http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/mar/14/gravitational-waves-big-bang-universe-bicep
In about 50 minutes?
― StanM, Monday, 17 March 2014 15:12 (ten years ago) link
i know right?
― caek, Monday, 17 March 2014 17:57 (ten years ago) link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlfIVEy_YOA
― caek, Monday, 17 March 2014 17:58 (ten years ago) link
i am in a weird-ass software dev workshop and it is passing me by
― caek, Monday, 17 March 2014 18:00 (ten years ago) link
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CezSYzAS5Ms/TIGsRHpnESI/AAAAAAAACMM/aRj7yQcEyRU/s400/DSC09423.jpg
...wait for it...
― Aimless, Monday, 17 March 2014 18:01 (ten years ago) link
my buddy was on the UK experiment that would have gotten this discovery first if the uk govt had not defunded it in order to save £2m
― caek, Monday, 17 March 2014 18:03 (ten years ago) link
bg's explanation is legit and clear and short
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=843023029056612&set=a.191237650901823.54357.178097115549210&type=1&stream_ref=10
the cosmology big guns on inspect the results on FB
https://www.facebook.com/groups/574544055974988/
― caek, Thursday, 20 March 2014 19:20 (ten years ago) link
motherfucker u been holding out on us
― dn/ac (darraghmac), Friday, 30 May 2014 11:39 (ten years ago) link
hi
― caek, Friday, 30 May 2014 13:03 (ten years ago) link
teleportation is the headline
but rly is this Dutch thing gonna be abt information processing and transmission, sounds huge
― dn/ac (darraghmac), Friday, 30 May 2014 13:11 (ten years ago) link
link?
― caek, Friday, 30 May 2014 13:46 (ten years ago) link
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/technology/beam-me-up-scientists-say-human-teleportation-is-possible-1.1815010
― dn/ac (darraghmac), Friday, 30 May 2014 13:52 (ten years ago) link
hmm. odd article. fairly well understood theoretically, looks like a valuable but incremental practical advance.
― caek, Friday, 30 May 2014 14:06 (ten years ago) link
that's just the spin put on it
― dn/ac (darraghmac), Friday, 30 May 2014 14:12 (ten years ago) link
Would be interested if you consider this credible, a new model of the Thea collision that incorporates a previous smaller moon into the mix.http://nautil.us/issue/13/symmetry/when-the-earth-had-two-moons
― xelab, Friday, 30 May 2014 15:15 (ten years ago) link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_of_Parsonstown
i was here today it looks like this '_'
― dn/ac (darraghmac), Monday, 2 June 2014 21:29 (ten years ago) link
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152245376168772&l=e2f516ca33
posting from fb so im assuming that wont work but anyway
― dn/ac (darraghmac), Monday, 2 June 2014 21:30 (ten years ago) link
― dn/ac (darraghmac), Monday, 2 June 2014 21:31 (ten years ago) link
i kind of struggled to get through that moon article. it is not crazy but my undersrtanding (not a solar system guy) is that there is a less crazy idea that is the "consensus".
― caek, Tuesday, 3 June 2014 00:51 (ten years ago) link
Nautilus seem to have a knack of making ropey premises seem credible, starting to think that is their MO.
― xelab, Tuesday, 3 June 2014 01:24 (ten years ago) link
not to get all degrasse tyson on your thread but
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25723-massive-ocean-discovered-towards-earths-core.html
plants, man! crazy stuff
― goole, Friday, 13 June 2014 20:02 (ten years ago) link
planEts, sry
woah
― mattresslessness, Friday, 13 June 2014 20:18 (ten years ago) link
"We should be grateful for this deep reservoir," says Jacobsen. "If it wasn't there, it would be on the surface of the Earth, and mountain tops would be the only land poking out."
― xelab, Friday, 13 June 2014 21:12 (ten years ago) link
It is a headfuck thinking about where all the water comes from, it seems like there is too much to have been delivered by comets alone.
― xelab, Friday, 13 June 2014 21:16 (ten years ago) link
oh some crazy moon has an ocean under its surface, wait so does our planet.
― mattresslessness, Friday, 13 June 2014 21:20 (ten years ago) link
i was not aware of that! that is cool. the NS article is a bit casual about the difference between "evidence for" and "consistent with", but otherwise seems legit.
― caek, Saturday, 14 June 2014 17:44 (ten years ago) link
is it possible that the molecules in a liquid can remain static
― Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln (nakhchivan), Monday, 30 June 2014 21:57 (nine years ago) link
like if u had liquid in a container with no gravity acting on it and heat/pressure was consistent would it still be moving
― Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln (nakhchivan), Monday, 30 June 2014 21:58 (nine years ago) link
no the molecules must be moving (goes for solids and gases too)
that's the definition of non-zero temperature
they stop moving by definition at absolute zero, but absolute zero is a theoretical limit and cannot be reached by a liquid
― caek, Monday, 30 June 2014 22:05 (nine years ago) link
good episode http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01r113g
thank you for the martin rees recommendation in some other thread, been enjoying "our cosmic habitat".
― mattresslessness, Monday, 30 June 2014 22:07 (nine years ago) link
it is a great "i want to read one book, 200 pages please" recommendation
― caek, Monday, 30 June 2014 22:08 (nine years ago) link
martin rees's dad was our family GP when I was a kid -- he looked like the mekon, except tall
― mark s, Monday, 30 June 2014 22:12 (nine years ago) link
sounds like martin rees but tall
― caek, Monday, 30 June 2014 22:13 (nine years ago) link
come to think of it I was quite small so possibly not that tall
― mark s, Monday, 30 June 2014 22:15 (nine years ago) link
so the difference is that solids will vilbrate but the movement of molecules is constrained within that, like a lattice structure or whatever, so they can only move to a certain extent? whereas in a liquid the molecules will move around independently, interchange positions, etc?
― Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln (nakhchivan), Monday, 30 June 2014 22:15 (nine years ago) link
yeah in a solid things are constrained, but still jiggling
in a liquid (absent gravity, boundaries of container, etc.) things can go wherever
― caek, Monday, 30 June 2014 22:16 (nine years ago) link
thank you that is exactly what i wanted to know
this was inspired by imagining the molecules moving around in an inert, cellared bottle of wine
(im drinking wine rn)
― Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln (nakhchivan), Monday, 30 June 2014 22:19 (nine years ago) link
lol
― caek, Monday, 30 June 2014 22:25 (nine years ago) link
caek i read the other day that absolute zero is no longer regarded as the point at which atoms cease to move but at which they attain the lowest possible (theoretical) energy state, is this right y/n?
― clockpuncher (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 1 July 2014 06:21 (nine years ago) link
isn't that an intersection
― do u like green ez & jam (darraghmac), Tuesday, 1 July 2014 07:20 (nine years ago) link
anyways idk re particle motion but absolute zero occurs on the saula rd around mid November,normally when the taxi has gone home and you've lost yr jacket
― do u like green ez & jam (darraghmac), Tuesday, 1 July 2014 07:21 (nine years ago) link
not sure exactly what your article was talking about NV but...
yeah 'cease to move' is the classical description of what goes on at absolute zero
in quantum mechanics it's not that simple because they're delocalized (i.e. their location is fuzzy via the uncertainty principle)
― caek, Tuesday, 1 July 2014 16:22 (nine years ago) link
http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/08/06/science/comet-gif-67P/comet-gif-67P-articleLarge.gif
― Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln (nakhchivan), Thursday, 7 August 2014 04:08 (nine years ago) link
forces are propogated by massless particles. e.g. the electromagnetic force, which is the force that dominates our lives, keeps us warm, prevents us from walking through doors, etc., is propagated by the best known massless particle, the photon.
massless particles travel at exactly the speed of light. therefore forces can only propagate at the speed of light, you are correct.
there is a thought experiment about this involving the sun suddenly disappearing. if this happened then the earth would stay on its orbit for 8 minutes, before suddenly flying off into space, because that's how long light takes to reach us.
the reason all this makes sense is complicated and difficult to explain without getting into special relativity, which is not my strongest subject, and not something i've ever been good at teaching. but perhaps if you're comfortable with the idea that you can't send information at faster than the speed of light, then it would make sense to you that you can't have forces that operate faster than that (or instantaneously) because they could be used to transmit information at faster than the speed of light.
this wikipedia article makes a decent stab at this. of course once you throw in quantum mechanics all hope of understanding this is lost, because that stuff makes no fucking sense whatsoever.
― caek, Saturday, 5 December 2009 22:28 (4 years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
fave ilx post, I think
― is this empty sanitism (darraghmac), Thursday, 7 August 2014 08:39 (nine years ago) link
fave ilx thread title, sometimes
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 7 August 2014 16:25 (nine years ago) link
it's a good jingle
― mattresslessness, Thursday, 7 August 2014 16:33 (nine years ago) link