A certain politician was on The Daily Show the other day. He complained to John Steward that people say derogatory things about his religious group, like they are anti-science. Steward let the comment go. What I would have liked to have heard Steward say in response was:

“When you argue against climate science, evolution science, and big bang science, and offer no verified predictions to counter these theories, what do you expect?”

Don’t get me wrong. I myself am not arguing for or against any religious viewpoint. I’m just saying you can’t take on established science without confirmed predictions in support of your argument.

I’m not saying you gotta believe everything you read about science. On the contrary, healthy skepticism is a key to scientific progress. But at the heart of new science is a “prediction” — a new and specific prediction which can be tested. If and when other scientists independently validate your prediction via careful observation and measurement, then your new theory must be accepted as having merit.

Charles Darwin famously predicted the discovery of a “missing link” between humans and apes. Fossils which contain both human and ape-like characteristics have since been found. Today, compelling evidence in support of evolution’s predictions has been found everywhere across our planet, including in the DNA which makes up all living things.

The Cosmic Microwave Background is just one example of the many predictions made by the big bang theory verified by observation. Climate scientists’ predictions of long-term global temperature rise, arctic melting, sea rise, and more frequent extreme weather events have now been observed world-wide.

This is why these theories are overwhelmingly accepted by science experts in their respective fields. They represent our best current scientific understanding of the phenomena they describe.

So if you want to argue against established science, please feel free to do so. But please make a new prediction. One which can be scientifically tested. Otherwise, don’t call your ideas verified science.

Ira Mark Egdall is the author of the eBook, Unsung Heroes of Modern Physics.
- Link to book on Amazon: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Unsung-Heroes-Modern-Physics-ebook/dp/B00969VA9G
– Link on Smashwords: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/213708

My website: Marksmodernphysics.com
Follow me on Twitter@IMEgdall

I find I am drawn to stories about those who science history had forgotten – unsung heroes who never got proper credit for their accomplishments. Who discovered the expansion of the universe? Who was the first to find evidence for dark matter? Who was the first person in space? Who came up with quantum field theory?

I was surprised to find they were not who I had thought. So I wrote a short compilation of essays on five such individuals – men and women who, despite extraordinary achievements, remain unknown to the general public and to many scientists.

My ebook, Unsung Heroes of Modern Physics, was a joy to write, and I hope it helps set the record straight. Please check it out.

Link to book on Smashwords: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/213708

Link on Amazon: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Unsung-Heroes-Modern-Physics-ebook/dp/B00969VA9G

Decoded Science asked me to write an article on a new modeling breakthrough in quantum mechanics. It involves sampling and feedback of Feynman diagrams. I read the press release out of UMass Amherst. Oh boy, this is a tough one. Lots of obscure terms like Green’s function, strongly-correlated fermions, and mapping bosonic systems into polymers in four dimensions.

Oy! How do I “decode” this stuff so a non-expert can understand it when I have difficulty understanding it myself.

So I ask Decoded Science to set up an interview with one of the principle researchers, Dr. Boris Svistunov. I call him. He’s really smart, patient with my many questions, and obviously excited about his work. I take notes and struggle to comprehend what he is telling me.

After several conversations, I find I have a much better understanding of the physics. I think.

I know from Feynman’s wonderful book, QED, the Strange Theory of Light and Matter, it is impossible to tell what a single particle will do. All physicists can do is tell the probability of a certain outcome.

And now I understand there are two ways to determine this probability.

Sum-of-All-Paths Method:

Say a photon is emitted at point A. What is the probability it is detected some time later at point B? The photon can simply go directly from A to B. Or it can take one of any number of less direct paths. Per the sum-of-all-paths method, all possible paths the photon could take contribute to the probability of detecting it at B.

Which path did the photon actually take? It seems it took them all. Why? Because when we sum all possible paths (more precisely we sum amplitudes for each path, then square), we get the probability of finding the photon at B.

