home

Breaking: e = mc2

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Off Topic
Posted on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:35:05 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

And here I thought that the atomic bomb had definitively proven e=mc2. Turns out to be not the case, at least for mathematicians/physicists. Now, apparently, it has been proven:

It's taken more than a century, but Einstein's celebrated formula e=mc2 has finally been corroborated, thanks to a heroic computational effort by French, German and Hungarian physicists.

. . . According to the conventional model of particle physics, protons and neutrons comprise smaller particles known as quarks, which in turn are bound by gluons. The odd thing is this: the mass of gluons is zero and the mass of quarks is only five percent. Where, therefore, is the missing 95 percent? The answer, according to the study published in the US journal Science on Thursday, comes from the energy from the movements and interactions of quarks and gluons.

High school readability? Take that, blog analyzer.

< Obama Rejects Clinton Derangement Syndrome | Star Witness Finished Testifying in Fort Dix Terrorism Trial >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Breaking: e = mc2 | 96 comments (96 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Oh yeah... I've had that Mc2 sandwhich (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Exeter on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:52:32 AM EST
    it ain't as good as McRib, tho  

    Thanks to comments like yours ... (none / 0) (#88)
    by cymro on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 04:27:37 PM EST
    ... the readability rating for this thread has now dropped to Elementary School. At least, it was when I just checked.

    ;-)

    Parent

    I'll tell you why the blog analyzer (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by scribe on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:55:12 AM EST
    gives funny readings.

    Bad grammar, punctuation or both.

    You conclude this post, BTD, saying:

    Take that blog analyzer.

    This parses, at least to a mindless computer blog analyzer, to be something like a direction to pick up and move the object called a "blog analyzer".  An imperative statement, but not a command.  Sort of like the late Henny Youngman (and every other Catskills comic) saying "Take my wife.  Please."

    We all know you meant - and we mindful people understood you to mean - that you and the post you had just posted were meant as a riposte showing up the computerized blog analyzer and delivering its comeuppance.  Something, say, a guy in tights and a cape* might say to a wrongdoer.  That should read:

    "Take that, blog analyzer!"

    Or even:

    "Take that, blog analyzer!"

    Sadly, I think the computerized blog analyzer knows enough to know the punctuation was deficient, and marks us down as a result....

    -
    *  I know.  No capes!

    I will immediately correct it (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:56:43 AM EST
    For the sake of the blog.

    Parent
    I think you are right (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:58:24 AM EST
    Jeralyn needs to put a spellcheck on here so we all sound smarter than we are too!

    Parent
    Lately I've just been making.... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:41:20 AM EST
    ...stupid mistakes. Wrong word choices, leaving things out. I don't think any spell checker on earth can fix impatience or careless mistakes. I've just got to keep reminding myself to use preview.

    Parent
    Mac's Safari browser can spell checks (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:36:21 AM EST
    your posts

    Don't know about other browsers.

    Parent

    And Mozilla Firefox. (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:42:27 AM EST


    Parent
    And google. (none / 0) (#70)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 12:06:55 PM EST


    Parent
    I need to do a tech catch up (none / 0) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 09:17:30 AM EST
    I have the same browser I have always had......explorer.  Being tech savvy is something that I don't think I am ever going to be.

    Parent
    My spelling and grammar are atrocious... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:07:22 AM EST
    but even with perfect s&g I don't MENSA would touch my arse with a ten-foot pole:)

    Parent
    ideosyncratic spellings will increase the (none / 0) (#31)
    by Salo on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:36:36 AM EST
    grade level. Also block quotes from ts Eliot's wasteland would bump it up grad level English lit. The logarithm will detect Eliot immediately and produce a balloon drop...congratulations someone's used that stuff!

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:41:39 AM EST


    Parent
    Hurry up, please... (none / 0) (#45)
    by oldpro on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:47:51 AM EST
    it's time.

    Parent
    A logarithm .... (none / 0) (#79)
    by cymro on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 01:54:32 PM EST
    ... is a simple mathematical function, whereas an algorithm is a computational function or procedure. Recognizing passages by TS Eliot would require the latter, not the former.

    In the realm of idiosyncratic spellings, the etymology of "algorithm" provides a classic illustration of how language evolves:

    Khwārizmī, Persian astronomer and mathematician, wrote a treatise in 825 AD, On Calculation with Hindu Numerals. (See algorism). It was translated into Latin in the 12th century as Algoritmi de numero Indorum (al-Daffa 1977), which title was likely intended to mean "Algoritmi on the numbers of the Indians", where "Algoritmi" was the translator's rendition of the author's name; but people misunderstanding the title treated Algoritmi as a Latin plural and this led to the word "algorithm" (Latin algorismus) coming to mean "calculation method". The intrusive "th" is most likely due to a false cognate with the Greek ἀριθμός (arithmos) meaning "number". [Wikipedia]

    Perhaps some future translator will read this blog and assign a new shade of meaning to the word ideosyncratic.

    [That's my contribution to raising the grade level around here.]

    Parent

    Henny Youngman? (none / 0) (#29)
    by desertswine on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:35:25 AM EST
    Rapid-fire comic?

       My wife is so fat, that when she sits around the house, she sits around the house.

    He did a lot of "wife" jokes as I remember.

    Parent

    Nobody was better than Rodney.... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 12:19:47 PM EST
    when it came to wife jokes, though I guess the joke is technically on him, as usual.

    During sex my wife always wants to talk to me. Just the other night she called me from a hotel.

    My wife made me join a bridge club. I jump off next Tuesday.

    One day as I came home early from work I saw a guy jogging naked. I said to the guy, "Hey buddy...why are you doing that?" He said, "Because you came home early."

    Once in a restaurant I made a toast to her...The best woman a man ever had...The waiter joined me.

    No respect I tell ya...no respect.

    Parent

    Time flies like an arrow (none / 0) (#47)
    by Manuel on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:48:48 AM EST
    For the blog analyzer.

    Parent
    Time flies. You cannot. (none / 0) (#80)
    by cymro on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 02:02:42 PM EST
    They fly at such irregular intervals.

    Parent
    Tjme Files? (none / 0) (#81)
    by squeaky on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 02:05:00 PM EST
    Do they bite?

    Parent
    I thjnk the ones that bjte are jetski flijs (none / 0) (#84)
    by cymro on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 02:58:27 PM EST


    Parent
    Mpm (none / 0) (#87)
    by squeaky on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 04:00:07 PM EST
    just to take it a step further.

    Parent
    isn't it a general rule (none / 0) (#74)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 12:34:55 PM EST
    that a comma should not be used prior to the fourth word of a sentence?

    Parent
    Physical theories are never proven (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:05:53 AM EST
    Note that the report you cite says corroborated. Proof is a mathematical/logical construct. (There's also a concept of proof in law, but it's quite a different idea-- and one that, frankly, I don't understand.)

    Physical theories are always provisional (i.e., subject to later revision), and their value is based on how accurately predictive they are.

    The atomic bomb certainly took advantage of Einstein's theoretical inference that "there's a lot of energy locked up in that matter". But balancing the books to show that the amount of energy released corresponds closely to the loss of mass is a much more complicated matter.

    Thanks for the news item.

    That's showing the blog analyzer (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:07:14 AM EST
    More of this please.

    Parent
    You take the blog analysis too hard (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:38:01 AM EST
    High school should be a sufficient level of erudition for the kinds of stuff we discuss here. Remember that the left is often criticized for being too nuanced. We're not a policy think tank. We're trying to look at current events in common-sense terms.

    Since you ask, here's more on my previous:
    An oft-expressed naive criticism of science is:

    They're always changing their minds.

    In fact, this is precisely what makes science valuable. Opinions are never final. In principle, new evidence is always welcomed for its ability to teach us something new, even though it undermines long-established theories.

    Parent
    Nah (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:43:33 AM EST
    As I wrote that day, I think wrting to high shcool readability means you are able to convey your ideas to a wider audience.

