Quantum Physics

Where do they project it's going to land? Or is it too far off to predict that?

The site says it's a few days away, so too far out to predict. Likely be able to narrow it down about an hour before impact - just long enough to snarl traffic in a major metropolitan area.

Sunday night/monday morning according to the BBC.
But that is a prediction as much as anything.

GZA, the Genius, drops a preview of his upcoming science-themed album to a lecture audience at the University of Toronto.

Come on Halfy, overcome your distaste for hip hop and listen to the man speak!

#WuTangIsForTheChildren

I'm informed the video is private.

Damn, it wasn't yesterday. They lyrics are up at o.canada.com (lol), and you can watch the first third or so in this video:

http://o.canada.com/entertainment/music/wu-tang-clans-gza-taught-university-of-toronto-students-the-big-bang-theory-in-rhyme/

There's an article about it here:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303640104577436392955009490

If he brings rap away from the gutter in terms of message that would be a positive development. I just don't know if he'll turn it into music. So many rap songs start out with some wonderful riffs and musical introductions, then cut into chanting monotony. Can he keep it interesting this time?

Does chanting not count as music anymore? The monks might not be too happy to hear that.

The same could be said of many physics professors, especially at 8:00

I just watched a program about a multiple universe theory.

The basic premise is that for every action there are many outcomes, and each of these outcomes occur, each creating their own universe to happen in.
So if you put on black socks, somewhere else a version of you put on white, another odd socks and another one just stayed in bed ect.
And some German mathematician claimed to have come up with a mathematical model that proved this.

All well and good, but I think I have detected a flaw- I have decided to build a machine that will let me cross between universes so I can visit my other selves.
And the good bit is if I fail to do it it doesn't matter, as an infinite amount of other universe me's will all be doing the same, and as there is an infinite amount of them one of them somewhere will eventually work it out, and all I have to do is wait for them to arrive.

So far there is no sign of me, the lazy bastard, typical!  

Eldorion wrote:Does chanting not count as music anymore?  The monks might not be too happy to hear that.

What's called Gregorian Chant is actually highly melodic, if rhythmically boring.

My complaint with rap is they seem intent on making the delivery as monotonous as possible.  They always put emphasis on the last syllable of each line, creating a braying sensation.  They refuse to syncopate, when the medium so clearly calls for it.  Rarely a change in voice tone.  The human voice is a wonderful instrument, and it's as though they took a silver trumpet and can do no more than blurt the same badly formed note over and over like a child.

So sorry, no love for hip hop.  They still have to earn my respect, and most of them aren't even trying.  The physics poetry of GMZ was really nothing special, there's actually quite a bit of this stuff out there done much better: the a cappella superstring video you found is a premier example of what can be done.  Rap is simply infantile in comparison.

EDIT: I should add I do appreciate that GWZ is trying to bring a love of science to his target demographic, much of whom could benefit from the change in topic.  But that's only one part of the art form; my main complaint is that it hasn't really grown in sophistication over the decades, it still sounds like the music of ten year old boys.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I just watched a program about a multiple universe theory.

The basic premise is that for every action there are many outcomes, and each of these outcomes occur, each creating their own universe to happen in.
So if you put on black socks, somewhere else a version of you put on white, another odd socks and another one just stayed in bed ect.
And some German mathematician claimed to have come up with  a mathematical model that proved this.

All well and good, but I think I have detected a flaw- I have decided to build a machine that will let me cross between universes so I can visit my other selves.
And the good bit is if I fail to do it it doesn't matter, as an infinite amount of other universe me's will all be doing the same, and as there is an infinite amount of them one of them somewhere will eventually work it out, and all I have to do is wait for them to arrive.

So far there is no sign of me, the lazy bastard, typical!  

It seems like an awfully good excuse to let multiple others of you do all the nasty things like doing dishes and trimming the lawn as you sit back and sip bucky. Just don't let them figure out what you're up to.

You should watch Another Earth, its a fascinating and haunting film, I highly recommend it.

Science fiction is often at it's best when used to explore philosophical issues. Looks interesting.

I'm amazed at how much you know about hip hop for someone who has previously claimed to be unable to listen to it for more than 10 seconds.  

   synthetic DNA??   

I wonder if man has the capacity to evolve. I reckon we havent changed fundamentally for thousands of years. The things we think of as barbaric and ancient, we still do in various parts of the world, even if theres no public hanging in the West, there sure is in the East. Theres still child slavery, animal baiting, torture, war and genocide. So our technology has evolved lightyears but we have remained the same violent selfish animal. How on earth can we hope to become a higher being when here are things like Boko Haram still on the planet. I think we are at a biological cul-de-sac, I think this is the best its ever going to get, we will never change, we are far too basic and limited. Someday technology will outrun us and get rid of us, maybe its not such a bad thing. Humans suck.

Our technical and social tools have largely removed selective pressure...all except the female preoccupation with male height and one liners.   

I think it's now social structures and technology that are evolving, not us.

We're actually devolving. Just one example: near-sightedness was almost unknown until the last half of the 19th century. There are thousands of recessive genetic traits that used to get regularly weeded out by survival pressures that now are blooming like...well... weeds!

Was age controlled for in that study?

Also what counts as near sightedness? I only need glasses to drive, watch movies, or lectures. Most people in the 19 century would need none of it, so wouldn't call themselves near sighted.

Not discounting devolution, just pointing out confounding factors in the analysis.

I don't have the paper in front of me, but it was based on a study of inventory and notes of many opticians. They new how to make glasses with both concave and convex lenses, but they almost NEVER corrected for nearsightedness. It was rare enough to excite comment. Farsightedness on the other hand accounted for something like 98% of their trade.

Imagine the kid we all knew with the Coke-bottle glasses who was functionally blind without his/her glasses. There's just no record of that kid before about the middle of the 19th century. Then there's an explosion. Some people have tried to draw a statistical link to the invention of gas street lighting and the early development of the eye in the absence of total darkness, but I think that's still just speculation. The genetic argument is stronger, I understand.  

Mrs Figg wrote:You should watch Another Earth, its a fascinating and haunting film, I highly recommend it.

Just beware the ending.   

David H wrote:I don't have the paper in front of me, but it was based on a study of inventory and notes of many opticians.  They new how to make glasses with both concave and convex lenses, but they almost NEVER corrected for nearsightedness. It was rare enough to excite comment. Farsightedness on the other hand accounted for something like 98% of their trade.  

Imagine the kid we all knew with the Coke-bottle glasses who was functionally blind without his/her glasses. There's just no record of that kid before about the middle of the 19th century.  Then there's an explosion.  Some people have tried to draw a statistical link to the invention of gas street lighting and the early development of the eye in the absence of total darkness, but I think that's still just speculation.  The genetic argument is stronger, I understand.  

That sounds convincing. One would think at least the upper class would enjoy improving eyesight even if they didn't need to. Hunting glasses.

maybe before the 19th century not many people could afford glasses, or maybe there werent any high Street opticians, glasses were for the rich. Before the 19th century and the industrial revolution glasses would be hand made by artisans and probably too expensive for agricultural rural workers, who knows if people were killed by shortsightedness but it was put down to clumsyness or drunkeness. Also many people didnt read so they may not have been as aware of short or long sight problems. In England there was only really a large thriving middle class from the 18th century and mostly in cities, but the boom in the middle classes was in the 19th when they had money to spend on luxuries like glasses. women wouldnt have worn them in public either until they were married, it would have ruined their marketability. So I think its hard to say exactly if its due to devolution .