Breakthroughs from the second tier
Peer review isn't perfect - meet 5 high-impact papers that should have ended up in bigger journals.
by the Scientist staff
I hate your paper
Many say the peer review system is broken. Here's how some journals are trying to fix it.
by Jef Akst
Peer review and the age of aquarius
It's time to reinvent the system that validates scientific discovery.
by Sarah Greene
Peer pressure
What should we do with peer review? Tell us in our new poll.
by Richard Grant
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Thursday, April 08, 2010
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
My nominee for the decade's worst scientific reporting
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/05/freaky-physics-proves-parallel-universes/?test=faces
2) The "time travel to the future and back again" idea is completely idiotic. I find it hard to believe that Richard Gott actually said that. My bet is the reporter got it wrong. (If not, then shame on Richard Gott.)
3) None of this has anything to do with the actual discovery, which is that researchers at UCSB appear to have found a macro-system that exhibits quantum superposition.
4) The headline is that this proves parallel universes exist. I'm still trying to figure out wtf that even means in the context of this story.
Wolf says that time - at least in quantum mechanics - doesn't move straight like an arrow. It zig-zags, and he thinks it may be possible to build a machine that lets you bend time. Consider Sergei Krikalev, the Russian astronaut who flew six space missions. Richard Gott, a physicist at Princeton University, says Krikalev aged 1/48th of a second less than the rest of us because he orbited at very high speeds. And to age less than someone means you've jumped into the future - you did not experience the same present. In a sense, he says, Krikalev time-traveled to the future - and back again!1) Writer switches from QM to relativity in a completely unwarranted manner.
2) The "time travel to the future and back again" idea is completely idiotic. I find it hard to believe that Richard Gott actually said that. My bet is the reporter got it wrong. (If not, then shame on Richard Gott.)
3) None of this has anything to do with the actual discovery, which is that researchers at UCSB appear to have found a macro-system that exhibits quantum superposition.
4) The headline is that this proves parallel universes exist. I'm still trying to figure out wtf that even means in the context of this story.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Get your geek on!
For those (like myself) who wanted to play with Mathematica but couldn't justify the price ... there's now Mathematica Home Edition!!
http://www.wolfram.com/products/mathematicahomeedition/qa.html
(The functionality is exactly the same as in the full edition; it's just the licensing that is more restricted.)
http://www.wolfram.com/products/mathematicahomeedition/qa.html
(The functionality is exactly the same as in the full edition; it's just the licensing that is more restricted.)
Monday, January 04, 2010
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Undergraduate Physics Education ... Free!
iTunes U has a free downloadable course by Stanford's Leonard Susskind called The Theoretical Minimum. It consists of 57 video lectures covering almost an entire undergraduate physics education - Classical Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics, Statistical Mechanics, Special Relativity & Electromagnetism, General Relativity, even Cosmology.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
2009 Nobel in Physics
This year's Nobel Prize in Physics is awarded for two scientific achievements that have helped to shape the foundations of today's networked societies. They have created many practical innovations for everyday life and provided new tools for scientific exploration.
In 1966, Charles K. Kao made a discovery that led to a breakthrough in fiber optics. He carefully calculated how to transmit light over long distances via optical glass fibers. With a fiber of purest glass it would be possible to transmit light signals over 100 kilometers, compared to only 20 meters for the fibers available in the 1960s.
In 1969 Willard S. Boyle and George E. Smith invented the first successful imaging technology using a digital sensor, a Charge-Coupled Device. Digital photography has become an irreplaceable tool in many fields of research. The CCD has provided new possibilities to visualize the previously unseen. It has given us crystal clear images of distant places in our universe as well as the depths of the oceans.
In 1966, Charles K. Kao made a discovery that led to a breakthrough in fiber optics. He carefully calculated how to transmit light over long distances via optical glass fibers. With a fiber of purest glass it would be possible to transmit light signals over 100 kilometers, compared to only 20 meters for the fibers available in the 1960s.
In 1969 Willard S. Boyle and George E. Smith invented the first successful imaging technology using a digital sensor, a Charge-Coupled Device. Digital photography has become an irreplaceable tool in many fields of research. The CCD has provided new possibilities to visualize the previously unseen. It has given us crystal clear images of distant places in our universe as well as the depths of the oceans.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Loop Quantum Gravity
I attended a lecture today by Professor Abhay Ashtekar (of the Institute for Gravitation at Penn State University) about Loop Quantum Gravity at Georgia Tech. Apparently recent work has made considerable progress towards solving the infrared problem (i.e., proving agreement of LQG with classical General Relativity at low densities). Also, a density cutoff (of approximately 41% of the Planck density) has appeared naturally out of the formalism, instead of being imposed arbitrarily as an additional condition.
Slides covering material very similar to his Georgia Tech lecture can be found at
http://universe2009.obspm.fr/fichiers/Recherche/Friday-3/ashtekar.pdf
Possible ramifications of this work:
1) Help resolve the well-known horizon problem
2) Provide a mechanism for propagation of "seeds" for creating structure in the universe
3) Predicts a period of super-inflation, which could have implications for gravitational waves
4) Cause quantum corrections to the cosmic microwave backround radiation
#3 and #4 might provide testable predictions unlike superstring theory
Slides covering material very similar to his Georgia Tech lecture can be found at
http://universe2009.obspm.fr/fichiers/Recherche/Friday-3/ashtekar.pdf
Possible ramifications of this work:
1) Help resolve the well-known horizon problem
2) Provide a mechanism for propagation of "seeds" for creating structure in the universe
3) Predicts a period of super-inflation, which could have implications for gravitational waves
4) Cause quantum corrections to the cosmic microwave backround radiation
#3 and #4 might provide testable predictions unlike superstring theory
Saturday, August 01, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Monday, December 15, 2008
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Baez's Classical Mechanics Website
As long as I'm posting these Goldstein solutions, I should definitely point out one of the best classical mechanics websites out there.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/classical/
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/classical/
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
2008 Nobel Prize in Physics
Yoichiro Nambu, who discovered the mechanism of spontaneous symmetry breaking, and Makoto Kobayashi and Toshihide Maskawa, who discovered the origin of the broken symmetry that predicts the existence of at least three families of quarks in nature, are announced as winners of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physics.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Saturday, May 17, 2008
The Monty Hall Problem
Let's start with a very standard probability question (the Monty Hall problem) that was put to Marilyn vos Savant.
Q: Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors. Behind one door is a car, behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say #1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say #3, which has a goat. He says to you, "Do you want to pick door #2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice of doors?
A: Yes; you should switch. The first door has a 1/3 chance of winning, but the second door has a 2/3 chance. Here's a good way to visualize what happened. Suppose there are a million doors, and you pick door #1. Then the host, who knows what's behind the doors and will always avoid the one with the prize, opens them all except door #777,777. You'd switch to that door pretty fast, wouldn't you?
Now, I understand that the immediate instinct is to think that door #1 and door #2 each have a 50-50 chance of having the car. However, if you think about it for a few minutes (and I would certainly expect you to do so before writing Ms. vos Savant to tell her she's wrong), you should pretty quickly realize that the host will always open the door from 2,3 that does NOT have a car, and therefore the probability of the remaining door is 2/3 as opposed to 1/3 for the original door #1. I would certainly expect a PhD in math to come to this conclusion in short order. Even if they couldn't do it on their own, this is a standard problem covered in dozens of introductory statistics textbooks (hell, it's so well understood it's got a freakin' name), so I would at least expect a PhD in math to LOOK IT UP! However, I guess my expectations would be sadly shattered, not once but nine times (the names have been bolded to call out the guilty)...
Since you seem to enjoy coming straight to the point, I'll do the same. You blew it! Let me explain. If one door is shown to be a loser, that information changes the probability of either remaining choice, neither of which has any reason to be more likely, to 1/2. As a professional mathematician, I'm very concerned with the general public's lack of mathematical skills. Please help by confessing your error and in the future being more careful. -- Robert Sachs, Ph.D., George Mason University
DUH, we're not talking about quantum tunnelling.
You blew it, and you blew it big! Since you seem to have difficulty grasping the basic principle at work here, I'll explain. After the host reveals a goat, you now have a one-in-two chance of being correct. Whether you change your selection or not, the odds are the same. There is enough mathematical illiteracy in this country, and we don't need the world's highest IQ propagating more. Shame! -- Scott Smith, Ph.D., University of Florida
And you have a 0% chance of being correct with this reasoning. I didn't know so much of the mathematical illiteracy in this country resided in mathematics faculties.
May I suggest that you obtain and refer to a standard textbook on probability before you try to answer a question of this type again? -- Charles Reid, Ph.D., University of Florida
Preferably not the one that he uses to teach.
I am sure you will receive many letters on this topic from high school and college students. Perhaps you should keep a few addresses for help with future columns. -- W. Robert Smith, Ph.D., Georgia State University
And with future lectures at GSU.
You are utterly incorrect about the game show question, and I hope this controversy will call some public attention to the serious national crisis in mathematical education. If you can admit your error, you will have contributed constructively towards the solution of a deplorable situation. How many irate mathematicians are needed to get you to change your mind? -- E. Ray Bobo, Ph.D., Georgetown University
Apparently the necessary number of IRATE mathematicians is n where n>9. To get her to change her mind, she needed to hear from exactly 1 CORRECT mathematician.
Your answer to the question is in error. But if it is any consolation, many of my academic colleagues have also been stumped by this problem. -- Barry Pasternack, Ph.D., California Faculty Association
You're in error, but Albert Einstein earned a dearer place in the hearts of people after he admitted his errors. -- Frank Rose, Ph.D., University of Michigan
I have been a faithful reader of your column, and I have not, until now, had any reason to doubt you. However, in this matter (for which I do have expertise), your answer is clearly at odds with the truth. -- James Rauff, Ph.D., Millikin University
You made a mistake, but look at the positive side. If all those Ph.D.'s were wrong, the country would be in some very serious trouble. -- Everett Harman, Ph.D., U.S. Army Research Institute
Serious trouble indeed! What a sad state of affairs that not only can't these nine PhD's not get the correct answer on their own, but they can't even recognize the correct answer when it is put before them in excruciating detail. I am so sad for their students, more so than for the country!
[Thanks to WM for the link]
Q: Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors. Behind one door is a car, behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say #1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say #3, which has a goat. He says to you, "Do you want to pick door #2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice of doors?
A: Yes; you should switch. The first door has a 1/3 chance of winning, but the second door has a 2/3 chance. Here's a good way to visualize what happened. Suppose there are a million doors, and you pick door #1. Then the host, who knows what's behind the doors and will always avoid the one with the prize, opens them all except door #777,777. You'd switch to that door pretty fast, wouldn't you?
Now, I understand that the immediate instinct is to think that door #1 and door #2 each have a 50-50 chance of having the car. However, if you think about it for a few minutes (and I would certainly expect you to do so before writing Ms. vos Savant to tell her she's wrong), you should pretty quickly realize that the host will always open the door from 2,3 that does NOT have a car, and therefore the probability of the remaining door is 2/3 as opposed to 1/3 for the original door #1. I would certainly expect a PhD in math to come to this conclusion in short order. Even if they couldn't do it on their own, this is a standard problem covered in dozens of introductory statistics textbooks (hell, it's so well understood it's got a freakin' name), so I would at least expect a PhD in math to LOOK IT UP! However, I guess my expectations would be sadly shattered, not once but nine times (the names have been bolded to call out the guilty)...
