with a competent discussion of some of the main historical issues involved. The Postscript shows that Frayn is not satisfied with showing the play, he also encourages discussion of it:
http://www.aip.org/history/newsletter/spring2000/copenhagen.htm
Tuesday, 3 April 2012
Neutrino 'faster than light' scientist resigns
Prof Antonio Ereditato oversaw results that appeared to challenge Einstein's theory that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. Reports said some members of his group, called Opera, had wanted him to resign. Earlier in March, a repeat experiment found that the particles, known as neutrinos, did not exceed light speed.
When the results from the Opera group at the Gran Sasso underground laboratory in Italy were first published last year, they shocked the world, threatening to upend a century of physics as well as relativity theory - which holds the speed of light to be the Universe's absolute speed limit. The experiment involved measuring the time it took for neutrinos to travel the 730km (450 miles) from Cern laboratory in Geneva, Switzerland to the lab in Italy.
Speaking at the time, Professor Ereditato added "words of caution" because of the "potentially great impact on physics" of the result. "We tried to find all possible explanations for this," he said. "We wanted to find a mistake - trivial mistakes, more complicated mistakes, or nasty effects - and we didn't. "When you don't find anything, then you say 'well, now I'm forced to go out and ask the community to scrutinise this'." Despite the call for caution, the results caused controversy within the world of physics.
If the findings had been confirmed, they would have disproved Albert Einstein's 1905 Special Theory of Relativity. Earlier this month, a test run by a different group at the same Italian laboratory recorded neutrinos travelling at precisely light speed. Sandro Centro, co-spokesman for the Icarus collaboration, said that he was not surprised by the result. "In fact I was a little sceptical since the beginning," he told BBC News at the time. "Now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos." So far, Professor Ereditato has not commented on his decision to step down from his post.
Sunday, 26 February 2012
Climate change will shake the Earth
A changing climate isn't just about floods, droughts and heatwaves. It brings erupting volcanoes and catastrophic earthquakes too. The idea that a changing climate can persuade the ground to shake, volcanoes to rumble and tsunamis to crash on to unsuspecting coastlines seems, at first, to be bordering on the insane. How can what happens in the thin envelope of gas that shrouds and protects our world possibly influence the potentially Earth-shattering processes that operate deep beneath the surface? The fact that it does reflects a failure of our imagination and a limited understanding of the manner in which the different physical components of our planet – the atmosphere, the oceans, and the solid Earth, or geosphere – intertwine and interact.
If we think about climate change at all, most of us do so in a very simplistic way: so, the weather might get a bit warmer; floods and droughts may become more of a problem and sea levels will slowly creep upwards. Evidence reveals, however, that our planet is an almost unimaginably complicated beast, which reacts to a dramatically changing climate in all manner of different ways; a few – like the aforementioned – straightforward and predictable; some surprising and others downright implausible. Into the latter category fall the manifold responses of the geosphere. The world we inhabit has an outer rind that is extraordinarily sensitive to change. While the Earth's crust may seem safe and secure, the geological calamities that happen with alarming regularity confirm that this is not the case...
Thursday, 16 February 2012
Book review: Fields Apart Print Physics, past and future
The Infinity Puzzle, By Frank Close Physics on the Fringe, By Margaret Wertheim
The Infinity Puzzle brims with charming anecdotes about particle physics between the 1950s and 1980s, when breakthroughs came almost too fast to be comprehended and every scientist seemed to be maneuvering (and occasionally begging) for Nobel prizes. But the book also plumbs the origins of modern physics, especially troubles with the concept of infinity... Real objects cannot have infinite charge or mass or whatever. But when scientists in the 1950s started calculating those quantities with their latest and fanciest theories, infinities kept sprouting up and ruining things. Rather than abandon the theories, though, a few persistent scientists realized that they could do away with the infinities through mathematical prestidigitation. (Basically, they started calculating with and canceling out infinity like a regular old number, normally a big no-no.)
No one liked this fudging, but because it led to such stunningly accurate answers, scientists couldn’t dismiss it. In fact, the reigning paradigm in physics today—which describes the workings of invisible “fields” (similar to magnetic fields)— would not exist without this hand waving. And now physics is stuck with fields: they’ve become more fundamental to understanding the universe than mass or charge. Fields have become the very fabric of reality—even if our understanding of them relies on some unrealistic assumptions. Close explains how and why physicists resigned themselves to this tension and came to trust— even celebrate—how much smarter their equations were than they were.
Nevertheless, despite the imprimatur of scientists, some laypeople look at modern science and have a fit. Indeed, as Margaret Wertheim explains in her delightful Physics on the Fringe, some laypeople simply cannot stand the idea that the average person is shut out from grasping the deep nature of reality.
These “outsider scientists” are not Luddites who reject the very idea of science. Instead, they care almost too much: they love science but feel it has strayed. And rather than just bellyache, outsiders often channel their discontent into creating their own, independent theories of physics, rewriting Newton and Einstein from top to bottom...
Monday, 13 February 2012
First 'moving' images of Northern Lights from space
New images of the Northern Lights, or Aurora Borealis, have been captured by Nasa using a new time-lapse photographic technique. By combining hundreds of stills taken from the International Space Station, they have produced the first 'moving' images of the spectacle.
Wednesday, 28 December 2011
Exotic creatures discovered living at deep-sea vent in Indian Ocean
British scientists have found a remarkable array of creatures, some of them new to science, in one of the most inhospitable regions of the deep sea. In the first ever expedition to explore and take samples from the "Dragon Vent" in the south-west Indian Ocean, remotely operated submarines spotted yeti crabs, sea cucumbers and snails living around the boiling column of mineral-rich water that spews out of the seafloor.
Dr Jon Copley, a marine biologist at the University of Southampton who led the exploration of the Dragon Vent, said his team found animals that had not been seen in neighbouring parts of the oceans.
"We found a new type of yeti crab. Yeti crabs are known at vents in the eastern Pacific and there are two species described so far, but they have very long, hairy arms – ours have short arms and their undersides are covered in bristles. They're quite different to the ones that are known from the Pacific," said Copley. "This is the first time a Yeti crab has been seen in the Indian Ocean."
His team also found sea cucumbers, vent shrimps and scaly-foot snails. Sea cucumbers have previously only been seen at deep sea vents in the eastern Pacific. "This is the first time they've been seen at vents in the Indian Ocean and they're not known from the central Indian or mid-Atlantic vents so far," he said.
Deep-sea vents, also known as hydrothermal vents, are springs of superheated water that are powered by underwater volcanoes. They erupt from the sea bed and are usually found a few miles under the sea surface. The scalding temperatures and rich mineral content of the water give rise to vast rocky chimneys, which have been found to support a wide variety of life forms...
Tuesday, 27 December 2011
Outsider physicists and the oh-my-god particle
IN OCTOBER 1991, astrophysicists observed something incredible in the skies above Dugway Proving Ground, a former weapons-testing facility in a remote corner of Utah. It was a cosmic ray with an enormous amount of energy - equivalent to the kinetic energy of a baseball travelling at 100 kilometres per hour, but compressed into a subatomic particle. It came to be known as the oh-my-god-particle, and though similar events have been recorded at least 15 times since, mainstream physicists remain baffled by them.
To Jim Carter, a trailer-park owner in Enumclaw, Washington, ultra-high-energy cosmic rays pose no problem. They offer proof of a radical theory of the universe he has been developing for 50 years.
In Carter's theory, these rays are photons left over from the earliest stage of cosmic evolution. He calls them "apocalyptic photons" and believes that one of them was responsible for the Tunguska event
in 1908, in which a mysterious something from outer space flattened 2100 square kilometres of Siberian forest.
in 1908, in which a mysterious something from outer space flattened 2100 square kilometres of Siberian forest.Carter's ideas are not taken seriously by the physics mainstream. He does not have a PhD and has never had any of his work published in a scientific journal. He has just a single semester of university education, which was enough to convince him that what was being taught in physics departments was an offence to common sense.
In response, Carter went off and developed his own ideas. Five decades on he has his very own theory of everything, an idiosyncratic alternative to quantum mechanics and general relativity, based on the idea that all matter is composed of doughnut-shaped particles called circlons. Since the 1970s he has articulated his ideas in a series of self-published books, including his magnum opus, The Other Theory of Physics.
For the past 18 years I have been collecting the works of what I have come to call "outsider physicists"...
Sunday, 25 December 2011
Scientific misconduct
Scientific misconduct is not necessarily a sign of a decline of ethics among scientists today or of the increased competition for tenure and research funds. Accusations of scientific misconduct, sometimes well supported, pepper the history of science from the Greek natural philosophers onward. Ptolemy of Alexandria (90–168), the greatest astronomer of antiquity, has been accused of using without attribution observations of stars made by his predecessor Hipparchus of Rhodes (162–127 BCE), who himself had used much earlier Babylonian observations as if they were his own. Isaac Newton used “fudge factors” to better fit data to his theories. In his studies of hereditary characteristics, Gregor Mendel reported near perfect ratios, and therefore statistically very unlikely ratios, from his pea-plant crossings. When Mendel crossed hybrid plants, he predicted and found that exactly one-third were pure dominants and two-thirds were hybrids. The high unlikelihood of getting exact 1:3 ratios was first pointed out in 1911 by R.A. Fisher, the founder of modern statistics and a founder of population genetics, when he was an undergraduate at Cambridge University. Though Charles Darwin has been cleared of accusations of nicking the idea of natural selection from Alfred Russel Wallace, he seems to have only reluctantly credited some of his predecessors.
