Quantum physics: What is really real?
I'm quite pleased to be reading an article about experiments to determine the true nature of quantum physics, particularly when it talks to physicists from two Brisbane universities.
It's a little hard to credit that an incredibly important scientific finding that could change everything could come from Griffith University, or Brisbane generally, but who knows?
You will all bow down and respect the intellectual greatness of the city when that happens, I'm sure...
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
That's weird...then the explanation found
I was scanning the largely unfavourable review of Tomorrowland at Variety, and then had a look at the comment thread. Dominated by complete wingnuts:
I had to get down the thread a fair way to find the explanation:
As suspected, it's a case of sending out the flying monkeys.
I expect a comment by avid Drudge reader Steve Kates might turn up there soon...
Clooney is generally one of the most over-hyped faces out of the lala land that is Hollywood. Wouldn’t waste my money. Tomorrowland will be free on Comcast soon enough…Now who knew that American Tea Party nutters with their hatred for George Clooney would be big readers of Variety?
I’ll never know….Clooney does not get any of my hard earned money no matter how good the show is.
Anything that the Liberal Loon Clooney stars in, is not worth seeing – Total trash!!
I knew the movie was crap as soon as I saw the calving glacier. This is just another shrill eco-whackjob movie with “stupid” as a plot and “even dumber” for dialogue. Only someone who wants their kids indoctrinated into the whacko Leftist theology of environmentalism is going to pay to let their kids see this propagandized drivel.
Purge is coming says:
More pop psy liberal propaganda. Poor baby boomers. The world no longer wants you smelly hippies in the command chair.
I had to get down the thread a fair way to find the explanation:
As suspected, it's a case of sending out the flying monkeys.
I expect a comment by avid Drudge reader Steve Kates might turn up there soon...
Heh
Just spotted at the New Yorker.
It's complicated
Colorado Marijuana Legalization 2015: Fighting The Black Market And The Everyday Challenges Of Selling Legal Weed
Interesting, detailed article here on how the Colorado legal marijuana experience is not wiping out the black market, nor raising as much revenue as forecast. (Presumably, those two results are closely related.)
Interesting, detailed article here on how the Colorado legal marijuana experience is not wiping out the black market, nor raising as much revenue as forecast. (Presumably, those two results are closely related.)
Not paranoid at all
Steve Kates, the Nutty (Associate) Professor of Economics at RMIT who posts at Catallaxy has long made utterly ridiculous statements about the United States and Obama in particular. (He claimed recently not to watch TV at all, which is odd because he reads like the most gullible Fox News watcher on the planet.)
I don't bother reading his posts in detail, but I did notice this in one of his shorter posts today, wherein he seems to have crossed the line into full blown right wing paranoia:
Meanwhile, Sinclair Davidson's contribution to the Right Wing War on the ABC has expanded to the sophisticated level of "I don't like the way she looked at him. That's a real problem."
Yet Davidson himself was one of the talking heads who appeared last week on 7.30 talking about the budget in a pre-recorded bit. And he was on Jonathan Greene's Sunday breakfast show. Do they treat him poorly or with contempt?
The real problem with the ABC is that it gives all IPA types - including Davidson - too easy a pass and too much time to appear in short bursts as "reasonable", when if you actually look into what they write and say elsewhere they are anything but.
I don't bother reading his posts in detail, but I did notice this in one of his shorter posts today, wherein he seems to have crossed the line into full blown right wing paranoia:
I am now convinced that Drudge has been gotten to in the US since there was one report yesterday and then nothing today about what you would think is the most disturbing event since the War in the Middle East began. This is “Nazis take Stalingrad”. Is the news now so suppressed that it can truly be said that we are at war with Eastasia in alliance with Eurasia, as we have always been, and no one notices a thing?
Meanwhile, Sinclair Davidson's contribution to the Right Wing War on the ABC has expanded to the sophisticated level of "I don't like the way she looked at him. That's a real problem."
Yet Davidson himself was one of the talking heads who appeared last week on 7.30 talking about the budget in a pre-recorded bit. And he was on Jonathan Greene's Sunday breakfast show. Do they treat him poorly or with contempt?
The real problem with the ABC is that it gives all IPA types - including Davidson - too easy a pass and too much time to appear in short bursts as "reasonable", when if you actually look into what they write and say elsewhere they are anything but.