Feynman Diagrams Method:

A Feynman diagram, however, depicts (visually and mathematically) virtual interaction events. Let’s look at examples from Feynman’s book:

Imagine an electron going from A to B. It could go from A to B with no interactions. (diagram 1). Here the straight line represents the sum of all the paths it could take.

Or the electron could emit and absorb a photon along the way (diagram 2). Or the electron could emit and absorb two photons along the way (diagram 3). Or one of the photons could transform into an electron and anti-electron (positron), annihilate, and produce a new photon along the way (diagram 4). Etc.

Each Feynman diagram depicts possible events which could happen as the electron goes from A to B. But what versions of interactions actually occur? Again, it is though all versions occur. Why? Because when we add all possible diagrams (all the amplitudes and square), we get the probability of detecting the electron at B.

This is so strange. But it works. It makes super-accurate predictions. So it must be telling us something about reality.

Why are the events in each Feynman diagram called “virtual”? Because, per Svistunov, “they cannot in themselves be verified by experiment. Only the sum of all Feynman diagrams is physically meaningful.”

How do you determine probabilities for quantum systems involving a large number of particles? For bosons (integer spin like photons), the sum of all paths method has proven effective in most cases. But for fermions (half-integer spin like electrons), we need the Umass team’s new breakthrough: sampling and feedback of Feynman diagrams. (Please see article for details.)

I learn something every day. Which is no doubt a measure of how little I know.

I welcome your thoughts and comments.

Link to article is here.

http://www.decodedscience.com/quantum-breakthrough-feynman-diagram-sampling-and-feedback/11811/2

My email:megdall@marksmodernphysics.com
My website: marksmodernphysics.com
Follow me: Twitter@IMEgdall

I know from personal experience that for a scientist or engineer working on a complex state-of-the-art project, the greatest fear is making a simple mistake which proves disastrous. So when I learned the faster than light CERN experiment may be in error due to a faulty fiber optic connection, I blurted “oh, no!”

Apparently, CERN has identified two possible issues in their faster than light neutrino experiment: 1) the faulty optical fiber which would make the neutrino speeds less than reported, and 2) an oscillator used for GPS timing which would make the neutrino speeds greater than reported.

If true, it means great embarrassment to the CERN teams, and in particular the individuals responsible for the equipment. How could they overlook such simple things? There are just so many new and untried instruments, measurement devices, and methods in such an endeavor — the odds of missing something the first time through are quite high, no matter what the “quality control” approach.

In hindsight, the results should not have been released to the public until a full evaluation of the experiment, and a repeat test confirming findings. This, of course, is most difficult in our near instantaneous, globally-connected, hyper-information age. Not to make excuses, but I find my sympathies are with the folks at CERN.

We will have to wait for further analysis to find out the total impact of these issues. Most likely, final results will confirm Einstein was right — neutrinos do not travel faster than the speed of light. But for sure, the latest issues show we are all human. And the devil is in the details.

Link: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/48763

What do you think? I welcome all comments — pro and con.

My website: marksmodernphysics.com
My email: megdall@marksmodernphysics.com
Follow me: Twitter@IMEgdall

Nature is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.
– J. B. S. Haldane

You want wild and crazy? Forget jumping out of an airplane or going out with that nose-pierced, body tattooed delinquent with the multi-colored hair your mother hates. Just look at reality.

I’m talking about the reality revealed by so-called quantum entanglement, where two particles — no matter how far apart — are intimately and instantly connected.

Take two entangled photons moving in different directions. Per conservation laws, if one is vertically polarized, the other must be horizontally polarized, and vice-versa. So when you measure the polarization of one photon, you instantly know the polarization of the other.

So what’s the big deal? Einstein and his colleagues Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) argued each photon had a certain polarization before you measured it. All the measurement did was reveal what that polarization was all along. And once you measured the first photon, you knew what the second photon’s polarization was.

But quantum theory says a photon’s polarization, like its other variable attributes, is in a kind of limbo. Its polarization is undetermined until it is measured. In other words, a particle’s attributes like polarization are not programmed in advance. They exist only after measurement.