The first formal discussion of scientific misconduct was published in 1830 by Charles Babbage, who held Newton’s chair at Cambridge and made major contributions to astronomy, mathematics and the development of computers. In Reflections on the Decline of Science in England and on Some of Its Causes, Babbage distinguished “several species of impositions that have been practised in science…hoaxing, forging, trimming, and cooking.” An example of “hoaxing” would be the Piltdown man, discovered in 1911 and discredited in 1953; parts of an ape and human skull were combined, supposedly to represent a “missing link” in human evolution. Hoaxes are intended to expose naïveté and credulousness and to mock pseudo wisdom. Unlike most hoaxes, Babbage’s other “impositions” are carried out to advance the perpetrator’s scientific career. “Forging,” which he thought rare, is the counterfeiting of results, today called fabrication. “Trimming” consists of eliminating outliers to make results look more accurate, while keeping the average the same. “Cooking” is the selection of data. Trimming and cooking fall under the modern rubric of “falsification.” Scholarly conventions and standards of scientific probity were probably different in the distant past, yet the feuds, priority disputes and porous notions of scientific truthfulness from previous centuries seem contemporary...
Thursday, 22 December 2011
Too late to contain killer flu science
Attempts to suppress details of the controversial experiments that have created a highly infectious form of bird flu virus are likely to fail, according to scientists familiar with the research. The US government has asked two scientific journals to refrain from publishing key parts of research on the H5N1 strain of bird flu to prevent the information falling into the hands of terrorists intent on recreating the same flu strain for use as a bioweapon.
However, scientists said the plea comes too late because the information has already been shared widely among flu researchers. Others argue that the move could obstruct attempts to find new vaccines and drugs to combat an infectious form of human H5N1 if it appeared naturally. Professor Richard Ebright, a virologist at Rutgers University in New Jersey, said the research, which was funded by the US government, should never have been done without first assessing how to control the release of scientific information.
"The work should have been reviewed at the national or international level before being performed, and should have been restricted at a national or international level before being performed," he said. Two teams of researchers, one led by Ron Fouchier of Erasmus Medical Centre in Rotterdam and the other by Yoshihiro Kawaoka of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, have submitted manuscripts on bird flu virus to the journals Nature and Science. In them, they describe how they deliberately mutated the H5N1 strain of bird flu into an "airborne" strain that can be transmitted in coughs and sneezes between laboratory ferrets, the best animal "model" of human flu.
Professor Paul Keim, chairman of the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, which has advised against publication of key details of the research, said although the request sets a precedent in the biological sciences, it is common in other areas of science where there is potential for dual use of research in both civil and military applications...
Tuesday, 20 December 2011
Science's crisis of faith
In the fifth century B.C., the philosopher Democritus proposed that all matter was made of tiny and indivisible atoms, which came in various sizes and textures—some hard and some soft, some smooth and some thorny. The atoms themselves were taken as givens. In the nineteenth century, scientists discovered that the chemical properties of atoms repeat periodically (and created the periodic table to reflect this fact), but the origins of such patterns remained mysterious. It wasn’t until the twentieth century that scientists learned that the properties of an atom are determined by the number and placement of its electrons, the subatomic particles that orbit its nucleus. And we now know that all atoms heavier than helium were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars.
The history of science can be viewed as the recasting of phenomena that were once thought to be accidents as phenomena that can be understood in terms of fundamental causes and principles. One can add to the list of the fully explained: the hue of the sky, the orbits of planets, the angle of the wake of a boat moving through a lake, the six-sided patterns of snowflakes, the weight of a flying bustard, the temperature of boiling water, the size of raindrops, the circular shape of the sun. All these phenomena and many more, once thought to have been fixed at the beginning of time or to be the result of random events thereafter, have been explained as necessary consequences of the fundamental laws of nature—laws discovered by human beings.
This long and appealing trend may be coming to an end. Dramatic developments in cosmological findings and thought have led some of the world’s premier physicists to propose that our universe is only one of an enormous number of universes with wildly varying properties, and that some of the most basic features of our particular universe are indeed mere accidents—a random throw of the cosmic dice. In which case, there is no hope of ever explaining our universe’s features in terms of fundamental causes and principles.