Paying the price for blind opposition to harm minimisation
Fighting HIV where no-one admits it's a problem - BBC News
Quite an amazing story here about the rapid rise of HIV - mainly amongst the straight population too, it seems - in Russia; largely due to conservative policies which completely oppose harm minimisation:
Quite an amazing story here about the rapid rise of HIV - mainly amongst the straight population too, it seems - in Russia; largely due to conservative policies which completely oppose harm minimisation:
In an interview this month with Agence France-Presse he was even blunter, saying the Kremlin's policy of promoting traditional family values had failed to halt the spread of the virus. "The last five years of the conservative approach have led to the doubling of the number of
HIV-infected people," he said.
When Pokrovsky argued for the introduction of sex education in schools - a step resolutely opposed by presidential children's rights commissioner Pavel Astakhov - the head of Moscow City Council's health committee, Lyudmila Stebenkova, called him a "typical agent working against the national interests of Russia".
Pokrovsky's approach, she told the Russian newspaper Kommersant, would only increase children's interest in sex and lead to a surge of HIV and other diseasesAnd as for drugs - there'll be no needle exchange programs or methadone in that upright country.
in Russia methadone is banned. The World Health Organization may see the synthetic opiate as essential in combating heroin dependence, but in Russia anyone caught using it or distributing it can face up to 20 years in prison.
Health officials rely instead on narkologia, a traditional form of treatment that dates back to Peter the Great's attempts to fight alcoholism in the early 18th Century. In essence, this
approach consists of isolating the drug user during a month of detoxification, followed up with rehabilitation - including lectures, self-help groups, physiotherapy, diet advice and so on.
Crumbling asteroids
[1505.03800] Quantifying hazards: asteroid disruption in lunar distant retrograde orbits
NASA has been toying with the idea of towing a small asteroid to a close Earth orbit, but as this paper explains, there's a risk any such asteroid may break up if you try to do anything with it. (I like the term "loosely bound rubble pile": reminds me of a website I mention a lot.) Would that end up being a problem for satellites in Earth orbit? Maybe, at least for geosynchronous ones.
NASA has been toying with the idea of towing a small asteroid to a close Earth orbit, but as this paper explains, there's a risk any such asteroid may break up if you try to do anything with it. (I like the term "loosely bound rubble pile": reminds me of a website I mention a lot.) Would that end up being a problem for satellites in Earth orbit? Maybe, at least for geosynchronous ones.
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Drama Queen
Wow. Sure, I at least knew a little about Queen Victoria's over-the-top and decades long mourning for her husband, but until I watched tonight's show on SBS "Queen Victoria's Children" I didn't appreciate what a nutty, harsh, control freak of a (literal) drama Queen she was with her sons. The show featured extracts from many of her letters, and to call her "candid" in her assessments of them and their lives would be a hilarious understatement.
This was the last of 3 episodes, but I missed the previous ones. The second is still available on SBS on Demand for another week, so I must go watch it.
Tomorrow, tomorrow...
Oooh. Early reviews for Brad Bird's Tomorrowland are good enough (some very positive) for me to be enthusiastic about seeing it.
Am waiting for reviews of the new Poltergeist to appear, soon...
Update: Uh-oh. And boy, do I mean uh-oh. From the Time Out review (which is sort of positive) and in my bold:
Am waiting for reviews of the new Poltergeist to appear, soon...
Update: Uh-oh. And boy, do I mean uh-oh. From the Time Out review (which is sort of positive) and in my bold:
‘Tomorrowland’ is singularly unafraid of weighty concepts, tackling climate change, our ongoing fascination with the apocalypse and the very Disney-ish idea of being ‘special’. It does get dry (some scenes feel suspiciously like TED talks) and the script’s fleeting efforts to unpick its dubious Ayn Rand-ish central ideology are completely undermined by a clunky, flat-as-a-pancake finale.Update 2: surely he's wrong. The Guardian likes it:
But when it puts down its copy of ‘Political Philosophy for Dummies’ and focuses on character and action, ‘Tomorrowland’ is a blast.
It’s a brave family movie that invests in high-budget thrills without the safety-net of a franchise brand, mows down a small child with a pickup truck (it’s OK, she’s a robot), and subjects us to the sight of Hugh Laurie in black leather jodhpurs. But bolder still is Tomorrowland’s sincere attempt to jump-start humanity’s technological optimism, which it reckons stalled with the decline of the space race with potentially planet-threatening consequences. Whether or not that’s the answer to the planet’s current problems, director Brad Bird deserves praise for packing such big ideas into such an accessible, rip-roaring, retro-futurist adventure.
Carbon tax and the libertarians
Jason Soon linked to an article about this last week, but I see more writers are commenting about the promotion of a carbon tax by an American libertarian Jerry Taylor. He's gone and set up his own think tank and his proposal is for a revenue neutral carbon tax that gradually rises. In other words, it does not result in greater government retained revenue (hence is supposed to be libertarian friendly.) And the political deal is that this is done in replacement of Obama's attempt to reduce carbon burning by regulating the power industry via the EPA.
I have a few immediate observations:
1. James Hansen, the (I think) registered Republican (how he can live with himself on that matter I don't know) granddaddy scientist of climate change has been promoting the same idea since at least 2009, possibly earlier. Are window licking Tea Party Republican types going to suddenly agree that he had a good idea all along? I don't think so...
2. I see that even Republican hero for stating the obvious and then taking it too far (Arthur Laffer) and Republican representative Bob Inglis have also been suggesting this since at least 2008.
3. Jason may recall a thread from Catallaxy years ago in which he, Sinclair Davidson and I had some exchanges about this, and Sinclair acknowledged that if you had to do something about climate change, a revenue neutral carbon tax would be the preferable way to do it. I'm pretty sure that I said that one practical problem I could see was how to match the level of tax to the desired target of reductions, likely meaning some continual fiddling with the rate of the tax leading to investment uncertainties that business dislikes. (On the other hand, it is less liable to the rorting involved in cap and trade scheme offsets which may prove to be off dubious value - planting a bunch of trees that go up in a forest fire in decade's time, for example, or paying for no forest clearing in a country where poor law enforcement means it happens anyway.)
4. Sinclair Davidson then wrote in2014 [2010 - the IPA confused me by having two publications both called "Climate Change - The Facts"] in the IPA's short collection of essays by climate change denialists/lukewarmers, based on the "climategate" emails:
5. There is considerable uncertainty in terms of modelling about its effects. I think there was a good exchange between Taylor and an economist on his website about this, but I haven't found it again, yet. This article looks more broadly at the question from a "progressive" point of view, and I think makes some decent points. Certainly, I would be skeptical of some incredibly optimist forecasts for its effects as cited in The Guardian, even if it would seem the British Columbian example has some positive reviews.
My initial conclusion is therefore:
a. good on Taylor for actually believing science and not taking the libertarian "denial or lukewarmer" line. Good on him for pointing out the obvious about the "free rider" aspect, that if large, rich economies do nothing to institute this, developing economies have no clear reason to either.
b. as the idea has been around for quite a while now, the problem is not that it theoretically appeals to libertarians, even the likes of Sinclair Davidson - the problem is the degree to which the great bulk of libertarians have adopted multipronged denialism/do-nothing-ism, and not moved an inch from the position that there is no problem worth addressing. The proposal is going no where until that changes.
c. the requirement of "revenue neutrality" is an unwarranted ideological add on that puts one aspect of a carbon tax less useful that it could otherwise be, in that internationally governments are scratching around looking at revenue sources and the problems of corporate tax minimisation. I don't see why this should be a strict condition on the implementation of a carbon tax, even if the bulk of it is used to reduce other taxes.
I have a few immediate observations:
1. James Hansen, the (I think) registered Republican (how he can live with himself on that matter I don't know) granddaddy scientist of climate change has been promoting the same idea since at least 2009, possibly earlier. Are window licking Tea Party Republican types going to suddenly agree that he had a good idea all along? I don't think so...
2. I see that even Republican hero for stating the obvious and then taking it too far (Arthur Laffer) and Republican representative Bob Inglis have also been suggesting this since at least 2008.
3. Jason may recall a thread from Catallaxy years ago in which he, Sinclair Davidson and I had some exchanges about this, and Sinclair acknowledged that if you had to do something about climate change, a revenue neutral carbon tax would be the preferable way to do it. I'm pretty sure that I said that one practical problem I could see was how to match the level of tax to the desired target of reductions, likely meaning some continual fiddling with the rate of the tax leading to investment uncertainties that business dislikes. (On the other hand, it is less liable to the rorting involved in cap and trade scheme offsets which may prove to be off dubious value - planting a bunch of trees that go up in a forest fire in decade's time, for example, or paying for no forest clearing in a country where poor law enforcement means it happens anyway.)