Since you seem to enjoy coming straight to the point, I'll do the same. You blew it! Let me explain. If one door is shown to be a loser, that information changes the probability of either remaining choice, neither of which has any reason to be more likely, to 1/2. As a professional mathematician, I'm very concerned with the general public's lack of mathematical skills. Please help by confessing your error and in the future being more careful. -- Robert Sachs, Ph.D., George Mason University
DUH, we're not talking about quantum tunnelling.
You blew it, and you blew it big! Since you seem to have difficulty grasping the basic principle at work here, I'll explain. After the host reveals a goat, you now have a one-in-two chance of being correct. Whether you change your selection or not, the odds are the same. There is enough mathematical illiteracy in this country, and we don't need the world's highest IQ propagating more. Shame! -- Scott Smith, Ph.D., University of Florida
And you have a 0% chance of being correct with this reasoning. I didn't know so much of the mathematical illiteracy in this country resided in mathematics faculties.
May I suggest that you obtain and refer to a standard textbook on probability before you try to answer a question of this type again? -- Charles Reid, Ph.D., University of Florida
Preferably not the one that he uses to teach.
I am sure you will receive many letters on this topic from high school and college students. Perhaps you should keep a few addresses for help with future columns. -- W. Robert Smith, Ph.D., Georgia State University
And with future lectures at GSU.
You are utterly incorrect about the game show question, and I hope this controversy will call some public attention to the serious national crisis in mathematical education. If you can admit your error, you will have contributed constructively towards the solution of a deplorable situation. How many irate mathematicians are needed to get you to change your mind? -- E. Ray Bobo, Ph.D., Georgetown University
Apparently the necessary number of IRATE mathematicians is n where n>9. To get her to change her mind, she needed to hear from exactly 1 CORRECT mathematician.
Your answer to the question is in error. But if it is any consolation, many of my academic colleagues have also been stumped by this problem. -- Barry Pasternack, Ph.D., California Faculty Association
You're in error, but Albert Einstein earned a dearer place in the hearts of people after he admitted his errors. -- Frank Rose, Ph.D., University of Michigan
I have been a faithful reader of your column, and I have not, until now, had any reason to doubt you. However, in this matter (for which I do have expertise), your answer is clearly at odds with the truth. -- James Rauff, Ph.D., Millikin University
You made a mistake, but look at the positive side. If all those Ph.D.'s were wrong, the country would be in some very serious trouble. -- Everett Harman, Ph.D., U.S. Army Research Institute
Serious trouble indeed! What a sad state of affairs that not only can't these nine PhD's not get the correct answer on their own, but they can't even recognize the correct answer when it is put before them in excruciating detail. I am so sad for their students, more so than for the country!
[Thanks to WM for the link]
Monday, February 25, 2008
Another one for the DUH files
The expected introduction of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles could cut gasoline use but could increase deadly air pollution in some areas, two reports say. That's because a plug-in's lower tailpipe emissions may be offset by smokestack emissions from the utility generating plants supplying electricity to recharge the big batteries that allow plug-ins to run up to 40 miles without kicking on their gasoline engines.
I don't understand why this would be a big surprise to folks. Anybody who stayed awake in high school physics grasps this idea. Using electricity instead of gasoline is not a free ride. That power is still produced somewhere. And the laws of thermodynamics tells us that will produce emissions, unless we use nuclear power and that brings a whole other price tag with it (not that the green freaks want us using nuclear power anyway).
I don't understand why this would be a big surprise to folks. Anybody who stayed awake in high school physics grasps this idea. Using electricity instead of gasoline is not a free ride. That power is still produced somewhere. And the laws of thermodynamics tells us that will produce emissions, unless we use nuclear power and that brings a whole other price tag with it (not that the green freaks want us using nuclear power anyway).
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
2007 Nobel Prize in Physics
Goes to Albert Fert and Peter Grünberg, for the discovery of Giant Magnetoresistance.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2007/
This discovery made the iPod possible.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/health/09iht-nobel.4.7820918.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2007/
This discovery made the iPod possible.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/health/09iht-nobel.4.7820918.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
