Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?
- Thread starter Flunklesnarkin_sl
- Start date
Furry
WoW Office
- 19,782
- 25,087
Neutron radiation and the damage it causes is a low concern for any fusion reactor. It can destroy or make unserviceable the materials housing it slowly over time, but its far less in scale and danger of a problem when compared to the nuclear waste problems involved with fission reactors. That and the fact that the materials here aren't exactly all that expensive would probably just lead to the housing being replaced if this ever becomes a real issue. I can't see it ever being a legitimate concern if we manage to conquer all the other, much more severe issues with making fusion power work.
One thing I am not too aware of is: What are the effects of neutron radiation on superconductors? We know so little about them, and they tend to have some weird properties. I bet someone has done some research...
One thing I am not too aware of is: What are the effects of neutron radiation on superconductors? We know so little about them, and they tend to have some weird properties. I bet someone has done some research...
Yeah it's been talked about before e.g.
http://puhep1.princeton.edu/mumu/tar...ber_052711.pdf
As expected the effects are different for different types of superconductor; happily it doesn't seem that the effects are too significant. The bigger issues seem to be (as usual) with the manufacture of the superconducting tape or wires.
The material MIT are proposing may not have been studied though.
So Hawking, making some waves again.
Stephen Hawking says he has a way to escape from a black hole - New Scientist
Not necessarily a new idea, but taking it in a new direction.
It also opens up a lot of different avenues of exploration. 2-dimensional flow of information around a 3-dimensional singularity could explain multiple effects: black hole "rotation", relativistic jets, Hawking radiation, how black holes accrete... Exciting stuff.
Stephen Hawking says he has a way to escape from a black hole - New Scientist
Not necessarily a new idea, but taking it in a new direction.
It also opens up a lot of different avenues of exploration. 2-dimensional flow of information around a 3-dimensional singularity could explain multiple effects: black hole "rotation", relativistic jets, Hawking radiation, how black holes accrete... Exciting stuff.
pharmakos
soʞɐɯɹɐɥd
- 16,306
- -2,235
pharmakos
soʞɐɯɹɐɥd
- 16,306
- -2,235
to me, a theoretical physicist trying to prove the existence of alternate universes is about akin to a paleontologist trying to prove that dragons existed
maybe i'm wrong, but it really to me just sounds like wishful thinking caused by too much science fiction
maybe i'm wrong, but it really to me just sounds like wishful thinking caused by too much science fiction
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,656
It might be, but when the laws of physics can no longer be said to apply -- when you find that boundary -- I think you can name whatever is on "the other side" to be an alternate universe without conjuring up visions of Star Trek and alien fishmonsters.
I'm not nearly educated enough to make a distinction between a deviant subset or an alternate. And it seems a little bit like a matter of semantics. "In this area, shit be different yo. Real different."
Because semantically Universe descibes the whole to me. Even the areas where shit is real different and none of our tediously derived concepts apply. If we can express it, that is part of the Universe. I also suspect that there are elements of the whole which we cannot express and possibly may not ever be able to express... but that's not the Universe's fault.
I'm not nearly educated enough to make a distinction between a deviant subset or an alternate. And it seems a little bit like a matter of semantics. "In this area, shit be different yo. Real different."
Because semantically Universe descibes the whole to me. Even the areas where shit is real different and none of our tediously derived concepts apply. If we can express it, that is part of the Universe. I also suspect that there are elements of the whole which we cannot express and possibly may not ever be able to express... but that's not the Universe's fault.
pharmakos
soʞɐɯɹɐɥd
- 16,306
- -2,235
i always felt like Godel's Incompleteness Theorems applied to more than just math.
the Incompleteness Theorems essentially just state that all proofs are necessarily either incomplete or incorrect, or both.
pharmakos
soʞɐɯɹɐɥd
- 16,306
- -2,235
tried for a bit to find a good explanation of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem for people that aren't familiar with hardcore logic/math. here's the best one i found so far:
-----------------
and here's anotherdecent but not great oneone that sucks actually upon further reading:Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem and God | Perry Marshall
this line from it is great, though:
What is Godel's Theorem? - Scientific American
-----------------
and here's anotherdecent but not great oneone that sucks actually upon further reading:Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem and God | Perry Marshall
this line from it is great, though:
It's not quite true that "the Incompleteness Theorems essentially just state that all proofs are necessarily either incomplete or incorrect, or both."
The two predicates for GIT are 1) the theory being studied is complete and 2) the theory being studied is sufficiently strong. Hawking'shypothesisis, at this point--and I would easily bet by his own admission--neither. Nor do I believe he's trying to prove the existence of other universes. I think that was more of an, "This could still be part of the explanation. We haven't ruled it out."
You also seem to be under the assumption that scientists believe our universe is self-contained--set aside from other universes (if they exist at all). As far as I know, there has never actually been any proof to this concept. We haven't drawn a circle around anything yet. We don't even knowhowto reference our universe against what is not our universe, except in very superficial ways (differences in constants, for instance).
...And I think we're talking cross-purposes. I hope we're not. But I think I may be misunderstanding you.
The two predicates for GIT are 1) the theory being studied is complete and 2) the theory being studied is sufficiently strong. Hawking'shypothesisis, at this point--and I would easily bet by his own admission--neither. Nor do I believe he's trying to prove the existence of other universes. I think that was more of an, "This could still be part of the explanation. We haven't ruled it out."
You also seem to be under the assumption that scientists believe our universe is self-contained--set aside from other universes (if they exist at all). As far as I know, there has never actually been any proof to this concept. We haven't drawn a circle around anything yet. We don't even knowhowto reference our universe against what is not our universe, except in very superficial ways (differences in constants, for instance).
...And I think we're talking cross-purposes. I hope we're not. But I think I may be misunderstanding you.
No argument there.
As far as "complete" goes in this sense, however, I had learned that for this case, it meant, "Sufficiently complex, sufficiently simplified." Basically with enough explanatory power that it can be formulated. (Whether or not that formula is itself simple is another matter.)
As far as "complete" goes in this sense, however, I had learned that for this case, it meant, "Sufficiently complex, sufficiently simplified." Basically with enough explanatory power that it can be formulated. (Whether or not that formula is itself simple is another matter.)
Furry
WoW Office
- 19,782
- 25,087
I won't even give this paper the fart in the wind it deserves. They don't talk about or mention the loopholes that they don't close. Closing two loopholes in one experiment is not new or ground-breaking in any way. To prove QE you -MUST- close every loophole simultaneously. Any one left open immediately invalidates the experiment, and there are more than two loopholes to close.
Additionally, you don't even seem to understand the mathematical concept that bells equation tried prove; the concept itself something I've brought into question before in this thread, so any attempt to argue with you on the fundamentals of this subject is completely wasted.
Additionally, you don't even seem to understand the mathematical concept that bells equation tried prove; the concept itself something I've brought into question before in this thread, so any attempt to argue with you on the fundamentals of this subject is completely wasted.
Closing things simultaneously a particle scale seems like it would fall under an uncertainty principle.
Ambiturner
Ssraeszha Raider
- 16,040
- 19,502
You either didn't read the paper, or don't understand the loopholes. I'm guessing both