4. Sinclair Davidson then wrote in
...we can have no confidence in the observations that temperature has increased due to human activity because the mechanisms of science have been subverted.So his attitude: problem? what problem?; and I'll throw my weight behind trying to convince the public there's no problem.
5. There is considerable uncertainty in terms of modelling about its effects. I think there was a good exchange between Taylor and an economist on his website about this, but I haven't found it again, yet. This article looks more broadly at the question from a "progressive" point of view, and I think makes some decent points. Certainly, I would be skeptical of some incredibly optimist forecasts for its effects as cited in The Guardian, even if it would seem the British Columbian example has some positive reviews.
My initial conclusion is therefore:
a. good on Taylor for actually believing science and not taking the libertarian "denial or lukewarmer" line. Good on him for pointing out the obvious about the "free rider" aspect, that if large, rich economies do nothing to institute this, developing economies have no clear reason to either.
b. as the idea has been around for quite a while now, the problem is not that it theoretically appeals to libertarians, even the likes of Sinclair Davidson - the problem is the degree to which the great bulk of libertarians have adopted multipronged denialism/do-nothing-ism, and not moved an inch from the position that there is no problem worth addressing. The proposal is going no where until that changes.
c. the requirement of "revenue neutrality" is an unwarranted ideological add on that puts one aspect of a carbon tax less useful that it could otherwise be, in that internationally governments are scratching around looking at revenue sources and the problems of corporate tax minimisation. I don't see why this should be a strict condition on the implementation of a carbon tax, even if the bulk of it is used to reduce other taxes.
More detail on the prospects for home brew heroin
Engineered yeast paves way for home-brew heroin : Nature News & Comment
There's considerably more detail here on the story about yeast being engineered for making opiates.
I see that they haven't actually done it yet, or made it efficient, and the researchers are calling for serious discussion on regulation to prevent any such future engineered yeast from getting into the hands of the public.
In short, finding it being used by your neighbourhood bikies is likely many years away yet.
Sorry, any "war on drugs is futile" meme layers out there, this doesn't support your case. It shows what sensible people should do - regulate to do their best to prevent foreseeable future problems.
There's considerably more detail here on the story about yeast being engineered for making opiates.
I see that they haven't actually done it yet, or made it efficient, and the researchers are calling for serious discussion on regulation to prevent any such future engineered yeast from getting into the hands of the public.
In short, finding it being used by your neighbourhood bikies is likely many years away yet.
Sorry, any "war on drugs is futile" meme layers out there, this doesn't support your case. It shows what sensible people should do - regulate to do their best to prevent foreseeable future problems.
Monday, May 18, 2015
Worse than not watching the news
How Fox News Is (Still) Hurting the Republicans - The Atlantic
Some amusing findings in a recent report from a Republican aligned operative:
Some amusing findings in a recent report from a Republican aligned operative:
(a) that Fox’s core viewers are factually worse-informed than people who follow other sources, and even those who don’t follow news at all, and (b) that the mode of perpetual outrage that is Fox’s goal and effect has become a serious problem for the Republican party, in that it pushes its candidates to sound always-outraged themselves.
About designer babies
I see that Jason Soon is continuing his enthusiasm for the future enhancement of the human gene pool by direct genetic manipulation. (I suspect all the clones under the masks in Star Wars look just like him.)
Skipping over, for a moment, the unforeseeable mistakes and unintended consequences that I would bet a testicle will be inherent in direct genetic manipulation, here's a thought pertaining to the supposed wisdom of people making such reproductive decisions: given that there is one clear and obvious way in which the (illegal but enthusiastically used) market in baby selection has been already been given a good run in places like India, China and South Korea, namely gender selective abortion, why should anyone have grounds for optimism that the widespread selection for "good" qualities in future would be handled wisely and have any better result for society overall?
[The large disparity between male and female births in those countries is surely not a good thing, by anyone's reckoning.]
Skipping over, for a moment, the unforeseeable mistakes and unintended consequences that I would bet a testicle will be inherent in direct genetic manipulation, here's a thought pertaining to the supposed wisdom of people making such reproductive decisions: given that there is one clear and obvious way in which the (illegal but enthusiastically used) market in baby selection has been already been given a good run in places like India, China and South Korea, namely gender selective abortion, why should anyone have grounds for optimism that the widespread selection for "good" qualities in future would be handled wisely and have any better result for society overall?
[The large disparity between male and female births in those countries is surely not a good thing, by anyone's reckoning.]
Rat empathy re-visited
Rats Forgo Treats to Rescue a Distressed Cage Mate - D-brief
Another great rat experiment here - showing that, most of the time, rats will save a drowning friend over having a tasty chocolate treat.
If the helper had been in the pool previously, they were more likely to save their buddy.
As it happens, over the weekend, my son and I had to sit through a Powerpoint presentation by my daughter as to why she should get a pet rat. (All households work this way, don't they?)
This study, which I only read today, is helping her cause...
Another great rat experiment here - showing that, most of the time, rats will save a drowning friend over having a tasty chocolate treat.
If the helper had been in the pool previously, they were more likely to save their buddy.
As it happens, over the weekend, my son and I had to sit through a Powerpoint presentation by my daughter as to why she should get a pet rat. (All households work this way, don't they?)
This study, which I only read today, is helping her cause...
Head down for 60 days
In Germany, there will be bed rest experiments to simulate the effect of weightlessness on health. Sure, these have been done before, but the details make me feel queasy just thinking about it:
In the first major study to be carried out in Envihab, the challenge will be to lie in bed for 60 days in a row to study the effects of long duration spaceflight. The experiment starts this summer and the medical team is currently in the process of selecting 12 participants....Then, for more fun, they'll be put in a centrifuge:
“To cheat gravity, we tilt the subjects head-down by six degrees,” says Limper. “This is very important, so that the head is below the rest of the body.”
Stuck at this peculiar angle, the volunteers will also be expected to eat a nutritionally controlled diet and go to the toilet using bedpans and urine bottles. They will be monitored 24 hours a day on close-circuit TV and even be transferred to special water-proof tilted beds to take a shower.
Future studies will also employ a device located at the heart of Envihab: a human centrifuge. Contained within a large white (windowless) cylinder, it consists of four arms, around three metres long, arranged in a cross about a central axis. One of the arms is fitted with a bed, so doctors can spin volunteers to simulate varying accelerations.I hope the participants are paid well...
It is deliberately smaller than most human centrifuges. “We think this is more or less the size we could implement on a space station,” says Limper.
Worst ban ever
I did tune in yesterday to watch Andrew Bolt try on his jihad against the ABC with Malcolm Turnbull, and noted that he claimed (again) that he has articles that are "banned" under the Racial Discrimination Act.
Since the article concerned (which appeared under two titles, as I understand it) is still hosted in full at his own blog, this must be the most ineffective "ban" ever made by a court [/sarc].
Update: OK, so there were two articles, one is now at his blog and one on the Herald site; I had forgotten. For my Google challenged commenter I provide links here and here.
Since the article concerned (which appeared under two titles, as I understand it) is still hosted in full at his own blog, this must be the most ineffective "ban" ever made by a court [/sarc].
Update: OK, so there were two articles, one is now at his blog and one on the Herald site; I had forgotten. For my Google challenged commenter I provide links here and here.
The muted Right
Is it just me, or does it seem to anyone else that the criticism of last week's Budget from the ABC collective (the Australian, Bolt and Catallaxy) been rather muted?
Sure, Sinclair Davidson has been on the media quite a bit saying that the Budget is not what the economy needs, but he seems to be saying it with a resigned shrug to the effect of "that's politics for you." I see that Henry Ergas is taking a similar line, while saying he harshest words for Bill Shorten for being "shrill" and not compromising. I'm pretty sure Judith Sloan also took a "heavy sigh" approach, but that was it.
I don't quite understand why - have they given up on being strongly influential on the Liberal Party?
Sure, Sinclair Davidson has been on the media quite a bit saying that the Budget is not what the economy needs, but he seems to be saying it with a resigned shrug to the effect of "that's politics for you." I see that Henry Ergas is taking a similar line, while saying he harshest words for Bill Shorten for being "shrill" and not compromising. I'm pretty sure Judith Sloan also took a "heavy sigh" approach, but that was it.
I don't quite understand why - have they given up on being strongly influential on the Liberal Party?
Sunday, May 17, 2015
Yet more Lomborg
Rabbet Run features a post about Lomborg's dubious method that (apparently) helps ensure that climate change drops in priority when he's doing his "let's decide what problem should be dealt with first" exercises. The argument dates back to 2009, though, and it's surprising that it isn't more widely known than it seems to be.
The post also features this nice graphic that's been a recent hit on the twittersphere, and it sure doesn't hurt to promulgate it further:
Meanwhile, at The Conversation, there's an interesting post up with the title Bjorn Lomborg’s consensus approach is blind to inequality.
The argument is that the cost-benefit analysis that is Lomborg's shtick now does not have adequate regard to intergenerational inequality. The explanation of discounting is dealt with pleasing clarity:
The post also features this nice graphic that's been a recent hit on the twittersphere, and it sure doesn't hurt to promulgate it further:
Meanwhile, at The Conversation, there's an interesting post up with the title Bjorn Lomborg’s consensus approach is blind to inequality.
The argument is that the cost-benefit analysis that is Lomborg's shtick now does not have adequate regard to intergenerational inequality. The explanation of discounting is dealt with pleasing clarity:
The picture is complicated even more when considering issues where the benefits are deferred – such as taking action on climate change.
Cost-benefit calculations typically deal with this by using “discount rates”. Typically, humans are not good at deferred gratification; we would much rather have $100 today than next year, so discount rates place a lower value on returns the further they are in the future.
This approach is contentious, particularly in environmental economics, where the benefits of our investments accrue to future generations rather than ourselves. Do we have the ethical right to discount the value of the lives and livelihoods of future generations against our own shorter-term financial benefit?
In climate economics, the time horizons are so long that even a relatively low discount rate can generate apparently absurd conclusions. More generally, any discount rate can be interpreted as a preference for intergenerational inequality: it systematically values the welfare of future generations at a lower level than our own.But someone in comments disputes the take on "utility" in the article, saying this:
Your explanation of utility is not quite right and quite unfair to poor old Jeremy Bentham. Given diminishing marginal utility of income, a concept devised by Bentham, an investment that generates a smaller financial return but accrues to a poor person rather than a rich person could easily be considered superior in terms of utility. It seems to me your criticism of Lomborg is precisely that he doesn't assess investments in term of utility.Regardless of that, another comment in the thread perhaps make a more general point that sounds about right:
I started working in the cost-benefit area in the 70s, directly applying the Tom Peters, Deming, et al methodologies. In those days the benefits in particular specifically included non-financial outcomes but this aspect seems to have been lost in today's economic rationalist approach.
Even this article says that in a CBA "You work out the economic cost of a particular investment (or policy) and estimate its economic benefits".
Admittedly it then points out the omission of inequality but there are many other omissions in the same line that we cannot quantify (basic health, environmental health, future opportunities of particular strategies such as pure research and education in the arts, etc.)
This is also the most glaring omission in Lomborg's approach, as he trivialises the science and ignores the intangibles. Even his claim of economic projections beyond say a couple of years have to be regarded with a pinch of salt.
Economics is only one discipline. We need more than that for human progress.
No need to see
Over the weekend, I see that the Fury Road movie got couple of bad reviews - one in The Conversation, and the other by David Stratton, who usually bends over backwards to be positive about Australian films.
On the other hand, overseas critics, even ones I enjoy and more-or-less trust, such as Anthony Lane, think it's great. But when I read the description of what it's about (a cross between Titus Andronicus and Cannonball Run, Lane indicates) I am thoroughly satisfied I should not see it.
On the other hand, overseas critics, even ones I enjoy and more-or-less trust, such as Anthony Lane, think it's great. But when I read the description of what it's about (a cross between Titus Andronicus and Cannonball Run, Lane indicates) I am thoroughly satisfied I should not see it.
Friday, May 15, 2015
A nose for physics?
Hey, a year ago I linked to a paper on arXiv about the transmission of information without the exchange of energy.
Now my favourite physicist blogger has posted about it too, and she seems to think it's quite significant.
I can't remember how I first found the paper (I do sometimes just read the long list of papers at arXiv, but have been doing less of it lately) but I am encouraged that perhaps I have a good nose for interesting physics, even if I can't quite comprehend it.
Now my favourite physicist blogger has posted about it too, and she seems to think it's quite significant.
I can't remember how I first found the paper (I do sometimes just read the long list of papers at arXiv, but have been doing less of it lately) but I am encouraged that perhaps I have a good nose for interesting physics, even if I can't quite comprehend it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)