It is perhaps impossible to say how far apart the different universes may be, or whether they exist simultaneously in time. Some may have stars and galaxies like ours. Some may not. Some may be finite in size. Some may be infinite. Physicists call the totality of universes the “multiverse.” Alan Guth, a pioneer in cosmological thought, says that “the multiple-universe idea severely limits our hopes to understand the world from fundamental principles.” And the philosophical ethos of science is torn from its roots. As put to me recently by Nobel Prize–winning physicist Steven Weinberg, a man as careful in his words as in his mathematical calculations, “We now find ourselves at a historic fork in the road we travel to understand the laws of nature. If the multiverse idea is correct, the style of fundamental physics will be radically changed.”
Saturday, 17 December 2011
Methane discovery stokes new global warming fears Shock as retreat of Arctic releases greenhouse gas
Dramatic and unprecedented plumes of methane - a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide - have been seen bubbling to the surface of the Arctic Ocean by scientists undertaking an extensive survey of the region.
The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years. In an exclusive interview with The Independent, Igor Semiletov of the International Arctic Research Centre at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, who led the 8th joint US-Russia cruise of the East Siberian Arctic seas, said that he has never before witnessed the scale and force of the methane being released from beneath the Arctic seabed.
"Earlier we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of metres in diameter. This is the first time that we've found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It's amazing," Dr Semiletov said. "I was most impressed by the shear scale and the high density of the plumes. Over a relatively small area we found more than 100, but over a wider area there should be thousands of them," he said.
Scientists estimate that there are hundreds of millions of tons of methane gas locked away beneath the Arctic permafrost, which extends from the mainland into the seabed of the relatively shallow sea of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. One of the greatest fears is that with the disappearance of the Arctic sea ice in summer, and rapidly rising temperatures across the entire Arctic region, which are already melting the Siberian permafrost, the trapped methane could be suddenly released into the atmosphere leading to rapid and severe climate change..
Thursday, 15 December 2011
Supernova explosion gives a glimpse of how ingredients for life are created
The spectacular explosion of a star in a distant galaxy (left, above) has given astronomers a rare glimpse of how supernovae blast the basic ingredients for life into the cosmos. Scientists captured images of the colossal detonation in the Pinwheel galaxy (right, above) 21m light years away within hours of the burst of light from the explosion reaching Earth.
The supernova, called SN2011fe, was the result of a thermonuclear explosion that tore the parent star apart, converting carbon and oxygen into heavier elements, such as nickel, in the process.
Nasa's Swift space telescope turned its sensors towards the exploding star moments after observations began at three powerful ground-based telescopes. "We caught the supernova just 11 hours after it exploded, so soon that we were later able to calculate the actual moment of the explosion to within 20 minutes," said Peter Nugent at the US department of energy's Berkeley Lab in California.
Watching the star explode gave scientists a unique insight into how elements created in the supernova spewed out into space in the expanding fireball. The telescopes recorded oxygen, magnesium, silicon, calcium and iron being flung out at 16,000 kilometres a second, around 5% of the speed of light.
"Understanding how these giant explosions create and mix materials is important because supernovae are where we get most of the elements that make up the Earth and even our own bodies. For instance, these supernovae are a major source of iron in the universe. So we are all made of bits of exploding stars," said Mark Sullivan at Oxford University..
Monday, 12 December 2011
Higgs boson: Excitement builds over 'glimpses' at LHC
Scientists are expected on Tuesday to present preliminary evidence that the most coveted prize in particle physics - the Higgs boson - has been glimpsed.
While the Higgs is crucial to our understanding of the Universe, it has never been observed by experiments. At a seminar here in Geneva, teams will present a progress report in their hunt for the tiny particle at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).
But the LHC has not recorded enough data to claim a formal discovery.
Finding the Higgs was a key goal for the $10bn (£6bn) particle smasher. The collider hosts two experiments - Atlas and CMS - that are searching for the particle independently. There is intense excitement among physicists working at Cern, the Geneva-based organisation which operates the collider, over hints that the hunters have cornered their quarry.
"It is a fantastic time at the moment, you can feel people are enthusiastic," Dr Christoph Rembser, a senior scientist on the Atlas experiment, told BBC News. "It is really very lively."
Prof Stefan Soldner-Rembold, from the University of Manchester, called the quality of the LHC's results "exceptional", adding: "Within one year we will probably know whether the Higgs particle exists, but it is likely not going to be a Christmas present."
He told me: "The Higgs particle would, of course, be a great discovery, but it would be an even greater discovery if it didn't exist where theory predicts it to be." The Higgs boson is a "fundamental" particle; one of the basic building blocks of the Universe. It is also the last missing piece in the leading theory of particle physics - known as the Standard Model - which describes how particles and forces interact.
The Higgs explains why other particles have mass. As the Universe cooled after the Big Bang, an invisible force known as the Higgs field formed together with its associated boson particle. It is this field (and not the boson) that imparts mass to the fundamental particles that make up atoms. Without it, these particles would zip through the cosmos at the speed of light..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)