Physicists have since conducted a number of tests to find out whether this is true. These Bell experiments show quantum theory is right. A particle’s variable attributes are not pre-programmed. They are random — determined in the act of observation itself.

So in the above experiment, the polarizations of both photons start out indeterminate, in quantum limbo. The act of measuring the first photon sets its polarization — and the polarization of the second photon. Instantly. Across space. No matter how far apart the two particles are. Something here can and does influence something way over there. In zero time. The universe is “non-local”.

This quantum reasoning also applies to a particle’s location. As Rosenblum and Kuttner wrote in their book, Quantum Enigma, a particle “was not there before you found it there. Your happening to find it there caused it to be there.”

Whoa. Our universe is wilder than we can imagine.

Caveat: Arguments against the completeness of quantum theory and the interpretation of Bell experiments remain topics of ongoing physics discussion and research. David Bohm’s so-called Causal Interpretation of quantum mechanics is the most famous non-local hidden variable theory (there are a number of others). Bohm’s theory reproduces the predictions of quantum mechanics without resorting to probabilities. In Bohm’s clever but convoluted construct, a particle’s attributes are pre-programmed, known before measurement. Based on an idea from Louis de Broglie, a hidden “guiding wave” traveling faster than light governs the motion of a particle. However, the theory remains non-local.

What do you think? I welcome all comments — pro and con.

My website: marksmodernphysics.com
You can also follow me on Twitter@IMEgdall

For those who want to learn more about global warming (pro and con), I suggest “Global Warming is not a Crisis” under Sciences, Earth Sciences, Climate Science on Scienceforums.net. The link is:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/60467-global-warming-is-not-a-crisis/

Of course I have my own biases, but, after reading all the arguments, I am more and more convinced human-induced climate change is real and urgent. Here’s some of what convinced me:

Measurement Data Supports Warming - per Swansont #163 and 165:

“2005 and 2010 are tied for the warmest years on record. All eleven years in the 21st century so far (2001–2011) rank among the 13 warmest in the 132-year period of record. Only one year during the 20th century — 1998 — was warmer than 2011. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

“In the last 25 years the temperature has gone up about 0.35º C while the CO2 concentration has gone from 350 to 390 ppm. The dependence is logarithmic, so this gives us a sensitivity of ~2º C for a doubling of CO2, ignoring any latency in the system. If you go back ~35 years, it’s about 0.5º C and we start at 330 ppm. Again, you get 2º C.

The predictions are that this sensitivity is between 1.5 and 4.5. (In other words, the predicted warming has occurred.)”

Warming is Not Due to Natural Factors - per Captain Panic #46:

“Nobody said it’s just 1 factor. But recently there was only 1 factor which changed a lot: humans. There is no increased meteor activity. Water is already in the models. Properly. Continents move really slow. The earth’s tilt hasn’t changed much either. The oceans are in the models already. All that extra CO2 comes from us. The only thing debated is whether it will really make the world heat up or not.”

Increase in Atmospheric Carbon Traced to Human Activities - per Swansont #47 and 60:

“Fossil-fuel carbon is devoid of C-14, and there are difference is the C-12/C-13 ratio for terrestrial vs. oceanic sources. You can do isotopic analysis to find the dominant source of the increase in atmospheric carbon. Can you guess the answer?

“It’s not just that C-12 increased. C-13 and C-14 did not increase in the proportion you would get if the sources were natural. The changes in the ratios is what you get from fossil fuel burning (by human activity).”

Past Climate Change Different - per Swansont #97

“The past spikes correlate with eccentricity variation in the earth’s orbit — the trigger there is the solar radiation hitting the planet, and in those cases, CO2 was also from a feedback effect. (CO2 did not cause the initial rise in temperature)

http://en.wikipedia….eccentricity.29

That kind of change doesn’t happen in a matter of decades, though, and the ice-age-cycle CO2 levels topped out at under 300 ppm.”

http://en.wikipedia….xide_400kyr.png

Current Global Climate is Changing Alarmingly Fast - per Essay #100 and #123 (from the National Academies Press):

“A change worth 30 million years, occurring within about a century, has not happened for over 50 million years (or longer) of Earth’s history. We were just lemurs in the trees, that long ago, and the modern C4 grasses had not even evolved yet. This is also before the polar ice caps existed.

“We are pushing our atmosphere back to conditions prevailing 30 million years ago, within just several more generations! Hello?! Does anyone see a problem with surviving those conditions, for the next several millennia?”

I think we need to take action now to reduce human-induced climate change. The evidence is too compelling to ignore. And the potential impact on human life (as well as on other life forms) is devastating.

What do you think? I welcome all comments — pro and con.

My website: marksmodernphysics.com
You can also follow me on Twitter@IMEgdall

Late one night while trying to fall asleep, counting sheep or goats or something — a crazy thought popped into my head. The names we give our numbers are illogical. In fact they’re idiotic, merely the result of the evolution of the English language. “Why do children have to suffer the learning of number names that are inconsistent?” I asked myself. It’s hard enough to learn to count on your fingers (which I still do when no one is looking).

So I’m thinking: The numbers zero through nine are OK. Admittedly, the names representing the first nine integer values are arbitrary, but there are no logical inconsistencies. But there’s a big problem with the number ten. It is the first two-digit number in the series. This — I learned in high school math class — is because we use the base ten counting system (derived from having ten digits on our hands). I propose renaming the number ten as the number onety.

Say good-bye to eleven, twelve, and thirteen through nineteen. They are now simply onety-one, onety-two, onety-three, onety-four, onety-five, onety-six, onety-seven, onety-eight, and onety-nine. Think of it, no more “teenage” years and all the angst associated with that term. In telling time, what we now call “fifteen minutes after ten” would be “onety-five minutes after onety”. Has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it? And it’s logically consistent.

So what should we call the number twenty? Why twoty of course. Continuing, we have twoty-one, twoty-two, twoty-three, twoty-four, twoty-five, twoty-six, twoty-seven, twoty-eight, and twoty-nine. Simple, huh! Imagine the fun you’ll have asking for “Twoty-two tutti-frutti ice cream cones, please.”

Then there is, of course, threety, threety-one, threety-two, threety-three, etc. Followed by fourty. Sounds the same, but the spelling is now consistent. Fourty-one through fourty-nine complete the string.

What’s next? That’s right, fivety. Followed by fivety-one through fivety-nine. Continuing, it’s simply sixty through sixty-nine, just as before! Seventy through seventy-nine follow. Oh, thank goodness, no more changes. Not quite. Eightty through eightty-nine follow. Sorry, two t’s for constancy. Ninety to ninety-nine complete the two-digit integer number set.

After that, I see no reason to change the number names one hundred, two hundred etc., and one thousand, one-million, one-billion, one-trillion etc. There is no logical inconsistencies here, as far as I can tell.

Cinderella looks up at the clock. It is onety-one threety-five. She dances with the Prince for twoty- five more minutes. Suddenly she runs out of the grand ballroom, and down the stairs, a glass slipper falling from her foot, as the clock strikes onety-two.

Just think about it. Wouldn’t it be better to use a simple, consistent system for something so important and used as often as the names of our numbers? Sure it would be an adjustment for the present generation. We have already learned the old-fashioned illogical names. But children would adapt to the new system very quickly, and within a generation or so, the improvement would be permanent. From then on, once a child has learned to count to onety, she/he will be able to count to one hundred and beyond with ease. Some of you may be saying that the author has too much time on his hands, but you must admit it is a good idea.

Hold on, there’s more. There’s more? Unfortunately yes. In thinking about it further, we also need to rename first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eight, ninth, tenth etc. to oneth, twoth, threeth, fourth, fiveth, sixth, seventh, eighth, nineth, onetieth etc. (At least after the oneth three numbers, there are only spelling changes – that is till you get to onetieth.) Thus we are now living in the twoty-oneth century. So simple!

“Mama, my two loose teeth fell out today. Can I put the oneth one under my pillow tonight for the tooth fairy?”

“Yes, the twoth tooth too!”

And what about once, twice, three times, four times, etc. Can we resist leaving these number names alone? Of course not. Why, after all, are “once” and “twice” not one time and two times, just like three times and four times, etc. Sitting down at night by a child’s bedside, we would say “One time upon a time there were four and twoty blackbirds sitting on a fence”. It may sound funny, but it is logical!

So take up the cause. Write the President, e-mail your Senators, text your Congressperson, and tweet your Governor — demanding the logical renaming of numbers!

I’m done. No cheering (or booing) please. I need to take a nap. Maybe this time I’ll count psychiatrists.

Disclosure: After I wrote this madness, I did a Google search of “onety, twoty threety”. It yielded some one hundred and twoty entries. So like pretty much all the junk floating around in my head, the idea is not wholly original with me. (In fact it sounds like a Victor Borge routine.) Apparently saying onety for ten, twoty for twenty, and threety for thirty is quite common in young children. This is surely a reflection of my level of maturity.

I welcome all comments. pro and con.
My website: marksmodernphysics.com
You can also follow me on Twitter@IMEgdall

The ultimate test of a scientific theory is its ability to make predictions. In his article “After the Deluge” in the December 2011 issue of Scientific American, John Carey lists a number of human-induced global warming predictions that have now been confirmed.

For example, measurements show average night time temperatures are rising — as predicted by climate change models. Other confirmed predictions include rising heat and drought across the American Southwest and in the Middle East, as well as more frequent heat waves in higher latitudes (e.g. the American upper Midwest and Russia).

In addition, there is a fourfold probability of an increase in heat waves in Europe over pre-industrial times. And, Carey points out, “ten of (New Hampshire’s) fifteen biggest floods since 1934 have occurred in the past fifteen years” — another indication of global warming.

It seems to me the case for human-induced global warming is becoming more and more compelling. And climate models predict things will only get worse. We ignore the consensus of the experts and their predictions at our own peril.

I welcome all comments — pro and con.

My website: marksmodernphysics.com
You can also follow me on Twitter@IMEgdall

Source:

Carey, John A., “After the Deluge”, SciAm Vol. 305, No. 6 (Dec. 2011), pp. 72-75.

Our current understanding of the laws of nature allow us to peek behind the veil of human perception — and catch a glimpse of reality.

The revelation is unexpected, difficult to accept, yet ultimately wondrous.*

The strange tenets of modern physics shatter our most deeply held beliefs. Yet mountains of empirical evidence support their mind-bending predictions. They must be telling us something about reality.

Special Relativity:

Special relativity tells us the speed of light is absolute — it is the same value no matter what the (uniform) motion of the observer. From this, it predicts time and space are flexible — time slows and space shrinks with relative motion. Thus, as Einstein put it, “past, present and future are only an illusion”.

And per E=mc2, mass and energy are equivalent.

General Relativity:

General relativity is even wilder. It tells us mass/energy warps space and time, that this so-called spacetime curvature is gravity. (The warping of space and time due to the Earth’s mass/energy is holding me down in my chair as I write this.)

Einstein’s masterpiece also predicts phenomena so bizarre even he initially rejected them — black holes which trap light and stop time, wormholes which form gravitational time machines, and a universe where space itself is continually expanding.

Quantum Mechanics:

The predictions of quantum mechanics are the wildest of all. There is an inherent uncertainty in nature which no amount of measurement accuracy can overcome. As it travels from place to place, a single particle spreads out like wave — yet is detected only locally like a particle.

The act of observing changes experimental results.

In “empty” space, virtual particle pairs constantly appear and annihilate each other. The universe is “non-local” — the act of measurement instantly correlates the random properties of two particles, no matter how great the distance between them.

