Science Watch

[Choobus]

The forums used to have lots of cool links to new developments on science and such. I thought it might be good to have a thread just for this:

here are a few comments on christers and the science. However, the point of this thread is links and discussions about new science

http://www.newscientisttech.com/arti...er-closer.html

New Scientist wrote

A "spark plug" that should trigger nuclear fusion in a pellet of hydrogen every 10 seconds is being tested by Russian and US researchers. The device fires an intense pulse of electricity – half a million amps and one hundred thousand volts. It has just completed preliminary testing at Sandia National Laboratories' "Z Machine" facility in New Mexico, US. Researchers hope the component could help narrow the gap between the fusion technique being used there and the one that currently leads the field. Some experts are sceptical about its chances, however

[Choobus]

one of my long term research goals is to use a gamma ray laser to start a fusion reactor. One day...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0426145103.htm

Cool article about how dogs have been found to selectively imitate behavior. I guess it's not ground breaking, controversial or anything of that nature, but interesting none-the-less.

[Smellyoldgit]

Whilst I welcome any news & discussion related to new science, I remain concerned with layman perception of how complex and detailed works are communicated effectively.

This sums up the "problem"

As god-punchers often sit within the lowest common denominator group - the scientist has to judge and balance carefully how he works with writers and presents his stuff if he is ever to engage their unquestioning brains.

[Philboid Studge]

Smellyoldgit wrote

As god-punchers often sit within the lowest common denominator group - the scientist has to judge and balance carefully how he works with writers and presents his stuff if he is ever to engage their unquestioning brains.

I think there's a distinction that should be made between the God Chuggers and LCDs. First, LCDs -- the ones who are really part of the readership we're talking about here -- aren't really 'lowest' compared with the broader universe of all readers, because while we're talking about laymen, they at least have some interest in science. A (mainstream) science writer assumes that much. Second, (some) God Chuggers are not just disinterested in science, but many have an active antipathy towards it because it so often threatens their pathetic little paradigm.

I don't know whether these groups -- the real LCDs and science-hatin' Godbots -- should even be considered by either scientists or mainstream writers or other conduits of info.

I have, not news, but a science question for anyone who's studied quantum mechanics. Does the Copenhagen Interpretation really say that "consciousness" is a special phenomenon with physical effects? I don't understand all this business about wavefronts collapsing and what is supposed to cause that. I always thought that single-particle double-slit interference was explained by wave-particle duality, not by some kind of consciousness magic. Could someone tell me what's going on?

[inkadu]

Choobus wrote

one of my long term research goals is to use a gamma ray laser to start a fusion reactor. One day...

Damn, if I had the money, I'd give you a grant. But not because I care about fusion. It would be worth it to see a Choobus press conference.

[Erik]

One of my favorite sites has to be Carl Zimmer's "Loom": http://www.scienceblogs.com/loom/. Great summaries of new findings, and on occasion, he just trashes the creationists.

[Choobus]

Thanks Erik, that site looks interesting. I shall check it out.

[inkadu]

bryantee wrote

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0426145103.htm
Cool article about how dogs have been found to selectively imitate behavior. I guess it's not ground breaking, controversial or anything of that nature, but interesting none-the-less.

Actually, it is a bit ground-breaking. I don't know how much "theory of mind" dogs are supposed to have, but I think it's pretty low. At some level, the dogs must be thinking, "Well, I'd use my mouth for that, but she's got a tennis ball in her mouth, that's why she's using her paw..." Which is pretty fucking cool, IMHO.

Gathercole wrote

I have, not news, but a science question for anyone who's studied quantum mechanics. Does the Copenhagen Interpretation really say that "consciousness" is a special phenomenon with physical effects? I don't understand all this business about wavefronts collapsing and what is supposed to cause that. I always thought that single-particle double-slit interference was explained by wave-particle duality, not by some kind of consciousness magic. Could someone tell me what's going on?

I think it's just hypothetical, like Schrödinger Cat. I bet Choob can answer that for you.

[Choobus]

What Gatrhercole is really talking about is sometimes called the "measurement problem". A quantum system is described by a wavefunction which can exist in a linear superposition of states, but if you measure the system it can only actually be in one state, so when that superposition is shown to be one single state the wavefunction is said to collapse (to that state). The question is then what causes this collapse? Is it the measurement process? Does the system actually comprise a true superposition in the first place? The famous cat thought experiment addresses this matter. The Copenhagen interpretation basically says "fuck it, who cares, only measurable quantities are real, the rest is irrelevent". This is a pragmatic approach that leaves some people uneasy, because all the data suggest that the superposition of states is very real: particles CAN be in two places at once, they are not discrete objects but really do exist as de-localised probability distributions. Consciousness has fuck all to do with it. Quantum decoherance requires only an interaction with a macroscopic system, so it doesn't matter if the measurement is made by a human or a computer or a christian; the results are the same. As for the double slits experiment, it is explained by wave particle duality, but only in the sense that as a wave a particle can be spatially de-localised, and hence create a single particle interference pattern. The amazing part is that the interference pattern goes away if you measure where the particle isn't, which means that you collapse the wavefunction not by measuring the particle direclty, but by limiting the places where it could be. This is the essence of quantum physics and makes no sense at all, but it is absolutely correct.

Choobus wrote

This is the essence of quantum physics and makes no sense at all, but it is absolutely correct.

Yep. There's 50 ways to leave your lover, and at least 13 ways to interpret quantum physics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpr...ntum_mechanics

Wow, Choobus, I'm impressed. That site is fantastic. And I thought you were just another basterd... :thumbsup: