science debate

[unriggable]

Anybody else take quantum mechanics and feel like pulling hair out of your head afterwards? It's the worst stuff ever...

I have just been reading about it in a book by roger penrose... i'm a layman and it is blowing my tiny mind, which is weird because i understand about 10% of it. Dug the cat, though. How people can understand quantum theory and live like normal people, i.e not walk through walls or just go mad with the incredible strangeness of it, is beyond me.

Schrödinger's cat? That is cool.

That was the worst. Until we find ouot what it is, it HAS to be alive and dead at the same moment.

See? WTF? If the cat's wavefunction collapse doesn't happen until it has been observed (or 'measured') then does this mean the world only functions the way it does because we are here to see it?
i tell you man, this is skirting the shores of insanity

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mN_Y5CnsokQ

[Colossus]

to me the most fascinating things about quantum mechanics are that
1. the entire universe is basically one huge-ass incredibly complicated orbital
2. nothing is really totally defined at any point in time; everything is based on probability

This means that alll is linked, there is no real division between things or between us, everything is inexorably connected. This means that every action we choose to take alters the entire universe in an infinitesimally small, but real, way.


As for An Inconvenient Truth, it is fraught with scientific exaggerations. I love that it is bringing more public attention to the problems of pollution and global warming, but it, as noted by others in this thread is all too common to the global warming alarmists, has a far too doomsday approach to really reach the masses. I think that the best argument for true change in environmental policy must be made in dollars and cents to be effective, at least in America. And there are lots of great economic reasons for change. Equilibrium is the Natural Law, and there is NO WAY that the Earth will be uninhabitable in 40 years. Just ain't gonna happen. In An Inconvenient Truth, they show CO2 data for the past 600,000 years. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and life has been on this planet for about 4 billion years. Multi-cellular life has been here for about a billion years, and mammals for about 200 million. So 600,000 years is not really a comprehensive record of CO2 levels over this planet's history.

And a little note for any students or pre-college teachers out there. Half of what is in biological science (including environmental sciences) textbooks will be proven to be wrong in the next 50 years. I work in scientific academia, and I can tell you that the one universal truth is that scientists don't really know as much as the public thinks they do. The biological and environmental sciences are being revised daily, so be careful of believing all of what you read or see on TV.

[unriggable]

As for An Inconvenient Truth, it is fraught with scientific exaggerations. I love that it is bringing more public attention to the problems of pollution and global warming, but it, as noted by others in this thread is all too common to the global warming alarmists, has a far too doomsday approach to really reach the masses. I think that the best argument for true change in environmental policy must be made in dollars and cents to be effective, at least in America. And there are lots of great economic reasons for change. Equilibrium is the Natural Law, and there is NO WAY that the Earth will be uninhabitable in 40 years. Just ain't gonna happen. In An Inconvenient Truth, they show CO2 data for the past 600,000 years. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and life has been on this planet for about 4 billion years. Multi-cellular life has been here for about a billion years, and mammals for about 200 million. So 600,000 years is not really a comprehensive record of CO2 levels over this planet's history.

He used the data to show how linked CO2 levels are with temperature, and how it has never been that high in that glacier's history.

[Colossus]

He used the data to show how linked CO2 levels are with temperature, and how it has never been that high in that glacier's history.

Appreciated. And the data works fine for that analysis, but many scientists have been using that data to promote the argument that 'CO2 has never been at levels this high before'. That's what I have a problem with.

[WL_southerner]

during the gowana period was the first time the earth saw land plants and the first soft body animals it all so see the first ice age
co2 gasses have been rising for the last 200 years world temps have been going up and down, sun spots have been getting more active in in the last 35 years, we even been getting them when there should not have been any for a few years

[unriggable]

He used the data to show how linked CO2 levels are with temperature, and how it has never been that high in that glacier's history.

Appreciated. And the data works fine for that analysis, but many scientists have been using that data to promote the argument that 'CO2 has never been at levels this high before'. That's what I have a problem with.

It hasn't been this high in humanity's existence. Most likely was higher at some point.

[Colossus]

It hasn't been this high in humanity's existence. Most likely was higher at some point.

Exactly my point. The fact that it hasn't been this high in humanity's existence is NOT evidence that it is bad for humanity. That's the problem with the argument. What bugs me about the global warming alarmists is that they are so busy shouting that the sky is falling (i.e. the earth won't be habitable in 40 years) that they miss the totally reasonable and compelling arguments like the incredible abundance of solar power. Imagine a world where the power structure doesn't revolve around energy sources because everyone owns the capacity to generate their own power. To me, THAT is a hell of a lot more compelling than the threat that ocean levels will rise by 40 feet....like NYC would be flooded overnight or something. The apocalyptic arguments fly in the face of human reason. While there are people out there who are susceptible to the chicken little mob mentality, I think most people are inherently skeptical of anyone who cites such catastrophic consequences. The general populace can relate much better to arguments about their wallet or their own neighborhood, and there is no shortage of those kinds of arguments to be made for alternative energy sources and cleaner air.

[WL_southerner]

i think the best source of power is water if they stop thinking big and think small dam up every single river and stream

[unriggable]

i think the best source of power is water if they stop thinking big and think small dam up every single river and stream

And flood the countryside? Not a chance. Solar power = best.

[Colossus]

microhydroelectric power is the most cost-effective solution for remote areas, especially in underdeveloped nations, but for more populated areas, it's very impractical. the beauty of microhydro is that is takes care of the distribution problem and is very low-tech and robust. the obvious downside is that there aren't rivers and streams everywhere and that damming up every single river and stream would cause localized ecological havoc (they say).

[MeDeFe]

And they're probably right.

[WL_southerner]

you dont need to dam up in a big way, just enough to hold back the water to run mills that can produice say 10 kw of power or more it would also help under ground water levels

[Colossus]

you'd still have to kiss things like salmon goodbye. There are tons of species that rely on large flows of water. river and stream wildlife would surely suffer. The ocean biosphere is also largely intertwined with anadramous species, so just damming up all the rivers and streams (even small ones) could cause some sizeable widespread problems. The beauty of solar power is that the sun shines pretty much everywhere, and it's gonna hit Earth one way or another, so whether it hits your roof or a set of solar panels isn't likely to make much difference in local ecology.

[WL_southerner]

the amount of solar panels you need would cover to much of a aria to make it worth while, ok to help out has to supply some of the power
you could still dam rivers up and not worry about fish like the salmon because you put fish shoots in to allow them to pass

[unriggable]

the amount of solar panels you need would cover to much of a aria to make it worth while, ok to help out has to supply some of the power
you could still dam rivers up and not worry about fish like the salmon because you put fish shoots in to allow them to pass

The reaon we need a lot of solar power is because it runs at about 13% efficiency (It only absorbs some wave frequencies of light). Scientists are trying to increase that to include other spectrum levels of light. Apparently if a solar panel ran at 100% efficiency, there would be no reflection.

[Colossus]

as a matter of fact, last year saw the development of a new type of solar cell, according to the December issue of Discover magazine and Scientific American. This cell is much more efficient than previous ones and apparently is also more durable and far cheaper to manufacture and maintain. One of the magazines (I forget which) cited a study done on the new cells that showed that something like ten or fifteen 100 acre solar panel fields in various places across the US would provide for the nation's energy needs (including redundancy). Didn't talk about cost, but it's an interesting idea, I think. The technology for solar power is growing by leaps and bounds these days, so I wouldn't be surprised to see something within the next 5 years that is even better.

[MeDeFe]

1500 acres? That's nothing! Only like 6 square kilometers if I got the calculation right. And the USA is the biggest energy hog in the world...

They better get those up and running quick, then we can shut off all other power plants. No more pollution, no more nuclear waste, no ugly wind power generators. All you need is sunshine.
And if they really work that efficiently you barely even need that, overcast should do it too.

[unriggable]

1500 acres? That's nothing! Only like 6 square kilometers if I got the calculation right. And the USA is the biggest energy hog in the world...

I dunno, the Chinese are quickly catching up - having to build four coal-fired power plants a week to mantain power.

[WL_southerner]

southampton docks uses them new solar panels on their bouys it takes 8 panels to run a 36v 30w light bulb

[Kid_A]

did somebody say robot sex?

[MeDeFe]

30w lightbulbs are outdated.

[MeDeFe]

But speaking of energy hogs... I recently read (in a newspaper, the printed kind) that the average american uses about twice as much energy as the average west european, and they used 4 or 5 times as much as the average chinese, but don't quote me on the numbers, I'm too lazy to check some official looking sites to find out exactly.

[WL_southerner]

30w light bulbs are not out dated when it comes to marking the shipping channels out you need to be able to see the buoy a mile a way on a clear night

[MeDeFe]

They are not your usual lightbulbs though.

[WL_southerner]

no but it give you an idea how many panels your need to run an item that uses 240v at 1 amp ( a ave uk house is 240v 45 amps )