    One thing I thought I did well at daily kos was discuss legal issues in ways that laymen could understand.

    So I did not take it hard - I am just using it as a punchline really.

    Parent

    It Is Truly A Compliment (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by santarita on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:32:14 AM EST
    Many years ago I had my writing style analyzed and was pleased when the analysis showed that my style was at a post-graduate level.  But then the writing coach set me straight.  It was anything but a compliment.  I was not communicating in the clear and concise manner necessary for good corporate communications.  

    The ability to explain complicated concepts in simple terms is an admirable skill.  In fact, when I read articles aimed at a general audience that are difficult to understand, I think the author is either a poor writer or is deliberately trying to obfuscate.

    Parent

    Well, I think this blog is full of (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:41:05 AM EST
    Pea brains
    or something like that.

    Parent
    lol, that was a tea choker! (none / 0) (#18)
    by Teresa on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:12:24 AM EST


    Parent
    Anything new on string theory? (none / 0) (#28)
    by oldpro on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:34:42 AM EST


    Parent
    I hear there's a new dimension (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by CST on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:37:24 AM EST
    And that string theory has changed into M theory.  Or "Membrane" theory because apparently it's not shaped like a string it's shaped like a membrane.  Or something.  Yay science channel!

    Parent
    Was listening to Hawking's latest audio book (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:29:13 AM EST
    with my spouse about membrane theory and how  membranes colliding could create a new dimension and well duh.....it's like sex and procreation of the universes.  My spouse doesn't get it.  He's too linear.  Puts the Big Bang in a whole new light for me though.

    Parent
    Yes. They had to add another dimension (none / 0) (#41)
    by scribe on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:43:23 AM EST
    to string theory to make the math work.

    I think they're up to 11 dimensions.

    Parent

    Yes. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Matt v on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 12:46:44 PM EST
    Much like Aristotle's epicycles.

    Parent
    "It's not even wrong" (none / 0) (#34)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:39:33 AM EST
    It can hardly be called a theory yet, as it is incapable of making predictions that are testable, even in principle.

    Count me as one who thinks string theory is a dead end.

    Parent

    But string cheese, on the other hand..... (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:43:20 AM EST
    ...is delicious.

    Parent
    exactly (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Nasarius on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:58:10 AM EST
    Too much of what's presented to the public as theoretical physics is borderline pseudoscience. It makes for cute conversation at cocktail parties, I'm sure, but it's not actually useful as science until we can make predictions that will lead to refining the model or throwing it out entirely.

    Parent
    Theoretical models should be simplifications (none / 0) (#64)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:39:17 AM EST
    ... but the string theories (there are many of them) keep piling on the complexities without getting a bit closer to predictive value.

    Parent
    Due to Mathematicians (none / 0) (#67)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:51:52 AM EST
    using it, like they used Computer Science twenty years ago (which is why I went Computer Engineering). No longer do we try to explain our experiments. Lookup the Bell experiments. Physics has no explanation, for so long they no longer try.

    Kind of like Bush v. Gore

    Parent

    Indeed. (none / 0) (#78)
    by Matt v on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 01:05:43 PM EST
    In Theoretical Physics the Imaginary rules - pragmatic science having been assigned the role of mere handmaiden of Doctrine.

    Parent
    S. Hawking, commenting on his own (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by wurman on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:43:24 AM EST
    Brief History of Time, noted that the publisher told him that each equation printed in a book reduced its sales by half.

    Hawking's book had one equation, E = MC².

    The geeky cosmology & cosmogeny treatise became a best-seller with many weeks on the NYT list.  Professor Hawking surmised that, had he left out the famous Einstein quotation, sales would have been doubled & earned him twice as much money.

    Physicists, mathemeticians, & nerds everywhere still await the movie. . . perhaps "Invasion of the Gluons" or "Rule of the Quarks."  Such infinite possibilities at the boundaries of theoretical science are simply majestic.

    I kept falling asleep trying (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by oldpro on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:51:33 AM EST
    to read it...so I got a tape and let Hawking read it to me to and from work on long drives in the 90s.

