kscibar : Messages : 1-38 of 1583

-------Original Message-------

From: Dave Thompson

Date: 02/09/05 13:56:08

To: Knutsford SciBAr

Subject: Fundamental particles

Hi John

You didn't specify where your apparent conflict was so maybe it was " Why should some particles be stable and others not?" If so :-

My understanding is that to be unstable a particle must be able to decay, usually, into a state with lower energy ie a different configuration of particles with radiation often ,but not always, taking away excess energy . Obviously a high energy particle has more options to decay into something with lower energy . Whether it does decay or not is statistical we don't know why any specific particle decays at a particular time ( No pun intended)

It is also statistical what it decays into-- eg the next lowest energy config or a two levels lower config. I believe that the next level down is the statistically more likely option. Nearly all particles ( Maybe ALL which have a configuration) eventually decay --some in nanoseconds --some over thousands of years. The quantum wave function defines, unbelievably precisely, the probabilities of various decays in a particular time but not the actual time or decay level of an individual particle.

A stable particle like the electron has no known lower state to decay into. The neutron does have a lower state - It can decay into a proton and an electron, and does so, but with a long lifetime. The proton experimentally is known to have a lifetime that is at least 10 to the power 33 years as a minimum and it may as far as we currently know be infinite .

But you may say- according to Fred the proton is made of three quarks -why doesn't it decay into 3 quarks -- Well quarks are funny beggars . No individual quark can exist on its own under conditions we can create, now or maybe ever . They are always bound via gluon particles to other quarks -and as Fred, said the energy that would be required to separate a quark from its partner would be enough to create a new quark on each end of the broken bond. This issue of never being able to get a quark on its own in the moonlight is probably what makes the proton stable

The analogy Fred used was a magnet . It has a north pole and a south pole but if you cut it into 2 pieces at any point you don't end up with a north pole alone and a south pole alone you end up with two north south magnets - This of course is ONLY an analogy.

The theory of everything is looking for a solution where any particle can decay into any other but hasn't currently made the case - String theory may get us to this . In string theory all reality is not strings-- but merely the vibration of the strings in 11 dimensions .Under the right conditions you might get the string to change it's vibration which would mean changing the type of particle we would perceive.

The sort of energy requirements for some of these transitions to take place probably only occured in the initial ( and I mean INITIAL) stages of the BIG BANG ie when the universe was less than 10 to the minus 33 seconds old.

The LISA project ( a telescope 3 trillion miles accross) in six years time might get us nearer to the BIG BANG -- my understanding is that theory and maths wise we can now get to 10 to the power minus 33 seconds after the big bang and experimentally we can look back to around 380,000 years after the big bang ( which is still a long time ago )

Roger Barlow who is Professor of High Energy Physics at Manchester University was ( unbeknown to me - I didn't recognise him in the gloom)was at our SciBAr in the audience last Monday and he's now going to talk to us in August about " Antimatter - Does it matter" He is now also looking for someone to talk to us on "Quantum Mechanics for idiots " ( by the way he gave Fred and our event -straight 5s)

I think we definitely need a QM discussion because some of the concepts are both mathematically very precise but still statistical and are VERY COUNTERINTUITIVE. So we've got "counterintuitive thinking" coming up in May plus "QM for idiots" later among many other topics.

I hope this helps. If I've misread the question -or you want to look into it further -or question the above position -just post another note

yours

Dave Thompson

Knutsford SciBAr

Knutsford SciBAr is a discussion forum. Comments made are

the views of the individual member and do not reflect

the views of the group as a whole or theThe Knutsford SciBAr . No

responsibility will be accepted by the Knutsford SciBAr for

comments made on this group. Thank you for not advertising.

If you do not wish to belong to kscibar, you may

unsubscribe by sending an email to

#37

From: "John Widger" <jsw@...>
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 1:59 pm
Subject: Come on, which is it?

j_widger

Offline

I never quite resolved in my mind last night the apparent conflict
between the fact that elementary particles are said to have a (very)
fleeting existence, but those making up the proton (and neutron?) I
think were said to be stable ...

#36

From: "metyu_s" <metyu_s@...>
Date: Tue Feb 1, 2005 1:50 pm
Subject: 2005

metyu_s

Offline

Not very science-y, but various things happening this year that may
be of interest...

