# Physics

I almost categorized this under Humor but it's more scary than funny... TPM highlights the Conservapedia argument against the theory of relativity:

"The theory of relativity is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world. ... Virtually no one who is taught and believes relativity continues to read the Bible, a book that outsells

"The theory of relativity is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world. ... Virtually no one who is taught and believes relativity continues to read the Bible, a book that outsells

*New York Times*bestsellers by a hundred-fold."A multiplet is a simple thing to describe: it is a collection of several identical or nearly identical things. Here, however, a difficulty arises because a "multiplet" is a manifestation of symmetry groups, and symmetry groups are tough objects to discuss. So if in a scientific paper you write "the new hadron might belong to a SU(3) multiplet", you have the additional trouble that you need to avoid discussing group theory to an unwilling listener. What is SU(3) ? Do we actually care?Thus wrote Tommaso Dorigo in The Language Barrier on 26th May this year.

In the It-From-Bit series I have reported extensively on Verlinde's 'entropic gravity' concept. I have also provided you with an illustrative 'mikado universe' picture of entropic gravity. This got topped off with my own intuitive notion that in an entropic universe, not only gravity, but also accelerated cosmic expansion emerges. As a result, in one fell swoop, entropy eliminates the need for a fundamental force of gravity as well as the need for dark energy.

When thinking of M theory and how it's popularized so much is said about it's wild and wonderful predictions. However their is not much said about how to think of the M branes themselves. I was at the beach today and thought as I was looking at the water of M theory.

The surface tension is much like an Mtheory Brane. The little waves and ripples in the surface are analogous to the ripples on lake Michigan.

I thought about cutting the video up , dubbing in cleaner audio but really is this that serious? Enjoy

The surface tension is much like an Mtheory Brane. The little waves and ripples in the surface are analogous to the ripples on lake Michigan.

I thought about cutting the video up , dubbing in cleaner audio but really is this that serious? Enjoy

What picture should we draw of the quest for new phenomena after the presentation of a wealth of new results at the international conference on high-energy physics in Paris held last week ? I am speaking in particular of results coming from the experiments at the Tevatron and LHC, which are all studying hadron collisions in search for still unseen effects to both confirm (with the discovery of the Higgs boson) or break down (with the observation of Supersymmetry, new particles, extra dimensions, or still other effects) the present theoretical understanding of fundamental physics which the standard model provides us with.

Imagine you are tasked to build the ultimate computer memory. You are provided with an unlimited budget and all the resources you need.

How big a memory capacity could you build?

How big a memory capacity could you build?

Simmulating aspects of the big bang in a particle accelerator through the coulomb explosion of a sufficiently dense bundle of fundamental particles could be practical and informative.

Suppose a team of particle physicist figure out a way to get a bunch of protons in an accelerator up to a energy density of 0.1 or 0.2 of the Planck density. Then observed the coulomb explosion of this bundle of particles. Less than a second after the big bang the whole universe would have been a soup of elementary particles at those kind of densities. What would happen. I don't know but it might be interesting to find out.

Suppose a team of particle physicist figure out a way to get a bunch of protons in an accelerator up to a energy density of 0.1 or 0.2 of the Planck density. Then observed the coulomb explosion of this bundle of particles. Less than a second after the big bang the whole universe would have been a soup of elementary particles at those kind of densities. What would happen. I don't know but it might be interesting to find out.

After the issuing of new top mass results by the Tevatron experiments, it is time for another look at global electroweak fits of standard model observables. The Gfitter group has produced new fits for the standard model in search of the most probable value of the Higgs boson mass, given the new measurements of top quark mass and other quantities, and the huge amount of existing information on sensitive observables from the standard model.

Unfortunately, I could find no update including the new Higgs search results yet. I guess such a fit will be ready in a few weeks... But the new released information is already interesting enough that we may meaningfully spend a few words around some figures here.

Unfortunately, I could find no update including the new Higgs search results yet. I guess such a fit will be ready in a few weeks... But the new released information is already interesting enough that we may meaningfully spend a few words around some figures here.