That link doesn't support your claim of "artist's rendition".
Sample quote: "It's pure science that's driving the colors," Levay explains ....
582 posts • joined 9 Aug 2007
Well, fine. But some newspapers and news sites quite successfully expand their readership by deliberately appealing to and attracting people from other countries.
As I understand it, the WP is quite a respectable newspaper, and so could well be of interest to many people in the EU who might subscribe. So whilst the WP can indeed say "Bollocks to EU", might it not be more pragmatic for them to fix their site and so enhance their overseas presence and reputation (and thereby hopefully their revenue)?
Not under QM as it stands. Whilst you might argue that some kind of influence travels faster than light, no usable information does. To transfer information you need the measurement results at *both* ends,
and that from the far end still has to travel to you at the speed of light.
I imagine that writing "about 727 degrees Celsius" would have sufficed, which, whilst still implying unjustified precision, is at least without the two decimal places of 726.85 that make that form particularly jarring.
However, given it's an estimated upper bound, any of 720, 725, or 730 would probably have been better.
There is no mathematical requirement for a 3D spherical surface (a manifold) to be embedded in a 4D space. It's just that it's easier for most of us to imagine it as being embedded, just as we find it easier to imagine a 2D surface as embedded in a 3D space (rather than 3D embedded in 4D).
Some manifolds are weird enough so that an embedding in a 1-higher dimensional space is not possible (e.g. the Klein bottle is a 2D surface that is not embeddable in 3D)
I'm not so sure about that - some people use words like "amperage", for example, and sometimes even might talk about the voltage through something. I agree they shouldn't, but not everyone has their terminology perfect, and could quite easily have learnt it from another misinformed individual.
Indeed. Remember that the journalist's version isn't the same as the actual scientific paper. In particular, the j-version tends to focus on the paper's context and its plausible conclusions, as well as soundbites from the authors or peers, rather more than all the necessary scientific caveats and details of technique present in the actual work.
Consider this sentence of the abstract, and in particular its fourth word: "Here, we identified potential sources of such persistent states by microstimulating the striatum of macaques performing a task by which we could quantitatively estimate their subjective pessimistic states using their choices to accept or reject conflicting offers."
I think the point is rather that such a space program might /eventually/ allow a viable survival route - but you wont ever get that survival route without starting to build up the basic knowledge and infrastructure.
(a) "spin", as applied to subatomic particles, or atoms, isn't the same as mechanical rotation (because that is called angular momentum).
(b) the nuclear spins referred to may not be strongly coupled to the atomic motions of the molecules that (in aggregate) make up the temperature.
It /might/ be that the temperature of the water has an effect on the nuclear spins of its constituent atoms on some relevant timescale, but it isn't necessarily so.
It's a little bit unclear what you're asking here. Is this a question, or a rhetorical device intended to imply something?
If it's a question, even then it's not so clear. Still, I'll have a go at providing a rough estimate at an upper bound. In the UK, a pure theory grant will be probably be dominated by the costs of postdoctoral research staff, plus perhaps 10% of the PI staff costs. Costing for a fast computer and an annual international conference is small compared to this. Under FEC, the staff costs will be 2-3 times the headline salary of those staff (max UK postdoc salary is about £40k, plus a few k extra if in London). Thus "what it pays as a %" could be roughly 30% of the total grant ... at best; if you are also costing for expensive equipment, consumables, or whatever, it will be less. Three years of 40k theory postdoc and the usual other costs might come in at about 300k in the UK; but note that German cost calculations are probably structured differently, and this experiment need not have been run on an all research-grant funded model.
Anyway, in this case the reported result /is/ real work. The reported "experimental hygiene" required will no doubt be invaluable in other experimental setups, and if somehow - in outright defiance of theoretical expectation - they do find a result they've discovered new physics. So it's a win-win scenario. And undertaken solely on the basis of expected gains in "experimental hygiene", I'd expect.
However, large shops do generally have security guards, and I would expect that in the case of a non-trivial inter-customer fracas of some kind that that security (or the management) would intervene and try to either calm the situation or move it from the store, and, if necessary, call the police to deal with it.
I would not expect them to pretend it wasn't happening and/or do nothing, claiming it was merely someone else's problem and nothing to do with them [*]
[*] Not the least in their own self interest - that sort of thing is likely to be bad for business.
I think it was always well regarded; but now there's an additional unholy feedback loop constructed by the interaction of job/promotion specifications (e.g. "papers in Nature or other high impact journals") and the publication strategies of researchers who have results of significant interest (well, even academics need a job, right?).
Since Nature is a commercial operation, you cannot really blame them for making the most of the situation. The real blame should be attributed to those who insist on simplistic measures of research success when making hiring/promotion decisions.
Well, perhaps not really that "skewed" if their research was on the usage or effects of /Facebook/ itself... :-)
Generally authors will be quite clear about their data sources and processes. Even if they themselves happened not to discuss any potential biases, the reader can then make up their own mind.
e.g. Some examples - although I have no idea whether they are the best ones, since it's not my field - might be seen at
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019