31/01-02/02, Sustainable Communities Summit, see
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_communities/documents/div
isionhomepage/029192.hcsp

Sept '05 - Millennium Summit: Can we achieve the millennium
Development Goals? See http://www.undp.org/mdg/

IFF: http://www.hm-
treasury.gov.uk/documents/international_issues/int_gnd_intfinance.cfm

The relevance: perhaps if we invested the estimated $6billion
annually (see www.polity.co.uk/global) that would provide basic
education to the world's children, we would ensure the future has
the brightest scientists possible: maybe some of them could solve
the dark matter/climate change issues...

M.

#35

From: "gary904786" <gary.cliffe@...>
Date: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:33 pm
Subject: What's the Government doing?

gary904786

Offline

Thought you might be interested in what the Government is doing
about stabilisation of Greenhouse Gases in the year of its G8
Presidency - This is a press release from DEFRA Date: January 28,
2005 Time: 14:15 Related links at the end of the press release

Is our Government doing enough to look at options or (if the last
SciBar is anything to go by) is there only one (the nuclear)
option? ;-)

Gary Cliffe

STABILISATION OF GREENHOUSE GASES SCIENCE CONFERENCE

International climate change scientists will gather in Exeter next
week to look at the scientific aspects of the stabilisation of
climate change.

The conference, taking place at the Met Office's Hadley Centre for
Climate Prediction and Research from February 1-3, will look to
advance scientific understanding of and encourage debate on the long-
term implications of climate change.

Key questions to be discussed at the Conference include:

* What are the key impacts, for different regions and sectors, and
for the world as a whole, of different levels of climate change?

* What would such levels of climate change impacts imply in terms of
greenhouse gas levels and how might emissions be managed to meet
such levels?

* What technological options are there to stabilise greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere, taking into account costs and uncertainties?

Margaret Beckett, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs, said: "This scientific conference will make a valuable
contribution to our G8 Presidency and our wider aim of
reinvigorating the climate change debate and stimulating further
engagement for future action.

" We hope it will provide new information on the risks of climate
change and provide a firmer basis for discussing long-term
stabilisation action. However, it is not of course, a policy
negotiation."

"We also look to the conference to review practical ways of
achieving emission reduction required to meet different
stabilisation goals."

The conference comes at a mid-way point between the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment Report,
published in 2001 and its fourth report, anticipated in 2007.

The IPCC concluded in 2001, that there "is new and stronger evidence
that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is
attributable to human activities."

NOTES TO EDITORS

1 The Prime Minister formally announced the conference during his
key-note speech on climate change to business leaders at the tenth
anniversary of the Prince of Wales' Business and Environment
programme on September 14.

2 Details of the speakers and papers being presented can be found on
the "Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change" conference website at
www.stabilisation2005.com

3 The IPCC's Third Assessment Report can be accessed at
www.ipcc.ch/pub/reports.htm

Public enquiries 08459 335577;
Press notices are available on our website
www.defra.gov.uk
Defra's aim is sustainable development

End

Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London SW1P 3JR
Website www.defra.gov.uk

#34

From: "Knutsford SciBAr" <knutsford.scibar@...>
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 7:12 pm
Subject: Renewable Energy not going so well

tdtuk2002

Offline

I thought some of you may be interested in this report -- at least its current and relevant to our last SciBAr topic

The following has been copied from the "City Comment section " of the Daily telegraph 28th Jan 2005

" Wind Farms are the government's preferred solution to keeping the lights on

and the CO2 down. Never mind that in a recent study, for Aon, of existing wind farms

showed them actually delivering only 11%of their design capacity in the course of a year

The economics are so poor,even at current oil prices, that big subsidies are needed

to encourage construction of new ones.

Unfortunately subsidy Farming is arisky business, and suddenly the prospective returns

on British Windmillslook a lot less attractive. From April, these latter day Triffids are

facing a dramatic rise in their rates bills, as the basis of calculation is changed.

The old system for rating Power Stationsis to be scrapped, to bringthem into line

with the system that is applied to other businesses. One consequence of this is

that the revenue from subsidies will push up their rates bills.

In other words the Government is effectively taxing it's own grants.

To make matters worse for the green lobby, fossil fuel Power stations are likely

to see their rates bills fall under the new regime. Opposition to windmills all over

the landscape is growing anyway , and for many operators, this jump in costs

will make the difference between building and not . Thus are the unexpected consequence

of the Government's irrepressible urge to meddle.

Neil Collins - Daily Telegraph "

Yours

Knutsford SciBAr

http://uk.geocities.com/tdtuk2002/knutsfordscibar

Knutsford SciBAr is a discussion forum. Comments made are

the views of the individual member and do not reflect

the views of the group as a whole or theThe Knutsford SciBAr . No

responsibility will be accepted by the Knutsford SciBAr for

comments made on this group. Thank you for not advertising.

If you do not wish to belong to kscibar, you may

unsubscribe by sending an email to

#33

From: "Dave Thompson" <dave_thompson_td@...>
Date: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:34 pm
Subject: Bone fiormation

tdtuk2002

Offline

Hi Richard --

As I understand it We start with DNA which when a gene is expressed produces RNA which is a sort of mirror image of the DNA --- the RNA then wanders thro the cell picking up the precise amino acids it needs and putting them together so that they bind and make a specific protein . I think bone protein is keratin in the main

Proteins naturally due to internal bonds wind themselves into particular shapes and thus have different structures and strengths for their various bodybuilding roles. So the DNA of the gene expressed by a cell is really in charge

Every cell has the genes to make a whole human but only expresses those that are relevant to its position on the embryo The question is then "How does the cell in the leg bit of an embryo know it should express the gene for building bone rather than expressing the gene for say liver .The answer as I understand it is that at the point when the embryo is just a ball of stem cells ,and all are identical ,one cell will secrete a chemical which difuses through the cells . It is more concentrated where it starts off from so when the cells detect the most concentration they " decide to build a head The cells at the other end detect the concentration to be weaker and therefore decide to become a tail or leg etc with cells in between making in between decisions

I presume that something similar happens on a more local scale to differentiate the cells that decide to express their "build an ear proteins" rather than their "build a brain proteins" depending on their postion at the head end in relation to otherr bits of head end.

There have been some very interesting experiments on newts etc which illustrate this principle beautifully . If you cut off the leg of a newt and reattach it the wrong way round ie ankle to hip bone -- the newt will grow from its body a new thigh and shin until it has " filled in the space to the ankle" with the stuff that should be between Hip and ankle.At the other end of the severed limb which was the top of the thigh it will grow another thigh and shin and a foot. This shows that the relative position of the cell with respect to its neighbours determines what genes to express so what RNA to make and so what protein to make and thus what body part .

The position is determined at least in part by the chemical gradient . The newts new leg is then , from the newt end, hip thigh shin (ankle shin thigh(original))then thigh shin ankle foot.

Its better with pictures I'll see if I can find some

They have also made lizards alive but with no head and a tail at both ends by adjusting the concentration

Does this help or was that not quite the question

yours

Dave Thompson

Knutsford SciBAr

#32

From: "Knutsford SciBAr" <knutsford.scibar@...>
Date: Mon Jan 24, 2005 6:42 pm
Subject: nuclear hydrogen generators and SCUD missiles

tdtuk2002

Offline

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/NE100000009439/

Response from Adrian Bull

John, the following may help with your questions

In terms of the number of nuclear stations to power the whole of the UK's

road transport sector with nuclear-generated hydrogen, the figure is around

100 nuclear plants. The transport sector is bigger in energy terms than

the electricity generation sector by around a factor of two - as I showed

in one of the charts I put up. Given that the UK nuclear industry today

(which is equivalent in output terms to around ten new reactors) provides

around 20% of UK electricity, it would take around 100 additional stations

to provide an extra 200% of UK electricity (ie to fuel a transport sector

twice the size of the power sector).

This figure is consistent with a study done recently by a couple of

academics from the University of Warwick, who also concluded around 100

nuclear stations. They also did the sums for wind and calculated that it

would take a band of wind farms ten kilometres wide round the whole of the

UK coastline if the hydrogen were to be generated by offshore wind. If the

wind turbines were tobe onshore - they would cover the area of Wales.

Ref to the Warwick work:

Press release:

Research Paper:

http://www.oswald.co.uk/ocl/windaccountancy04.pdf

As far as Scud missile question is concerned, nuclear power plant

containment buildings are extremely

robust structures and, in security terminology, are considered hardened.

The defense-in-depth strategy provides for three barriers:

Containment buildings, which house the reactor, have reinforced concrete walls that on average are four feet thick;

- The reactor pressure vessel with steel walls that are from 7 to 12 inches thick;

- The fuel rods themselves.

While, obviously, nuclear plants cannot be guaranteed to be impervious to every form of attack imaginable, they

are designed to withstand hurricanes and the impact of airborne objects up to a specific amount of force. A test

at Sandia National Labs confirmed a computer analysis of the impact of a plane crashing into a concrete structure

like a containment building. An F-4 Phantom jet was destroyed when it hit at 480 miles per hour, while the maximum

penetration to the concrete wall was just over 2 inches.

I am no expert on the relative characteristics of a Scud missile versus a jet fighter, I think this is a pretty impressive

demonstration of the robust nature of a reactor. In fact - the reactor is designed to be robust, but in order to keep the

radiation in, not to keep projectiles and missiles out. Fortunately the strength works both ways!

A final point - a jet fighter is clearly much smaller than a fully laden jet airliner such as a 747, but work looking at aircraft

impact has found that the pure size of a bigger plane means you simply can't get a direct hit which puts the full force

of a bigger plane into a reactor. If you get a direct hit with the fuselage of a 747, the engines (which are the bulk of the weight)

miss the reactor on either side. Similarly - you can hit with the engine(s) on one wing, but not also the fuselage or the other wing.

Thanks for your interest - I hope this helps

Adrian

"Knutsford SciBAr" <knutsford.scibar@...> on 24/01/2005 00:27:21

From: "j_widger" <jsw@...>

Subject: Hydrogen and SCUDs

Really enjoyed Adrian Bull's session. A couple of questions occur to

me - don't know if anyone can supply any answers?

1 How many average sized nuclear power stations generating hydrogen

would it need to replace all the petrol consumed by cars in the UK -

assuming hydrogen technology became viable for cars. Is it tens or

hundreds or ...?

2 Thinking of the terrorism threat ... is today's average nuclear

power station strong enough to resist being hit by a "typical" SCUD

missile (if there is such a thing) without releasing radiation?

________________________________________________________________________

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The information contained in this email may be commercially sensitive and/or legally privileged. It is intended solely for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If you are not a named recipient, you are on notice of its status. Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. You must not disclose it to any other person, copy or distribute it or use it for any purpose.

#31

From: Richard Buttrey <richard_buttrey@...>
Date: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:38 pm
Subject: Bone cells and shapes.

richardgb1

Offline

Whilst carving the Sunday joint today, (lamb in case you're interested), I
was struck by the almost perfect sphere of the ball part of the upper leg bone.

Does anyone know how the bone cells know to start forming a ball rather
than just say extending the bone in a linear direction? Are there perhaps
two types of 'bone' cells here? If not how does a single bone cell type
differentiate?

I'm vaguely aware of stem cells, which I understand to be cells which are
capable of turning into all sorts of other cells, but even if these are
involved, how do they know which way to develop?


Regards


Richard Buttrey
Grappenhall, Cheshire

#30

From: "j_widger" <jsw@...>
Date: Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:34 pm
Subject: Hydrogen and SCUDs

j_widger

Offline

Really enjoyed Adrian Bull's session. A couple of questions occur to
me - don't know if anyone can supply any answers?

1  How many average sized nuclear power stations generating hydrogen
would it need to replace all the petrol consumed by cars in the UK -
assuming hydrogen technology became viable for cars. Is it tens or
hundreds or ...?

2  Thinking of the terrorism threat ... is today's average nuclear
power station strong enough to resist being hit by a "typical" SCUD
missile (if there is such a thing) without releasing radiation?

#29

From: "Knutsford SciBAr" <knutsford.scibar@...>
Date: Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:26 pm
Subject: Adrian Bull's slides from the Energy discussion

tdtuk2002

Offline

Hi !! All SciBAr Supporters

Just a note to say that Adrian Bull has adreed that we can upload a copy of his slides used inthe Energy discussion to our discussion site . I have thus done this and you can find them by clicking "files" on the discussion group site( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar ) then clicking on UK Energy slides and then click the slide you want.

Those who attended the session know that there is a lot of very useful information in these slides . I also have more slides from Adrian on Modern nuclear power station no,s versus historical ones /details of AP reactors /and some European and UK political position statements. There are too many to put on the web but if you need info of this type ,contact me

The slides are intended to be viewed in the file number order eg energy1-energy2 etc . If anyone knows how I can get these files sorted into that order or indeed what order they are currently in , PLEASE let me know, They were loaded in energy"x" order and don't seem to be in file or description order

Yours

Knutsford SciBAr

http://uk.geocities.com/tdtuk2002/knutsfordscibar

Knutsford SciBAr is a discussion forum. Comments made are

the views of the individual member and do not reflect

the views of the group as a whole or theThe Knutsford SciBAr . No

responsibility will be accepted by the Knutsford SciBAr for

comments made on this group. Thank you for not advertising.

If you do not wish to belong to kscibar, you may

unsubscribe by sending an email to

#28

From: "Knutsford SciBAr" <knutsford.scibar@...>
Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 12:41 am
Subject: Michio Kaku is visiting UK in Jan 2005 -- Don't miss it

tdtuk2002

Offline

Who?? you say --

He was the author of "Hyperspace"- It's a super book about Multiverses

and the search for the unified theory of everything -- He's a Prof at New York University--

He is not averse to sensible speculation(forecasting) what will happen in science and civilisation.

He is coming to

London to speak at the planetarium 7:30pm Mon 31/1/2005

then Borders bookshop Cambridge 8:00pmTues 1/2/2005

then The Royal Institution 7:00pm Wed 2/2/2005

Thinktank Birmingham 6:00pm Thur 3/2/2005

Needless to say he has a new book called "Paralell Worlds" coming out

3rd of Feb - It's already registered on my wishlist with Amazon.

I'm going down to see him at the planetarium on the 31st Jan -- It'll be worth the trip

Try his website www.mkaku.org -- Read his interview with Astrobiology magazine

-- It's not technical but it is Fascinating

yours

Dave Thompson

Knutsford SciBAr

http://uk.geocities.com/tdtuk2002/knutsfordscibar

Knutsford SciBAr is a discussion forum. Comments made are

the views of the individual member and do not reflect

the views of the group as a whole or theThe Knutsford SciBAr . No

responsibility will be accepted by the Knutsford SciBAr for

comments made on this group. Thank you for not advertising.

If you do not wish to belong to kscibar, you may

unsubscribe by sending an email to

#27

From: "Knutsford SciBAr" <knutsford.scibar@...>
Date: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:08 pm
Subject: Fw: Knutsford SciBAr News and Discussion Group

tdtuk2002

Offline

Subject: Knutsford SciBAr News and Discussion Group

All SciBAr supporters,

Well , doesn't time fly when you're having fun. -- Merry Christmas !!

I hope you all enjoyed your Christmas celebrations and are girding your loins for New Years Eve

It's SciBAr time again and , bearing in mind all the distractions , I thought I'd send you a little reminder.

January's SciBAr is at 6:30pm on Monday January 10th at the same venue as last time, ie ROOM at 21 Princess St Knutsford ( There is a car park down the alley opposite ROOM behind the shops).

Note that it's not the3rd of January because that is a Bank Holiday

The topic is " 21st century UK ENERGY needs and where will it all come from"

We will be looking into the contributions we might expect from renewable sources such as wind and wave power as well as coal, gas , oil and nuclear power. We need to consider such things as availability (-for how long) and security of supply , as well as the issues with pollution and nuclear waste and the timescales involved in bringing new energy sources on line.

To lead the discussion we have Adrian Bull whose job as Head of UK Energy Policy Studies at BNFL gives him access to a lot of information in these areas.

I have asked him , however, to address the SciBAr not as a representative of BNFL but in a personal capacity and as NW committee member of the British Association for the Advancement of Science.

I suspect this may be in our interests

It promises to be a very interesting evening which will cover many controversial areas. I Iook forward to welcoming you all to ROOM on the 10th of Jan . By the way I had a bowl of mussels after the last meeting --They were delicious.

A nice way to finish the evening and prolong the discussion on a more intimate level with friends.

The last speaker , Professor Ian Morison ( no it's not a spelling error)from Jodrell Bank, led the discussion on

" HUNTING ALIENS" .

When your rating forms were analysed , every single person voted him 5 (ie excellent) for enjoyment and 4.9 for nearly everything else. I have written to him on your behalf to thank him for his contribution and pointed out that with a score like that he has left me with no option but to invite him back . We need to find an astronomy type topic which is interesting and might tempt him back to our SciBAr

Dr Fred Loebinger from the High Energy Physics department will lead the discussion on the 7th of February on the topic of " What is the Universe made of?"

to see more

Visit the Knutsford SciBAr website at :- http://uk.geocities.com/tdtuk2002/knutsfordscibar

Just click the link and it will take you to our website where you can find details of what the SciBAr is up to plus links to other fascinating science websites --- including a link to our discussion group

Which brings me nicely to the other topic I would like to discuss briefly on our SciBAr night after our Energy discussions , which is :- " How we can make best use our web discussion group"

It might be useful if you had visited the web group before the meeting in order to make a more valuable contribution to the discussion .You don't need to join in order to look.You do need to join to send a message ,but it only takes a minute and it's free AND you can unsubscribe any time you wish with just one click. -- Try it ! you might like it . There are some terrific photos and links to other fascinating science sites plus some messages continuing the discussions we have had at the SciBAr. To send a message, after you've registered, just send an e-mail with your message to kscibar@yahoogroups.com. Try it ! Just put TESTING in the subject line if that's what you are doing.

Your message will then appear in the group forum and people will reply to you via the forum .

Join your discussion group at :- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar --

Well, That's it -- See you all on the 10th

Oh! and if you don't want me to e-mail you, please just send an e-mail to knutsford.scibar@... saying

" PLS CANCEL any e-mails "

Note ---this address is for administration only and is not the discussion group e-mail address

Thanks for your interest

yours

Dave Thompson

Knutsford SciBAr

#26

From: "Dave Thompson" <dave_thompson_td@...>
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 10:42 am
Subject: Melvyn Bragg's In Our Time Newsletter - 20/12/2004

tdtuk2002

Offline

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/

Melvyn Bragg started it all - Blame him

Dave Thompson --PS The fonts are because I suspect Yahoo doesn't do colour

-------Original Message-------

From: Lynton Peter

Date: 12/20/04 17:54:39

To: Simon Paul Rose; Brian Burgess; Dave Thompson

Subject: Fw: Melvyn Bragg's In Our Time Newsletter - 20/12/2004

Notes from Melvin on an excellent programme on the third law.

Regards

Peter

----- Original Message -----

From: <melvyn-bragg@...>

To: <melvyn-bragg@...>

Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 4:32 PM

Subject: Melvyn Bragg's In Our Time Newsletter - 20/12/2004

> Hello

> Well, at least I had learned to pronounce thermodynamics since the end

> of the Machiavelli programme. In fact, I've had five or six - dare I

> say it? - exciting days, trying to grapple at a necessarily

> superficial but still, I hope, sufficient-for-conversation level with

> this law thought by Einstein to be ultimate, fundamental and timeless

> and thought by CP Snow (who was despised by the then cultural

> establishment for saying this) to be as important as reading a work of

> Shakespeare. It's remarkable to look back on the snobbery that met

> this obviously sensible and not in the least provocative remark by CP

> Snow.

> I still look at the sentence "all change is the consequence of the

> purposeless collapse of energy and matter into disorder". It's denser

> than most lines of poetry and carries more meaning than all but very

> rare lines of poetry. "All - change - is the consequence - of the

> purposeless - collapse - of energy - and matter - into disorder."

> Every word, it seems, can be challenged and tested if you're looking

> at it as a text. And yet the sentence flows on effortlessly to

> present an accurate? or oblique or a true picture of the universe.

> It's very odd to be an amateur on these occasions, but that's my role

> a lot of the time, especially when we talk about science. But I was

> pleased to challenge John Gribbin on whether it could be proved that

> Disorder preceded the Big Bang which, according to the Second Law of

> Thermodynamics, contained the Order from which all Disorder in

> multiple variations has since flowed. I was also interested in John's

> notion of the power of gravity which, afterwards, he felt was every

> bit as immutable in its effect as the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

> He suggested and Charlie Taylor (the Producer) and myself agreed that

> a programme on gravity ought to be chalked onto the blackboard of

> possibilities, which constitutes the higgledy-piggledy future planning

> of this series.

> But something that can go from the cooling of a cup of tea via a steam

> engine, to an explanation for the motion of the universe is

> comparable, I suppose, to those religious overviews in which

> everything that happens is encompassed by a single, in their case

> divine, cause.

> Best wishes

> Melvyn Bragg

> Visit the In Our Time website:

> and the Radio 4 Homepage: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/

> If you no longer wish to receive this newsletter, please visit our

unsubscribe page:

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/newsletter/signup.shtml

RESPONSES

Black original comment font 1 on Melvyn Bragg from Dave Thompson

Red response font 2 from Peter Lynton

then Blue response font 3 to PETER from Dave Thompson

.........................................................................................................................

DAVE ---A super sentencefrom Melvyn Bragg's program

which encapsulates so much

-- I didn't hear the program so I don't quite follow his remark

about pre-big bang disorder The second law implies

even more order before the big bang

(if indeed time has any meaning at that time).

PETER ---Our current theories do not take us back to pre-big bang and

one of the problems is the idea

that everything started with an infinitely small point where our theories break down.

Maybe string theory will solve that because it puts a limit on the smallest

size and time available. Quantum fluctuations mean that particles can be created in pairs

and exist for a small time with only a small amount of energy.

To exist for a longer time they would require more energy

and this comes from creating negative energy so that everything balances.

This dark energy accounts for a lot in our current universe.

I don't think we can do any experiments on this to prove it.

DAVE --Why not ? There was a time when we thought the composition

of the stars was beyond us because we couldn't get there- but now no problem .

I'll be surprised if there do turn out to be other universes and they have NO effect on ours

particularly near black holes . Some people theorise that the reason gravity is so weak

compared to the other forces is because gravitons leak out of our universe

to the others and/or vice versa

....................................................................................................................

PETER --There was also a period of inflation (Guth) which has always seemed to me to be a fiddle

and we have no idea what causes that, but without it we would not be here.

DAVE --I agree about inflation although the existence of this vacuum

zero point energy- or something- seems to be confirmed by supernova data re increasing

expansion ( or mild inflation?) -- -BUT the whole thing expanding faster than light - Hmm! -

We certainly won't worry about the oil running out if we crack this issue.

String theory certainly seems to crack the point particle problems and

the Space-time tearing problems BUT what are these strings/branes?

-Strings of what? -- vibrating in what? I can't believe its a REAL vacuum this time

-- What's the betting the ether reappears at some stage.

I like the hillside analogy for expansion where we are, say,half way down a hill

stuck in a gully and if something ( Quantum fluctuations)knocks us out of our gully

we'll fall to a lower vacuum energy point gully with consequent massive inflation

and energy release . We would then resume in our new local vacuum gully

until knocked out of it again. Until we reach the bottom?

.......................................................................................................................................

PETER -- Hawkins says that there was no time or space before the big bang

in the same way that there is no point further north once you get to the north pole

. I would modify that statement to be 'there is no time or space as we understand it..

.DAVE --'You mean before the aliens switched our program on at the mains.

No but seriously, why does time of all the dimensions hurtle forward and only forward? .

What is the meaning of NOW? -- Why shouldn't the future influence NOW

just as much as the past SEEMS to?.

I think that maybe the future and the present and the past co-exist forever

and NOW is merely the intersection -- but why are we only conscious

of the intersection and not the other parts of the time dimension?.

Why have we no memory of the future? --

maybe there is something in clairvoyancy

(I don't believe this but it seems logically possible)

DAVE --Maybe there was just one of one type of "particle " forever,

until it exploded with boredom --- "and before that ?" I hear you say.

DAVE --Maybe my one "particle" was indeed a black hole

which acts somewhat like a fundamental particle having only

energy, charge and angular momentum to distinguish it.

DAVE --The string theory suggests colliding branes as a possible cause of the big bang

and so, possibly, the one "particle"- In multiple universes with completely different

laws of physics our laws may not work at collision point.

If we can get universe collisions ( and why not) we can get nearly anything resulting .

Stephen Hawking was trying to work out the unique wave function of the Multiverse

- I haven't heard how he's going on , but rumours say he's backing off

some of his earlier concepts.

