Science Videos

#81
How old is stuff....?

[video=youtube;g1mS4JZ7mgg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1mS4JZ7mgg[/video]
 
#82
If you are really really dense (and, no, for once, this isn't a dig at Higgs), how quickly do you cool down?

[video]http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2011/casa/coolCANSv7_lg_web.mpg[/video]
 
#83
Okay, it's not 'really science' - it's engineering but, the NASA video from the STS133 flight. From the point of view of the booster rockets. Best bits are the first 4 minutes and then around 15 mins when you get the microphones.

[video=youtube;fvSRnOJ8x38]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvSRnOJ8x38&feature=player_embedded[/video]
 
#84
If you are really really dense (and, no, for once, this isn't a dig at Higgs), how quickly do you cool down?
NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory has discovered the first direct evidence for a superfluid, a bizarre, friction-free state of matter, at the core of a neutron star. Superfluids created in laboratories on Earth exhibit remarkable properties, such as the ability to climb upward and escape airtight containers. The finding has important implications for understanding nuclear interactions in matter at the highest known densities.

Neutron stars contain the densest known matter that is directly observable. One teaspoon of neutron star material weighs six billion tons. The pressure in the star's core is so high that most of the charged particles, electrons and protons, merge resulting in a star composed mostly of uncharged particles called neutrons.

Two independent research teams studied the supernova remnant Cassiopeia A, or Cas A for short, the remains of a massive star 11,000 light years away that would have appeared to explode about 330 years ago as observed from Earth. Chandra data found a rapid decline in the temperature of the ultra-dense neutron star that remained after the supernova, showing that it had cooled by about four percent over a 10-year period.

"This drop in temperature, although it sounds small, was really dramatic and surprising to see," said Dany Page of the National Autonomous University in Mexico, leader of a team with a paper published in the February 25, 2011 issue of the journal Physical Review Letters. "This means that something unusual is happening within this neutron star."

Superfluids containing charged particles are also superconductors, meaning they act as perfect electrical conductors and never lose energy. The new results strongly suggest that the remaining protons in the star's core are in a superfluid state and, because they carry a charge, also form a superconductor.

"The rapid cooling in Cas A's neutron star, seen with Chandra, is the first direct evidence that the cores of these neutron stars are, in fact, made of superfluid and superconducting material," said Peter Shternin of the Ioffe Institute in St Petersburg, Russia, leader of a team with a paper accepted in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Both teams show that this rapid cooling is explained by the formation of a neutron superfluid in the core of the neutron star within about the last 100 years as seen from Earth. The rapid cooling is expected to continue for a few decades and then it should slow down.

People Who Read This Also Read...
Cassiopeia A Comes Alive Across Time and Space
2010 Einstein Fellows Chosen
"Survivor" Black Holes May Be Mid-Sized
Powerful Nearby Supernova Caught By Web

"It turns out that Cas A may be a gift from the Universe because we would have to catch a very young neutron star at just the right point in time," said Page's co-author Madappa Prakash, from Ohio University. "Sometimes a little good fortune can go a long way in science."

The onset of superfluidity in materials on Earth occurs at extremely low temperatures near absolute zero, but in neutron stars, it can occur at temperatures near a billion degrees Celsius. Until now there was a very large uncertainty in estimates of this critical temperature. This new research constrains the critical temperature to between one half a billion to just under a billion degrees.

Cas A will allow researchers to test models of how the strong nuclear force, which binds subatomic particles, behaves in ultradense matter. These results are also important for understanding a range of behavior in neutron stars, including "glitches," neutron star precession and pulsation, magnetar outbursts and the evolution of neutron star magnetic fields.

Small sudden changes in the spin rate of rotating neutron stars, called glitches, have previously given evidence for superfluid neutrons in the crust of a neutron star, where densities are much lower than seen in the core of the star. This latest news from Cas A unveils new information about the ultra-dense inner region of the neutron star.

"Previously we had no idea how extended superconductivity of protons was in a neutron star," said Shternin's co-author Dmitry Yakovlev, also from the Ioffe Institute.

The cooling in the Cas A neutron star was first discovered by co-author Craig Heinke, from the University of Alberta, Canada, and Wynn Ho from the University of Southampton, UK, in 2010. It was the first time that astronomers have measured the rate of cooling of a young neutron star.

Page's co-authors were Prakash, James Lattimer (State University of New York at Stony Brook), and Andrew Steiner (Michigan State University.) Shternin's co-authors were Yakovlev, Heinke, Ho, and Daniel Patnaude (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.)
 
#85
Okay, it's not 'really science' - it's engineering but, the NASA video from the STS133 flight. From the point of view of the booster rockets. Best bits are the first 4 minutes and then around 15 mins when you get the microphones.
A great ride....including the safe landing by parachute into water.
 
#88
[video=youtube;rknAZFkm3UU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rknAZFkm3UU[/video]

There yar.
Cheers. From 45 mins on some excellent stuff on black holes and the idea that the universe is a 'hologram.' Not sure how this squares with other ideas like it's a simulation.

You are simply, very advanced simulation. - YouTube

It appears to me that in both these ideas the concept of 'information' is primary but 'information' to whom or what?
 
#89
It appears to me that in both these ideas the concept of 'information' is primary but 'information' to whom or what?
An unlikely theory used as religious propaganda IMO (spot the captions). "The CREATOR" script really spells it out as bias junk on par with other creationist material. Man made simulations are fine...but a "CREATOR" of the universe is a different can of worms under scrutiny as we know... Information? Well that's what we make...Without us around it is low level stuff, like a dog barking or an insect farting chemicals . That photons are randomly flying in all directions all over the cosmos demonstrates that either a CREATOR is unaware of purpose or that this is mindless software. A violent and deadly game for no one, starting and ending with nothing.
 
#90
An unlikely theory used as religious propaganda IMO (spot the captions). "The CREATOR" script really spells it out as bias junk on par with other creationist material. Man made simulations are fine...but a "CREATOR" of the universe is a different can of worms under scrutiny as we know... Information? Well that's what we make...Without us around it is low level stuff, like a dog barking or an insect farting chemicals .
"Man made simulations are fine" ... So, let's assume a man-made simulation in which the early stages result in the equivalent of insects emitting chemicals and then later results in an "intelligent" agent that reasons and creates it's own simulations. Would it have reached the right conclusion if it reasoned about its own Universe in the way that you have done?

That photons are randomly flying in all directions all over the cosmos demonstrates that either a CREATOR is unaware of purpose or that this is mindless software.
... or that you have no imagination, don't understand physics and are incapable of inferential reasoning.
 
#91
An unlikely theory used as religious propaganda IMO (spot the captions). "The CREATOR" script really spells it out as bias junk on par with other creationist material. Man made simulations are fine...but a "CREATOR" of the universe is a different can of worms under scrutiny as we know... Information? Well that's what we make...Without us around it is low level stuff, like a dog barking or an insect farting chemicals . That photons are randomly flying in all directions all over the cosmos demonstrates that either a CREATOR is unaware of purpose or that this is mindless software. A violent and deadly game for no one, starting and ending with nothing.
Higgs you have a point that the computer metaphor has simply brought the concept of God up to date. That is the idea of him as the original programmer of the multiverse as opposed to the Iron Age bearded sky god. However if our most successful or predictive science is now suggesting that the concept of information is primary then there is a deep semantic problem. Namely the notion of ‘original’ as opposed to ‘derived’ intentionality a fancy term for consciousness.

“Every mental phenomenon is characterized by what the Scholastics of the Middle Ages called the intentional (or mental) inexistence of an object, and what we might call, though not wholly unambiguously, reference to a content, direction towards an object (which is not to be understood here as meaning a thing), or immanent objectivity. Every mental phenomenon includes something as object within itself, although they do not all do so in the same way. In presentation something is presented, in judgement something is affirmed or denied, in love loved, in hate hated, in desire desired and so on. This intentional in-existence is characteristic exclusively of mental phenomena. No physical phenomenon exhibits anything like it. We could, therefore, define mental phenomena by saying that they are those phenomena which contain an object intentionally within themselves.”

-- Franz Brentano, Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint, edited by Linda L. McAlister (London: Routledge, 1995), p. 88-89.

American analytical philosopher John Searle presented a three premise argument, also known as the Chinese room argument, that because syntax is not sufficient for semantics, programs cannot produce minds.

1. Programs are purely formal (syntactic).
2. Human minds have mental contents (semantics).
3. Syntax by itself is neither constitutive of, nor sufficient for, semantic content.
4. Therefore, programs by themselves are neither constitutive of nor sufficient for minds.

Chinese room - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So again if we are to avoid the 'unmoved mover' outside of time and space as well as the associated problem of an infinite regress; we are looking at some for of panpsychism IMO. This is because your crude 'materialism' a naïve form of monism, is incompatible with this emerging idea in physics. A more sophisticated form of 'neutral' monism, first introduced by Spinoza and later propounded by William James, can be combined with this view, namely that it is compatible with panpsychism in so far as mental properties are attributed to physical matter, which is the only basic substance. Thus the raw material or 'unus mundus' out of which the universe/multiverse is built up/emerges is not of two sorts, one matter and the other mind, but is arranged in different patterns by its inter-relations, and that some arrangements may be called mental, while others may be called physical.

Welcome to Einstein's God. ;-) Michio Kaku on God - YouTube
 
#92
Higgs you have a point that the computer metaphor has simply brought the concept of God up to date. That is the idea of him as the original programmer of the multiverse as opposed to the Iron Age bearded sky god. However if our most successful or predictive science is now suggesting that the concept of information is primary then there is a deep semantic problem. Namely the notion of ‘original’ as opposed to ‘derived’ intentionality a fancy term for consciousness.

“Every mental phenomenon is characterized by what the Scholastics of the Middle Ages called the intentional (or mental) inexistence of an object, and what we might call, though not wholly unambiguously, reference to a content, direction towards an object (which is not to be understood here as meaning a thing), or immanent objectivity. Every mental phenomenon includes something as object within itself, although they do not all do so in the same way. In presentation something is presented, in judgement something is affirmed or denied, in love loved, in hate hated, in desire desired and so on. This intentional in-existence is characteristic exclusively of mental phenomena. No physical phenomenon exhibits anything like it. We could, therefore, define mental phenomena by saying that they are those phenomena which contain an object intentionally within themselves.”

-- Franz Brentano, Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint, edited by Linda L. McAlister (London: Routledge, 1995), p. 88-89.

American analytical philosopher John Searle presented a three premise argument, also known as the Chinese room argument, that because syntax is not sufficient for semantics, programs cannot produce minds.

1. Programs are purely formal (syntactic).
2. Human minds have mental contents (semantics).
3. Syntax by itself is neither constitutive of, nor sufficient for, semantic content.
4. Therefore, programs by themselves are neither constitutive of nor sufficient for minds.

Chinese room - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So again if we are to avoid the 'unmoved mover' outside of time and space as well as the associated problem of an infinite regress; we are looking at some for of panpsychism IMO. This is because your crude 'materialism' a naïve form of monism, is incompatible with this emerging idea in physics. A more sophisticated form of 'neutral' monism, first introduced by Spinoza and later propounded by William James, can be combined with this view, namely that it is compatible with panpsychism in so far as mental properties are attributed to physical matter, which is the only basic substance. Thus the raw material or 'unus mundus' out of which the universe/multiverse is built up/emerges is not of two sorts, one matter and the other mind, but is arranged in different patterns by its inter-relations, and that some arrangements may be called mental, while others may be called physical.

Welcome to Einstein's God. ;-) Michio Kaku on God - YouTube
The word god is so ambiguous I hate to use such an expression. We are victims of our own existence so one should ask what sense can be made of the conditions before we arrived and what exists after we are extinct? Human minds are here for a blink of an eye in cosmic terms... the scale of things is also a clue. Sure the laws of physics work...but we know how in spite of these the entropic effect will ensure the demise of everything.

So the beach was 'created'...and on one grain of sand fungi appeared then disappeared as the heat from a tiny sun dried it then it was washed back into the ocean..

Philosophy only adds to our confusion...what started it all? (enter William Lane Craig) the god debate starts there...(I want to slit his throat)... As the universe becomes more random a 'template' for fractals must emerge...why? Because it has always been there...and the potential for things without design or purpose will amaze us, a wonderful quirk but hey...that rock ten trillion light years away is only a rock. Such information is meaningless. It will be flying through space/time long after we are able to think about such concepts.
 
#93
[video=youtube;enSXh4YY9Ws]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enSXh4YY9Ws&feature=related[/video]

Great vid for laymen.
 
#94
Pity the intro was so long and at the end Cox appeased the religious question...

He is very PC in his messages...career minded who can blame him. That the age of the Earth conflicts with religion was glossed over instead of forcing home the way science must at some point say it's all bollocks.
 

Latest Threads

Top