    It still put me to sleep and the 'Stater' who rescued me suggested I stop!

    Science can be a killer.

    Parent

    Location times 3 (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by wurman on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:21:37 AM EST
    You cannot open your mind to Hawking's ideas on either I-5 or I-90.

    It's essential that you attain a proper Zen state of mind & be at peace with your demons.

    Now, for 8 years of Pythagoras, Archimedes, & Euclid--which is about 64 light years advanced beyond Bu$hInc--as O-44 becomes the psi, phi, pi magic omega number in our White House.

    Parent

    Not I-5 or I-90, nor on 101... (none / 0) (#76)
    by oldpro on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 12:53:56 PM EST
    a curvey, winding route to Olympia from the North Olympic Peninsula.

    Two hours of Hell in the winter navigating both black ice and salmon crossing the road at flood!

    A lovely and calming drive the rest of the year, tho...if you don't mind ambling along behind huge RVs, logging and delivery trucks mile after mile!

    Parent

    Ahhhh, yes (none / 0) (#91)
    by wurman on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 06:11:08 PM EST
    The disparity is that you are leaving your Zen place & driving to a state capital--which is full of bad karma.  Inversely, upon leaving the center of burro-craptic vibes, it takes a long time for all of the drek to fall off & allow you to think clearly again.

    om man padmi hmmmmmmmm

    Parent

    Nooooooo.... (none / 0) (#95)
    by oldpro on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:03:16 PM EST
    our state capital isn't full of bad karma!

    Not usually, anyway.

    Although we had a rough few years when the Rs had the majority - house/senat - and the years when the house was TIED were no picnic either.  Ye gods...two chairs for every committee...two Speakers...two house administrations!...talk aboucher bipartisanship!

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:44:12 AM EST


    Parent
    Today's Blog is brought to you by the letters TBD (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by gtesta on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:48:06 AM EST
    and the number 1 !!
    Yeah!!! Thanks for the reminder that science is going to be back after 8 loooong years in exile in the U.S.

    If the last 8 years have taught us anything... (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:53:33 AM EST
    ...it is that science is for fancy pants liberal elitists.  And anything involving French, German and Hungarian scientists in blatent left-wing, Eurocentric heresy.  

    What's next?  The world is round?  Dinosaurs predated Jesus?  The bible isn't the literal word of God?

    Geez.  

    Heh (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:54:53 AM EST


    Parent
    wow (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jedimom on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:57:50 AM EST
    deep stuff! the analyszer read my blog and said 81% chance it is written by a man or men. since it is just lil ole me and my XX chromosomes Im not sure how to take that, LOL, perhaps b/c I talk about finance a lot, maybe the gender 'reader' is gender biased and thinks only men discuss markets!

    It's been a while since High School physics (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:39:16 AM EST
    but I really didn't know the jury was still out on this. It's about as fundamental as ∑F=ma, I think.

    Showoff (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:58:16 AM EST


    Parent
    Oh, I'm SURE not going to show you (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:00:19 AM EST
    my physics grades. Let's just put it this way: I took it without calculus.

    Parent
    But it's EASIER with calculus! (none / 0) (#12)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:01:31 AM EST


    Parent
    First you gotta understand calculus (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:03:23 AM EST
    and I, um, don't.

    I was on the dumb math track, and with good reason.

    Parent

    Speaking of... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:15:35 AM EST
    Now I wonder if organic chemistry and the law correlate at all.

    Ochem was a bear.  No clear rules, just a bunch of possibilities that, depending on conditions, may or may not come to pass.  Hated it.

    Parent

    I swore in 11th grade (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:17:23 AM EST
    that I would never, ever, take chemistry again.

    Parent
    You weren't (none / 0) (#26)
    by cal1942 on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:31:41 AM EST
    the only one.  In the 11th grade my wise, kindly chemistry teacher, pointing to my grades in US history, french, english and ..Ok phys ed, said he'd make sure I made it through chemistry if I promised not to take physics.

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:33:08 AM EST
    You know what, I found Physics to be somewhat easier than chemistry.

    Parent
    Me too..... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:51:41 AM EST
    ....If you are only talking about the introductory level, I think its easier to understand physics than chemistry without too much math because there are actual observable phenomena. And yes there is a lot of math, but nothing like the crazy long formulas you have to balance in chemistry. If you plod along at your own math pace very carefully in physics, it all makes sense until you get to the really theoretical stuff. For me, chemistry makes philosophical sense but I got lost in the details, especially organic chemistry.

    Parent
    So I missed the boat (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by cal1942 on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 02:39:42 PM EST
    but everything turned out just fine.  Wouldn't have had it any other way.

    No regrets.

    Parent

    einstein (none / 0) (#23)
    by Salo on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:27:09 AM EST
    had intuition...and he's old hat these days

    Parent
    Well, I was in honors classes, but (none / 0) (#39)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:43:19 AM EST
    ... I hit a wall with analytic geometry in the 12th grade. I never took another math class after that. Though there are lots of mathematical ideas I find fascinating-- infinity for example.

    Parent
    Had a Calculus professor (none / 0) (#68)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 12:01:55 PM EST
    Tried to teach us the proofs for every part of it. "I am an engineering student", "just tell me what goes in and what comes out". "Don't tell me how to build the damn thing, I don't need to know." Still wish I'd been smart enough to use that line on the EE prof who made us design power supplies. There are headaches from that class that still come back during thunderstorms.

    The problem with the equation e=mc^2, is that no one knows what it means. You can say that a mass coefficient over an area bounded by the speed of light is equal to the energy, or that a given amount of energy is equivalent to a mass over that area. But physicists still have no idea WHAT CAUSES mass. It's like a prosecutor, who has no idea what triggers a search and seizure... OK, bad example. It's like a strict constructionist Supreme Court justice, who can enumerate all the rights protected by the 9th amendment... OK, bad example. Sometimes, we just have to admit we don't know what we thought we knew.

    Parent

    Math for dumbies is always harder (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:07:37 AM EST
    They try to dumb it down, but in the process, take out the building blocks that make understanding a concept easier.

    Parent
    So true. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:22:03 AM EST
    Once you have a few basic equations and you understand a few simple calculus functions, you can derive a lot of the other equations.  If you can't derive anything, then you have to memorize everything and you don't understand much of anything.  

    Parent
    I took physics because my older (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:19:57 AM EST
    brother did.  Of course, he's an engineer and MBA and I'm not.  Anyway, the high school physics teacher promised any girl who took his class a minimum grade of "C."

    Parent
    Funny (none / 0) (#83)
    by cal1942 on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 02:43:48 PM EST
    he soulds like a dirty old man.  I had an Advanced Comp teacher who gave girls no lower than a B. Of course all the girls who took that class were very bright, on the whole brighter than the boys.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#85)
    by CST on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 03:33:11 PM EST
    I had a Latin teacher once who didn't give anyone below a B - boy or girl.  Then again, he never once returned a graded test or homework the entire year.  I have a feeling he just handed out grades arbitrarily.  I got a B+ every semester, and I can say with some authority that my Latin was no where near B+ level.

    Parent
    Ahh (none / 0) (#89)
    by cal1942 on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 04:33:07 PM EST
    the wonderful memories of sometimes accentric teachers and professors.

    Looking back over the years I have to say that I like every one of them.

    Parent

    Actually, he looked like Einstein. (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:22:13 PM EST
    He put lots of formulas on a side board for tests.  But no guarantee any of those formulas would assist in solving the problems.  Also, he put up extra questions for the star of our class, who went on to work with James Van Allen at the University of Iowa.  

    Parent
    Soon though we will discover (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:46:26 AM EST
    that the mass of gluons is only energy as well.  Excuse me, I must rush to rub some love on my Buddha before it disintegrates into the nothingness that it is.

    gluons? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:47:48 AM EST
    aren't those the beads for children you squirt with water to make stick?