What if other universes have multiple dimensions of which more than three

are not curled tight and what if they share ,say only one/two dimensions with us

and the multiverse has many more than 10 dimensions .

What happens to collisions then . My brain hurts

At this stage I tend to look for analogies in two dimensional Flatland space.

PETER --Have you read Flatland and Flatland re-visited? DAVE -- Yes but a long long time ago

DAVE -- I would ask the question " Could a flatlander be peeled in principle off his 2D

surface to a parallel(not necessarily a mathematically parallel plane) flatland

in the third dimension or indeed have his whole universe curled but not terribly tightly

into the third dimension ". If two of these Flatland planes intersect(collide)

what would go on at the collision line -- a big bang? in 3 dimensions?

destroying the order of two 2D worlds and increasing the entropy

in all three dimensions.

How would this look to a flatlander observing the collision line .

The big problem these days is that any thoughts in these areas can only be Philosophical

since we are a long way from the energies needed to test any of this lot -

- even that from "sensible" physicists is philosophy -not-Science.

PETER -- We can speculate and hypothesise and science needs imagination, but

we then have to prove these theories and we are well away from doing this.

DAVE -- Agreed and they are not moving fast enough for me.

I'm unlikely to be here when they solve it - Damn!!

BUT see end re Beauty.

.................................................................................................................................................................................

DAVE --What about Rees's concept that we may all be merely software functions

in someone's very powerful computer and reality is merely illusory

and is just that part of the program dealing with background. which the alien

software designer adds to when he gets round to it and thus expands our universe

We ourselves would be other pieces of software

PETER -- There is a theory that the whole universe is contained as a holgram in 2d

on the surface of the expanding universe. I also have a book written by Frank ??

an american physisist who claims that at the big crunch everything will be stored on computer programs

and this will be our eternity- how our souls will be saved.

time will seem to be infinite as we accelerate towards the speed of light

in travelling towards the final big black hole.

DAVE -- It doesn't sound very heavenly - more Hellish -Why a 2D hologram ?

-- why not 3 or 4D recording amplitude and phase in many dimensions--

Try "The Holographic Universe " by Michael Talbot

DAVE -- Maybe when we dig deep enough and small enough we will find the basis of our universe

is made of the high tech equivalent of magnetic ring cores threaded on to high tech wires like early

computers. We can then look for the ultimate source of energy - the alien computer designer's

three pin mains socket.

Also have you thought that the human/animal body's incredibly fast

bone mass loss when operating in zero gravity is a superb

adaptation for a life form which might need to operate very quickly

adapting to whatever multiple gravity situations it found itself in --

How could this evolve on a planet whose gravity is fundamentally fixed.

I'm well versed on evolution so I can come up with the standard answers --BUT

- It does seem to be an unnecessarily fast -highly tuned response.

The sort of response we'd like our offspring to have if we were shipping

them off to other planetsand we weren't sure what the size of the

one they landed on might be

...............................................................................................................................

Do you think this sort of discussion might encourage more members to produce

comment / answers if we put it on the Forum

PETER --I have not put this on the site as a lot is conjecture. I think what people would really welcome is informed

comment from a professional not ramblings from me!

DAVE --I'm not sure -- I think they might like to speculate themselves and maybe at a level

where we can guide each other a bit -- If we get beyond us I'm quite happy to raise the issues

with our speakers -- They have offered to help.

PETER -- We need to ask people whether they want to carry on discussion on web

and if they do, why aren't they doing it/t

DAVE -- I agree -- I'll ask the audience at the next meeting what they prefer

-but we might as well stick this on until we ask --

Speculation and mathematical " beauty" has served us well so far and may do so again .

It's not like we're peddling deliberate or locally ignorant falsehoods

so long as the basis of the speculation and "THE BEAUTY " of the theory is

understood not to guarantee its truth-- but, dare I say it, only its likelihood

or the likelihood of something similar??

Enough nonsnse for now. Any enlightenment welcomed. from anywhere

Cheers!

Dave Thompson

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (2)

#25

From: "Dave Thompson" <dave_thompson_td@...>
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 9:58 am
Subject: Re: Melvyn Bragg's In Our Time Newsletter - 20/12/2004

tdtuk2002

Offline