ScienceBlogs 2.0

"A Tinkertoy computer that plays tic-tac-toe" - https://tcm.computerhistory.org/Timeline/TinkerToy.pdf and https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/X39.81 "Great Tinkertoy Computer" - https://www.science20.com/brain_candyfeed_your_mind/great_tinkertoy_co…

Great article. I wonder if anyone has experimented with ultrasonic vibrations to extract more or different flavors from beans, as this technique has been used to extract the flavors of barrel-aged whiskeys in a short period of time, rather than through an aging process [0]. 0. Science 2.0. The Acceleration of Spirits Aging Using Ultrasound. https://www.science20.com/scott_beers/the_acceleration_of_spirits_agin… Published May 31, 2018. Accessed September 6, 2024.

That is because her audience is not expected to be physics or math grads and is best viewed as interested laypeople who may have some very basic background in math/science. Contrast to a blog like Tomasso's which is targeted at those in/near HEP those who have a reasonably advanced physics/math background at the BS level. https://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor

Theories about "decline of maleness", great replacement theory, "decline of western civilization", are all very linked to this sort of stuff. Granted, that is very possibly not a goal of Swan's work, but these are the type of people who often cite it. Swan's work is dubious on other scientific grounds, however. [0] [0]: https://www.science20.com/gregory_bond/just_a_dud_swan_book_count_down…

I usually have to bite my tongue when it comes to Sabine's ramblings. BTW, I would love if anyone could point me any phenomenology paper of hers, I can't find them. Maybe when she single-handedly finishes with the slaying of the particle physics dragon she might tackle idk, condensed matter physics, she has the same kind of background there so who knows. Anyway, I'd like to link Dorigo's post where this anti-science stirrup might have shown up first: https://www.science20.com/tommaso_dorigo/what_it_means_to_be_antiscien… I don't find it surprising tbh.

If you're interested in the topic of Venus colonization, I read this article a few weeks ago and loved it: http://www.science20.com/robert_inventor/will_we_build_colonies_that_f…

Quantum physics is - in some sense - strictly more complex than classical physics and therefore simulating quantum physical systems with classical systems, for example a classical computer, causes exponentially growing costs. Besides that quantum physics is non-local and can not be simulated at all if you have only access to local state. There is a prize of a million dollar waiting for you if you can demonstrate the opposite [1]. [1] http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/quantum_randi_challenge_help_perim…

I don't think so. The holographic universe a "projection" in the sense that the information can be thought of as living on the boundary of a given space, with the maximum entropy / information contained therein proportional to the boundary's surface area (on a quantum level, a bit is a measurement of area). But this isn't super shocking if you're aware of the idea of "light bubbles" (the generalisation to three dimensions of a light cone) which already describe the limits of how information in a region of space can propagate. Distance was already an illusion, insofar as it represents a non-unique projection of a spacetime using purely relativistic techniques. :) But the speed of light isn't going to be got around by any of these models. If anything, the models will explain this limit better. POSTSCRIPT: I recommend the Hammock Physicist as a random physicist who can explain concepts like this at just the right level of detail for the HN audience. http://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist

Johannes Koelman takes apart that claim in a concisely articulated argument -- http://www.science20.com/the_hammock_physicist/falsifiability_and_the_… TL;DR: "The scientific method is not about testability or falsifiability per se. It is about trying hard to falsify. Nothing more, nothing less. Truth is to be found in those ideas that survive despite the multitude of attempts to falsify them[...]quantum gravity theories needs to reproduce all known low-energy physics, as well as all known classical gravitational phenomena. In other words: if you ensure your favorite theory of quantum gravity in the appropriate limits reduces to the standard model and Einstein's theory of gravity, your theory has survived all falsification attempts ever undertaken in the history of physics. This is a key point that fails to receive attention in 'string theory and falsifiability' debates."

It is explicitly stated that it can be used as a heat pump: When used as a heat pump, the device might be useful for solid-state cooling applications or even power generation. http://phys.org/news/2012-03-efficiency.html A heated semiconductor light-emitting diode at low forward bias voltage V<kBT/q is shown to use electrical work to pump heat from the lattice to the photon field. http://www.science20.com/cool-links/optical_heat_pump_100_percent_effi… When an electrical power input as low as 30 pico-watts is applied, the researchers consistently measured a 69 pico-watt optical power output, seemingly defying the law of conservation of energy. However, upon further investigation, the researchers showed that the system was able to derive extra energy from the thermal energy present in the environment. More specifically, the LED was able to convert the heat generated by the vibrations in the LED’s silicon lattice structure into additional emitted photons, increasing the LED efficiency to over twice unity. Achieves greater than unity efficiency by simultaneously converting thermal and electrical energy into photons....Cools the surrounding environment as it draws thermal energy from it. https://innovate.nasa.gov/node/152

As far as I can tell the quote comes from Science 2.0's site [0], and is frequently quoted somewhat verbatim in other places like reddit, quora and articles. But I can't really find the original (Carl Sagan) source. [0]: https://www.science20.com/brinstorming/meti_should_we_be_shouting_cosm…

Not as gravity lenses, but as both planets have atmospheres they can be used as refracting lenses at much shorter focal points at orbits, if using earth, just beyond the moon. https://www.science20.com/tommaso_dorigo/the_terrascope_using_earth_as…