Cosmic Creation:

These modern theories of physics have led to what I believe is the greatest achievement in human thought — the first scientific theory on the creation and evolution of our universe. It tells us some 13.7 billion years ago our universe was created in the ultimate cosmic event — the Big Bang.

How strange. How mysterious. How I struggle to understand and explain not just the mathematics of these “laws” of physics, but the reality they reveal. It is an odd journey — with fleeting glimpses, sudden insights, and revelations beyond my wildest dreams.

Ultimately wondrous indeed!

For more information, see my website: marksmodernphysics.com

You can also follow me on Twitter@IMEgdall

* (These words came to me one night as I was drifting off to sleep. I think they are original. If you have seen them before, please let me know.)

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
- T. S. Eliot, “The Hollow Men”, 1925

The first hints that the universe is expanding came in 1917 when Albert Einstein applied his general theory of relativity to the universe as a whole. (In those days, the known universe consisted of just our Milky Way galaxy.) To Einstein’s surprise, his field equations showed a universe which was either expanding or contracting. Since there was no evidence for such a thing, Einstein added his famous cosmological constant to model an eternally static universe – one that has always been and will always be the same size.

Then in 1927, Belgian priest and physicist Georges Lemaître — based on his solutions to Einstein’s original field equations, published redshift data, and Edwin Hubble’s distance determinations — proposed the universe is actually expanding. Faced with this compelling evidence, Einstein dropped the cosmological constant from his equations.

Dark Energy

Some seventy years later two independent teams led by Saul Perlmutter and Brian Schmidt discovered the expansion of the universe is speeding up. (See Hubble, Keck, and the Nobel Prize below.) The mysterious cause of this acceleration has been dubbed “dark energy”.

Einstein had called his cosmological constant “the greatest mistake of my life.” But now a much larger magnitude cosmological constant appeared necessary to model this accelerating expansion. It seems Einstein is such a genius that even when he makes a mistake, he turns out to be right after all – sort of.

The Future of the Universe
(see Freedman, Kaufmann, Universe)

Assuming dark energy continues to exist in the same amount in the future (a big assumption since we have no idea what it is), cosmological models for a flat universe including a cosmological constant predict the expansion of the universe will continue to accelerate. As a result, some 100 billion years from now all but the closest galaxies will be receding from us faster than the speed of light, making them impossible to see.

In a trillion years, generation after generation of stars will have finally used up all the hydrogen and helium gases in the universe. With no more nuclear fuel, stars will no longer form, galaxies will go dim, and matter will consist of dead stars, cold planets, and spent meteorites.

In a billion billion years, random collisions of stellar objects will eventually drive many stars to lower galactic orbits. As they circle the black holes at their galactic center, they will give off even stronger gravitational waves. Over time this loss in energy will drive stars closer and closer to the black holes, eventually to be absorbed. Galaxies will then consist of enormous black holes surrounded by dead stars.

But be not dismayed — there is still some hope for our universe.

The End (or the Beginning?)

In an estimated 10^97 to 10^106 years (that’s some billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion years), black holes will finally evaporate due to Hawking radiation. And per Hawking’s theory, during the final moments of evaporation, these black holes will become white holes, “pumping new matter into the universe in an unpredictable fashion.” So at least theoretically, our universe will continue to exist in some strange new way.

However, predictions for the future of our universe are a very much a work in progress. There are still major questions to be resolved — like what dark energy actually is. Current physics research, including yet to be substantiated theories such as string theory, has the potential to shed new light on both how the big bang came to be as well as the ultimate fate of our universe. But until our understanding of dark energy improves and/or a new theory replaces general relativity and quantum mechanics, the future of the universe remains speculative at best.

Stay tuned.

References for this article:
1) Michael Way, Harry Nussbaumer, Letters, Phys. Today, Aug. 2011, p. 8.
2) B. Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos, p. 301.
3) R. A. Freedman, W. J. Kaufmann III, Universe, 6th Edition, p. 661 (including “pumping” quote).

I welcome all comments — pro and con.

My website: marksmodernphysics.com
Follow me on twitter @IMEgdall