    Parent
    bedazzlons (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Salo on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:28:32 AM EST
    rhinstiens particle

    Parent
    I miss the old ones (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:51:18 AM EST
    Aquadots.....naps for the whole daycare :)  Whatever loving energy created Aquadots, it must have grown from tired toddler moms.

    Parent
    I want someone to solve this: (none / 0) (#6)
    by Maryb2004 on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:53:02 AM EST
    If all the world and we are mostly energy - where is all my energy (yawn):

    I think these kinds of corroborations aren't important so much for what they corroborate but for the ideas that come out of the corroborating work.  

    Maybe this will give them the right idea to finish creating the holodeck.

    You are simply conserving your energy... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:17:33 AM EST
    it's there, waiting for a good reason to be used ;-P

    Parent
    too many junkons (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Salo on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:30:50 AM EST
    and not enough excercise

    Parent
    or too many lardons. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by santarita on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:36:50 AM EST


    Parent
    Here's the thing (none / 0) (#30)
    by CST on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:35:38 AM EST
    Nothing in science is ever really proven.

    Many time things get proven, they are later proven wrong or insufficient.

    There are certain things we accept as true, but we rarely have proof - even when we think we have proof.

    The atom bomb showed us that there is significantly more energy in mass than we thought, and Einstein had a theory about how much, but it's hard to prove specifics with something that blows up.

    saw a great documentary... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Salo on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:41:38 AM EST
    on mining techniques...the first known use of explosives on a mine 1680s killed the innovator mr epsley. His innovation may have helped trigger the industrial revolution. He was atomized by the blast

    Parent
    I got a 3 on my AP Physics test (none / 0) (#54)
    by blogtopus on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:13:47 AM EST
    Highest math class: Trigonometry. With a D.

    Physics ROCKS. I'm in the Einstein mode: If you can imagine it in your head, you're most of the way there.

    As for the math, something that always bothered me: e=mc2, yes? How did Einstein figure out what pair ups of units to use? Ergs, calories, whatnot? You can make any equation fit anything, as long as you play with units and scale.

    Oh well. Back to our boring 4-D world.

    It's an equivalence formula... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by gtesta on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:33:32 AM EST
    it works no matter what system of units that you use.
    What's really cool is that I know that scientists/engineers have to take relativistic changes into account when particle accelerators are built.  
    So 100 years after his theories were first set forth, they are still being proven correct (or rather no one has ever been able to prove them incorrect).

    Parent
    The units are simple (none / 0) (#56)
    by CST on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:21:31 AM EST
    Here's to the metric system.

    c is the speed of light - distance/time.  Energy has been a function of distance, mass and time long before e=mc2.  

    Parent

    It actually is derived (none / 0) (#71)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 12:09:36 PM EST
    from classical mechanics,  mω2 = k is called the spring stiffness coefficient, where m is the force constant or spring constant, and ω (omega) the circular frequency. Einstein used this formula to explain where mass comes from, e=mω2 where ω is the speed of light. Thus energy is physically equivalent to a specific mass over an area bounded by the speed of light.

    Parent
    THat's what I thought (none / 0) (#93)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 07:10:29 PM EST
    simply c is the speed of light.

    Parent
    Here's a kernel from Doris Kearns (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:31:58 AM EST
    Goodwin's Team of Rivals:  Lincoln, who lacked the formal education of many of his colleagues and who studied continually, spent two nights while on the circuit in Illinois trying to figure out the answer to:  what is the square of a circle?  

    Is there a way to put the blog (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:45:03 AM EST
    analyzer to work on the right side of Talk Left page?  We could edit before posting in an attempt to take TL off the charts.

    Interesting discussion on KCRW/NPR (none / 0) (#69)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 12:05:45 PM EST
    yesterday with Malcolm Gladwell, author of "Outliers: The Story Of Success."

    He discussed mathematics and his belief of why Asians, in particular, score higher on math ability tests.

    His theory is that the particulars of farming rice for over 1000 years along with a language that simplifies numbers, especially the teens (ie, no eleven, twelve, thirteen, etc.), culturally produces students who:

    1. don't have a preconception that math is "hard" and

    2. understand that success at math merely takes and open mind and discipline.

    I always did well at math. My parents both had degrees in math/physics so all of their kids grew up expecting to do well in math, which I think is one of the main predictors of success.

    Agreed (none / 0) (#77)
    by scarshapedstar on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    When I was very young, like kindergarten through third grade, my parents taught me more math than my math teacher did. I remember in first grade, we did this thing where one student could propose a "problem of the day" that we would work through as a class, and I would use whatever my parents had shown me the night before, like:

    Me: "Two minus ten equals what?"

    Class: "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!"

    Mrs. Hladky: "Well, actually, you can, and this is what we call a negative number..."

    Of course, my parents were hardly mathematicians, and neither am I; while I tried my hand at engineering, my abilities were no match for differential equations. In general, though, the idea of mathematics as philosophy - like those equations Euler discovered that had no practical application and then hundreds of years later people realized that they fit a system perfectly, or everything Feynman said in "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out" - is overlooked in our culture. And that's a lost opportunity when it comes to trying to raise new engineers, scientists, and mathematicians.

    Parent

    That's really interesting (none / 0) (#90)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 05:33:01 PM EST
    In high school, I had scored the highest math score on a statewide aptitude test; unfortunately, I was also failing geometry/trigonometry in class.

    My teacher, an ex Marine officer, was so pis*ed off at me, he took me out into the hallway, grabbed me by my collar, and let me have it. He said my performance was a personal affront, and insult, to him, so before taking me out back and beating the b'jesus out of me, he offered me a deal. The school year was almost over; only the State Regents test was left to be done. Normally the Regents accounted for one third of your final grade, so even if I aced it, I would still fail for the year. He said he would waive that rule for me, and if I passed the Regents, the Regents score would be my final grade.

    I was really torn. I just couldn't "get it." I had some kind of mental block when it came to trig, and the test was tomorrow. So I called my brother, a student at M.I.T. He had won the Boardman Prize, M.I.T's award for the highest scholastic average in math. I explained my dilemma to him, and after he stopped laughing, he said, "idiot, sit down, listen, and tomorrow you're going to score 100% on your math Regents." He gave me a couple of "tricks," simple keys to understanding the math, and, like magic, the seas parted, my mind focused, and what was a mumbo-jumbo of alphabet soup, became clear as a bell. I was elated.

    The next day, wearing an ear to ear Cheshire cat smile on my face, I told my teacher, "I got it, this is gonna be a piece of cake." I shot through the test like "sh*t through a goose" and was the first one finished. When I handed in my test, I told Mr. Persons, "don't bother reviewing it, just write 100% and save yourself some time."

    Well, I didn't get 100, but I did score 97; just a little too cocky, and careless, making a couple of really stupid, hasty mistakes.

    The moral? Anyone can learn anything, but it takes a special kind of teacher to find the key, "the trick," that is unique to each student, and that makes "complicated" things, simple.  

    Parent

    For those inclined to science/engineering (none / 0) (#73)
    by scribe on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 12:21:50 PM EST
    Today is the 225th anniversary of the first free (untethered) flight by humans, in a hot air balloon invented by the Montgolfier brothers.

    The passengers reached an altitude of about 3000 feet and flew for about 25 minutes, travelling about 9 kilometers.

    Raise a glass.

    geez BTD, (none / 0) (#86)
    by cpinva on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 03:43:03 PM EST
    you're taking this whole "blog analyzer" thing wayyyyyyyyyyy too personally! it really isn't a reflection on how good or bad an individual you are, that's pretty much a given.

    to update messrs. youngman & dangerfield:

    "i'm so self-centered, if i won a trip for two, i'd take myself."

    "i'm so self-centered, i scream out my own name during sex."

    thank you, thank you! i'll be appearing here all week, and i do weddings and barmitzvahs! be nice to your waitress!

    Hemmingway wrote at a 5th grade level. (none / 0) (#92)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 07:07:24 PM EST
    Anything much higher is unneccesary IMO, unless you are writing a textbook.

    Breaking: e = mc2 | 96 comments (96 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment