Friday, November 19, 2010

When All the Great Galactic Systems Sigh to a Frozen Halt in Space




When all the laughter dies in sorrow
And the tears have risen to a flood
When all the wars have found a cause
In human wisdom and in blood
Do you think they'll cry in sadness
Do you think the eye will blink
Do you think they'll curse the madness
Do you even think they'll think

When all the great galactic systems
Sigh to a frozen halt in space
Do you think there will be some remnant
Of beauty of the human race
Do you think there will be a vestige
Or a sniffle or a cosmic tear
Do you think a greater thinking thing
Will give a damn that man was here

Written by - Kendrew Lascilles

Appears in spoken form on Chicago III (1970)



Have a nice day, and enjoy it while we're here.

John Schwarz on Entropic Gravity


arXiv:1011.4106

Gravity as an Entropic Phenomenon
Authors: Abhiram Chivukula, John H. Schwarz
(Submitted on 17 Nov 2010)

Abstract: The unification of gravity with the three other forces has been an important goal of physics for some time now, because a quantum theory of gravity is necessary to explain the universe at its earliest moments. Its pursuit has largely assumed gravity's independent existence, but E. Verlinde [pictured above] proposed that gravity is not a fundamental force but a macroscopic phenomenon that emerges as a result of thermodynamic principles applied to the information of mass distributions. Under this framework we consider the roles played by quantum microstates, entanglement, information theory, the AdS/CFT Correspondence, and String Theory in general. We also ask whether Verlinde's proposal suggests that action principles should be thermodynamic in nature.

The Russians are Sad. So What Else is New?



Russian Science: Waking From Hibernation

Daniel Clery, Jennifer Carpenter, Andrey Allakhverdov, and Vladimir Pokrovsky


Summary

Late last month, Russia's Ministry of Education and Science announced the first results of a novel attempt to revitalize science in the country's universities. It had offered "megagrants" of up to $5 million to attract top researchers from around the world to set up new labs at Russian universities. How much the megagrant winners can boost Russian science remains an open question, however. Foreign winners are only required to spend one-third of each year in Russia, and the program notably failed to lure two big fish: this year's winners of the Nobel Prize in physics, Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov. The discoverers of graphene were both born and educated in Russia but are now working at the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom. Indeed, the Nobel Prize announcement last month generated much debate in Russia about why many of the country's best and brightest scientists—tens of thousands of whom fled abroad during the economic crises of the 1990s—are still now gracing foreign universities and their work benefiting other economies.


Read the Full Text
The content you requested requires a AAAS member subscription to this site or Science Pay per Article purchase. To find out what content you currently have access to - view your access rights. If you would like to recommend that your institution subscribe to this content, please visit our Recommend a Subscription page.

Steve here. I do not have a subscription to Science, so I cannot read the paper/article/publication whatever it is. Don't think I have to though, the Summary is quite clear.

Here's to chess and vodka and really sad poetry. Here's to the bailalaika musical instrument, or however the hell you spell it. Here's to warm blonde girls on cold winter nights, to cavier and borscht, however the hell you spell it, and whatever the hell it is (my Slovak sensibilities prefer kielbasa and sauerkraut with onions, flour, and bacon).

Here's to Yuri Gagarin, and to Peter the Great too. To Spassky and Kasparov.

Here's to Zhivago. Thank you, Boris. And to The Fiddler on the Roof.

Here's to all the great Mathematicians and Scientists to come out of Mother Russia.

Here's to the Romanovs, R.I.P.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Antimatter Captured at CERN

Physics breakthrough as scientists at CERN capture atoms of elusive 'antimatter' for first time


(UPDATE (11/18): Experimental Physicist Chad Orzel has the best explanation of this accomplishment at his weblog Uncertain Principles, here.)

By David Derbyshire
Last updated at 6:00 PM on 17th November 2010

It was once used to propel Captain Kirk across the stars.

Now scientists say they have captured a sample of real-life antimatter for the first time.

In an astonishing breakthrough, a team of British and international physicists were able to 'trap' 38 atoms of anti-hydrogen in a laboratory for a fraction of a second.

While the experiment is unlikely to lead to the warp engines, anti-matter drives or the faster than light travel of Star Trek, it could shed light on the nature and origins of the Universe.

Tom Hanks and Ayelet Zurer

Tom Hanks and Ayelet Zurer in the suspense thriller 'Angels & Demons' in which an antimatter bomb is about to be set off

Antimatter is the mirror of ordinary matter. Normal atoms are made up of positively-charged nuclei orbited by negatively-charged electrons.

However, their antimatter counterparts are the wrong way round. They have negative nuclei and positively-charged electrons.

When matter and antimatter meet they instantly annihilate each other, releasing a burst of energy.

Since it was first proposed by the British physicist Paul Dirac in 1931, antimatter has been a staple of science fiction.

An antimatter reactor powers the USS Enterprise in the TV and film series Star Trek, while an antimatter bomb hidden under Rome plays a key role Dan Brown's thriller Angels & Demons.

Theoretically, a single pound of antimatter would contain more destructive power than the largest H-bomb. However, creating and holding even a tiny amount of antimatter is so difficult and expensive, the chances of it being used in a superweapon are remote.

The new research, published today in the journal Nature, involved researchers at the European nuclear research facility at Cern, Geneva.

Using the Anti-hydrogen Laser Physics Apparatus, or Alpha, the scientists cooled negatively charged antiprotons - the mirror version of hydrogen nuclei - and squeezed them into a matchstick-sized cloud 20 mm long and 1.4 mm wide.

These clouds of particles were then introduced to a similar cold cloud of positrons - antimatter electrons.

The ALPHA experiment at CERN

The ALPHA experiment at CERN has succeeded in capturing antimatter for a split-second

The two kinds of particle combined to form atoms of hydrogen antimatter which were successfully trapped by a magnetic field for one sixth of a second.

Past efforts to create antimatter managed to generate anti-hydrogen atoms that blinked out of existence almost as soon as they were created.

Prof Rob Thompson, head of physics and astronomy at the University of Calgary, one of the 42 Alpha investigators, said: 'This is a major discovery.

'It could enable experiments that result in dramatic changes to the current view of fundamental physics or in confirmation of what we already know now.

'We've been able to trap about 38 atoms, which is an incredibly small amount, nothing like what we would need to power Star Trek's starship Enterprise or even to heat a cup of coffee.

'Now we can start working on the next step which is to use tools to study it.'

The experiments could help scientists unravel one of the great unsolved mysteries of the universe.

When the Big Bang gave birth to the universe 13.7 billion years ago, equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created, scientists believe.

But the cosmos today is completely dominated by ordinary matter. Scientists have long wondered where all the missing antimatter went.

Prof Mike Charlton, from the University of Swansea, said: 'Hydrogen is the simplest of all atoms and anti-hydrogen is the easiest type of antimatter to produce in the laboratory.

'Understanding it will hopefully enable us to shed light on why almost everything in the known universe consists of matter rather than antimatter.'

From here.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1330593/Physics-breakthrough-Scientists-CERN-capture-atoms-elusive-antimatter.html#ixzz15Z4mxmun

Differential Topology


Differential topology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In mathematics, differential topology is the field dealing with differentiable functions on differentiable manifolds. It is closely related to differential geometry and together they make up the geometric theory of differentiable manifolds.

Contents

Description

Differential topology considers the properties and structures that require only a smooth structure on a manifold to be defined. Smooth manifolds are 'softer' than manifolds with extra geometric structures, which can act as obstructions to certain types of equivalences and deformations that exist in differential topology. For instance, volume and Riemannian curvature are invariants that can distinguish different geometric structures on the same smooth manifold—that is, one can smoothly "flatten out" certain manifolds, but it might require distorting the space and affecting the curvature or volume.

On the other hand, smooth manifolds are more rigid than the topological manifolds. John Milnor discovered that some spheres have more than one smooth structure -- see exotic sphere and Donaldson's theorem. Kervaire exhibited topological manifolds with no smooth structure at all. Some constructions of smooth manifold theory, such as the existence of tangent bundles, can be done in the topological setting with much more work, and others cannot.

One of the main topics in differential topology is the study of special kinds of smooth mappings between manifolds, namely immersions and submersions, and the intersections of submanifolds via transversality. More generally one is interested in properties and invariants of smooth manifolds which are carried over by diffeomorphisms, another special kind of smooth mapping. Morse theory is another branch of differential topology, in which topological information about a manifold is deduced from changes in the rank of the Jacobian of a function.

For a list of differential topology topics, see the following reference: List of differential geometry topics.

Differential topology versus differential geometry

Differential topology and differential geometry are first characterized by their similarity. They both study primarily the properties of differentiable manifolds, sometimes with a variety of structures imposed on them.

One major difference lies in the nature of the problems that each subject tries to address. In one view,[1] differential topology distinguishes itself from differential geometry by studying primarily those problems which are inherently global. Consider the example of a coffee cup and a donut (see this example). From the point of view of differential topology, the donut and the coffee cup are the same (in a sense). A differential topologist imagines that the donut is made out of a rubber sheet, and that the rubber sheet can be smoothly reshaped from its original configuration as a donut into a new configuration in the shape of a coffee cup without tearing the sheet or gluing bits of it together. This is an inherently global view, though, because there is no way for the differential topologist to tell whether the two objects are the same (in this sense) by looking at just a tiny (local) piece of either of them. She or he must have access to each entire (global) object.

From the point of view of differential geometry, the coffee cup and the donut are different because it is impossible to rotate the coffee cup in such a way that its configuration matches that of the donut. This is also a global way of thinking about the problem. But an important distinction is that the geometer doesn't need the entire object to decide this. By looking, for instance, at just a tiny piece of the handle, she or he can decide that the coffee cup is different from the donut because the handle is thinner (or more curved) than any piece of the donut.

To put it succinctly, differential topology studies structures on manifolds which, in a sense, have no interesting local structure. Differential geometry studies structures on manifolds which do have an interesting local (or sometimes even infinitesimal) structure.

More mathematically, for example, the problem of constructing a diffeomorphism between two manifolds of the same dimension is inherently global since locally two such manifolds are always diffeomorphic. Likewise, the problem of computing a quantity on a manifold which is invariant under differentiable mappings is inherently global, since any local invariant will be trivial in the sense that it is already exhibited in the topology of Rn. Moreover, differential topology does not restrict itself necessarily to the study of diffeomorphism. For example, symplectic topology — a subbranch of differential topology — studies global properties of symplectic manifolds. Differential geometry concerns itself with problems — which may be local or global — that always have some non-trivial local properties. Thus differential geometry may study differentiable manifolds equipped with a connection, a metric (which may be Riemannian, pseudo-Riemannian, or Finsler), a special sort of distribution (such as a CR structure), and so on.

This distinction between differential geometry and differential topology is blurred, however, in questions specifically pertaining to local diffeomorphism invariants such as the tangent space at a point. Differential topology also deals with questions like these, which specifically pertain to the properties of differentiable mappings on Rn (for example the tangent bundle, jet bundles, the Whitney extension theorem, and so forth).

Nevertheless, the distinction becomes clearer in abstract terms. Differential topology is the study of the (infinitesimal, local, and global) properties of structures on manifolds having no non-trivial local moduli, whereas differential geometry is the study of the (infinitesimal, local, and global) properties of structures on manifolds having non-trivial local moduli.

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Hirsch (1997)

References

  1. Bloch, Ethan D. (1996). A First Course in Geometric Topology and Differential Geometry.
  2. Hirsch, Morris (1997). Differential Topology. Springer-Verlag. ISBN 0-387-90148-5.



Pretzel from Peter Teichner's preprints page here.