"the world could well live without the Higgs boson" (c) Sabine Hossenfelder https://www.science20.com/tommaso_dorigo/what_it_means_to_be_antiscien…

I thought we where not supposed to conflate weather and climate change? https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html https://www.science20.com/news_articles/stop_conflating_weather_and_cl… https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/hot-planet/dont-be-fooled-weather…

a bit more detail on the discovery from a few months ago by Thommaso Dorigo: https://www.science20.com/tommaso_dorigo/higgs_decay_to_muons_cms_wins…

This caused problems when a bridge was being built between Germany (which uses the North Sea) and Switzerland (which uses the Mediterranean) - someone made a mistake including the known height difference between the two seas: https://www.science20.com/news_articles/what_happens_bridge_when_one_s…

Here is another nice anecdote about sea level not being sea level: https://www.science20.com/news_articles/what_happens_bridge_when_one_s… (The article doesn't actually mention what happend, according to german wikipedia, the error was spotted early and the moderate costs for the correction efforts were covered by the architects' insurance policy.)

The fact that information density across languages was measured and there was no significant difference[0]. How can a language be more expressive yet contain just as much information. [0]: https://www.science20.com/content/information_density_all_languages_co…

Here is another highly critical article: https://www.science20.com/tommaso_dorigo/the_17_mev_anomaly_that_would…

That we face serious “tipping points” are not a mainstream scientific view and the IPCC has not said anything along those lines: https://www.science20.com/robert_walker/no_scientific_cliff_edge_of_12…

I like this comment (with the nice explanation of the experiment): http://www.science20.com/tommaso_dorigo/miniboone_confirms_neutrino_an… Author's take: "The simple collecting more data and making the result stronger from a statistical standpoint in these cases does not help convince your peer: as I said, this is systematic in nature, so the problem has to be attacked by other means." On one side he is "an experimental particle physicist who works for the INFN at the University of Padova, and collaborates with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC" but also writes "I am not a true expert in these matters so my comments would probably be deceiving or plain fallacious." For him, it seems there is still a need for some other kind of approach before something more specific than "the apparent excess was consistently measured through the years" can be claimed.

We have traffic due to lack of scientific understanding. http://www.science20.com/gerhard_adam/driving_traffic_and_two_second_r… Traffic = Flow Rate (How many cars pass per minute pass a specific point) Traffic Solution is maintain proper distance. 2 seconds in good weather and 4 seconds when hazardous or 10 seconds when extremely unsafe weather/conditions. When people increase the distance between cars during traffic causes the traffic behind to eventually come to a stop.

I thought the presence of a ninth planet that wasn't Pluto was already more-or-less accepted. Here's an article (citing Caltech): http://www.science20.com/news_articles/planet_nine_not_pluto_a_new_pla… > mass about 10 times that of Earth and orbits about 20 times farther from the sun on average than does Neptune (which orbits the sun at an average distance of 2.8 billion miles) which is definitely "far beyond Neptune"

Other people have also suggested Latin as the most likely base language. A better discussion is provided here: http://www.science20.com/patrick_lockerby/patterns_of_latin_in_the_voy…

Kudos, Musk is willing to embarrass himself if necessary in a good cause. Thanks. But I'm not overly fond of the paper. No mention of asteroids when discussing other destinations, or re refueling. No mention of refueling from lunar sources (oxygen - you could haul hydrogen from Mars or Earth. Plus structural matter, solar cells, soil or even food.) Transporters that actually land on Mars - a la the first lunar return trip plans which landing everything on the moon that would return. It's surely more likely that there will be dedicated Earth-Mars transporters for that distance that don't land at either end. Way more economical. But others have covered this in more detail: http://www.science20.com/robert_inventor/case_for_moon_open_ended_posi…

> Formerly known as "peer review". An in-depth review of a paper in advance of publication is common (although that system isn't as reliable as had one been assumed). Such an exhaustive review after publication is rare, for multiple reasons. One serious problem with post-publication review is that the original data are rarely made available to reviewers. For example, academic critics of the work of Diederik Stapel couldn't justify revoking his Ph.D. because the original data that might have proved his fraud no longer existed. He eventually voluntarily gave up his degree[1], possibly to try to avoid a deeper investigation into his behavior. 1. http://www.science20.com/cool-links/dutch_psychologist_diederik_stapel…

The top article on that site at the moment is about the "Jewish elite". WTF? http://www.science20.com/sascha_vongehr/scientists_for_donald_trump_no…

It's clearly a right-wing site. Or at least they seem to rant against "leftist" scientists. http://www.science20.com/kevin_m_folta/the_scicomm_challenge_communica…

Where in that link does it say that organic techniques use fewer pesticides? Organic farming is restricted to naturally occurring pesticides which are often less effective than synthetic ones and so they need to be applied more often. Also, organic yields are often lower than conventional ones, so more land may be needed to compensate. Clearing land is way more environmentally unfriendly than using pesticide, so any gains from organic techniques are nullified. But i guess it depends on crop/climate and exact techniques [0]http://www.science20.com/agricultural_realism/example_how_much_pestici…