This article first appeared on the FQXi community website , which does for physics and cosmology what Plus does for maths: provide the public with a deeper understanding of known and future discoveries in these areas, and their potential implications for our worldview. FQXi are our partners in our Science fiction, science fact project , which asked you to nominate questions from the frontiers of physics you'd like to have answered. This article addresses the question "What is time?".
It seems to be part of the job description of anyone in the sciences to periodically complain that scientific research funding is insufficient, with the situation going from bad to worse. For some recent examples, see this from Bruce Alberts, the Editor-in-Chief of Science, and this endorsement from Professor Matt Strassler. In the contrarian spirit of this blog, I want to suggest that the situation is actually quite a bit more complicated, and the story of research funding is not completely a one-sided one of the oppression and impoverishment of scientists.
by Maria Popova Saying that reality is merely a matter of point of view may be a tired truism. But illustrating it with irreverence and ingenuity can be utterly original. Such is the case of Frames of Reference , a lovely example of how cross-disciplinary creativity, blending architecture, design and cinema, can make physics tremendously more fun and digestible. The fascinating film released by the University of Toronto in 1960 utilizes ingeniously placed furniture and a rotating table to demonstrate how we make sense of space and motion.
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-17458" title="quantum_computer" src="http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2010/01/quantum_computer.jpg" alt="quantum_computer" width="670" height="447" /> Almost three decades ago, Richard Feynman — known popularly as much for his bongo drumming and pranks as for his brilliant insights into physics — told an electrified audience at MIT how to build a computer so powerful that its simulations “will do exactly the same as nature.” <img class="size-full wp-image-11123 alignright" title="sciencenews" src="http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2009/09/sciencenews.gif" alt="sciencenews" width="200" height="40" /> Not approximately, as digital computers tend to do when facing complex physical problems that must be addressed via mathematical shortcuts — such as forecasting orbits of many moons whose gravities constantly readjust their trajectories.
ALBERT EINSTEIN never learned to drive. He thought it too complicated and in any case he preferred walking. What he did not know—indeed, what no one knew until now—is that most cars would not work without the intervention of one of his most famous discoveries, the special theory of relativity.
11 January 2011 Last updated at 03:34 ET By Jason Palmer Science and technology reporter, BBC News, Seattle Electrons racing up electric field lines give rise to light, then particles, then light A space telescope has accidentally spotted thunderstorms on Earth producing beams of antimatter.
Hello, again. Thanks for all the excellent comments on my last post. In my last post I explained that our current theory makes the assumption, which has not been experimentally verified, that quarks are indivisible, point-like particles ( “elementary” particles ).
The video below shows scientific proof that there is something NOT quite logical or scientific about this universe. The mere act of observation can completely change the outcome of an event! Before I get too ahead of myself, you need to watch the video below to understand: