I know; everyone’s already seen it. But its still beautiful.
Isn’t this gorgeous?
Its not new; BA blogged it last year, from Emily Lakdawalla, but I didn’t notice. I forget why I noticed now. Its all fluid-dynamicsy of course; and it (or something very similar) can be recreated in the lab. There’s another very nice image here.
I think its gorgeous partly because you don’t expect hexagons. And note that this isn’t the same sort of hexagon that you get from packed convective cells; that’s a geometrical thing, and occurs because squishing circles together makes hexagons.
The Economist, celebrating the Higgs:
Without the Higgs there would be no mass. And without mass, there would be no stars, no planets and no atoms.
But that’s wrong. No stars and no planets, because they are gravitationally bound. But atoms aren’t. Unless they mean in the very indirect sense that most Earthly atoms were created in supernovae?
Massless particles are doomed by Einstein’s theory of relativity to travel at the speed of light.
I don’t think I believe that either, really. Relativity doesn’t say massless things have to travel at SOL. Does it?
However, neither that article, nor an accompanying one, tells me anything very interesting. Finding something with the right mass (but they only know the mass so far, not any other properties?) says its a Higgs, and thus confirms to some extent the standard model. But doesn’t provide any hints as to how to go any further. So particle physics still looks stuck to me.
This post is more an appeal for info than anything useful in itself. But I’ll probably update it if I get anything. Fukushima refers. My question, in the context of the area around Fukushima that is contaminated by radioactivity, is
how much is actually contaminated, in the sense of now having radioactivity levels higher than naturally occurs in granite-based areas like Cornwall? How much has been officially declared “contaminated” isn’t a very interesting number
In response, M points me to radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/distribution map around FukushimaNPP/; here for example is July 2011 (take care to do what I didn’t, and scroll down to the integrated dose map. But unfortunately I don’t know how that compares to radiation levels in Cornwall. I made brief pathetic efforts on google to find out, but then gave up and wrote this. Over to you.
[Ah, hold on, I’ve just realised something. Thinking forwards, we don’t care about the integrated dose from the start, if we’re worrying about what will be uninhabitable in the future. What we care about is the area that will settle, in say 6 months time, to a value that will be bad, then -W]
Sez the Economist:
For, according to Dr Pyykko’s calculations, relativity explains why tin batteries do not work, but lead ones do.
His chain of reasoning goes like this. Lead, being heavier than tin, has more protons in its nucleus (82, against tin’s 50). That means its nucleus has a stronger positive charge and that, in turn, means the electrons orbiting the nucleus are more attracted to it and travel faster, at roughly 60% of the speed of light, compared with 35% for the electrons orbiting a tin atom…
If the problem isn’t immeadiately obvious to you, pause a moment before proceeding over the fold.
Continue reading “Einstein and car batteries: A spark of genius?”
Actually this is a post about statistics, but what the hell I’ve been listening to Carmina Burana a lot recently, even if Miriam thinks it is bombastic. So anyway, several people have commented on this article which (whilst it makes some points about statistics that are vaguely plausible) far far overgeneralises its bounds of validity: any single scientific study alone is quite likely to be incorrect, thanks largely to the fact that the standard statistical system for drawing conclusions is, in essence, illogical. Tamino points out the obvious: that statistics works, and it isn’t stats faults if you don’t understand it. JA says similar, though unusually for him is quite kind about it. Even Paul linked to it. And this post merely expands my comment there.
Which is: that much of science isn’t statistical at all. A simple example would be special relativity. You can read the underlying paper; there are no stats in it. You could sort-of argue that there is some stats underlying it (that the speed of light is a constant is sort-of a matter of observation, which always come with errors, so need stats to analyse properly) but that isn’t really true. The sciencenews thing itself seems to be mostly thinking about medicine, where they use stats a lot because they don’t know what is really going on.