Royston

Apparently a physicist (or so he claims) is attempting a lawsuit against the LHC, I kid you not... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,342854,00.html

You certainly don't need calculus in a whole range of problems with CM, but I agree with Phil's sentiment, that calculus (as mentioned before) is fundamental, and I certainly don't see any harm in learning the basics, which aren't difficult to follow at all. However, I prefer techniques introduced when they're necessary, the last three courses I've taken / taking have had calculus, the first covering the basics, the second which was an app math course covered the proofs, and the current being vector calculus, and using basic rules. But without understanding e.g the fundamental theorem of calculus, it's hard to appreciate precisely what you're doing with the numbers, and how they relate (if that makes sense.) Just to add, anybody who says calculus is easy, is talking crap, it's utterly dependant on the application, and can get incredibly fiddly, if the system is complicated, then so to is the math. Understanding a proof won't help you in a lot of situations, so the level of math somebody learns should agree with the level (complexity) of the system you're trying to learn.

Well, I can confirm, after many attempts, that crushed Jalepenos do not display wave like behaviour (as per the two slit experiment.) My research continues...

As part of the Decadal Survey, which marks plans for future research in astromomy and astrophysics (every ten years, as the name suggests) a lunar telescope is one of the ideas put forward, to study the 'Dark Ages' of our universe, please see the sciencedaily article below... from the article EDIT: May help if I provided a link... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080311124548.htm

Thanks for the suggestions, ajb. I've bookmarked this page for future reference. The Wald, Bertlmann and Nakahara books, certainly sound like the material I'm looking for.

It's possibly the search engine, tensors came up in one of the engineering courses, but I'm obviously more interested if they're included in the material I'll be covering...which didn't come up with anything. However, I can't believe they're not covered somewhere, so I'll wait and see. This was the impression I got when reading through the cosmology (mainly GR) course I'll be taking. It's ok, but not going into the depth I was hoping for...as I'm looking at postgrad cosmology (subject to change) I'll have to get up to speed by doing some outside study. Thanks all for the responses

This question is to anyone who's studying / studied a physics degree. I'm covering SR in a couple of months, so I decided to look through my future courses on studying GR (undergrad.) It seems to be pretty basic, infact a huge bulk of differential geometry isn't covered until the Master (postgrad) math courses...I typed in tensor into the prospectus search, and no results came up !?! What is covered of the Einstein equations seems to be lacking the mathematical background you need to fully understand the equations. Is this right ? Are you only expected to understand GR fully at post-grad level and further ? EDIT: Having another look, our post-grad courses seem pretty thin on the ground with regards to physics, but I was thinking of doing my Masters full-time (obviously depending if I do well in my degree) however, I was still a little dissapointed with the cursory study of GR at undergrad...is this the same for most Uni's ?

Well, that's what you'd do with kinematics. Now you seem to be talking relativity...you need to be consistent on what area of physics you're talking about, of course time is treated differently between the basics to much more advanced areas, such as relativity. The point being, you don't need relativity to construct a position - time graph for a bouncing ball.

No, we've merely refined our interpretation of it. For day to day activities, just understanding causal steps is adequate, I have absolutely no idea how somebody would function if they didn't view the world as causal steps e.g asking your friend out for a drink, providing he turns up before you let him know. That statement could be taken literally, so could you expand on that a little. Say what ?

No, I don't think so, that's why I used squirrels as an example of an evolved instinctive trait, rather than a conscious decision. I've just reread my post, and it sounds as though I was implying squirrels consciously plan for the future I'm still not sure about this, as an example of our uniqueness. Modifying your environment, however small that modification may be, is still a level of production. After all, building a house is modifying the environment, it's merely a tool for providing warmth and shelter...just because that modification maybe small doesn't mean it should be disregarded, such as shaping a piece of bone for a task. The very act of doing this, means the environment has changed to suit the individual...obviously then it needs to be determined whether it was a conscious decision or not...which would be where our uniqueness is apparent. I'm just trying to strip the definition you used earlier to it's bear fundamentals. The differences between us and primates may seem stark when we're surrounded by technology, and our level of communication, and our reasoning abilities et.c et.c but when these attributes are stripped down, we get into those horrible grey areas. Hence why I was wondering if there was a situation in primate groups, where instant reward is overridden by some future planning...now due to the level of cognition and sentience in some primates, I don't think we should be so quick to dismiss that this doesn't happen. Obviously if it doesn't, then that would be another example of our uniqueness. I was going to bring up creativity / abstract thought. That we create for no other reason than the act of creation, art et.c Which is an inherent rather than conditioned attribute...I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. I realise it might seem silly that I'm arguing our uniqueness, I just think the obvious differences, aren't as obvious when considered at a fundamental level.

Heh, you beat me to it, I was just about to stick it on my blog.

Colin, your crap can be found all over the net, your argument has been addressed several times by people clearly more proficent in math than you, IOW repeating yourself won't change anybodies mind. Kindly take your crackpottery elsewhere.

That needs to be taken further though doesn't it ? The very use of a tool by a primate, and that information being passed on to future generations is a manipulation of the environment and in turn affects their behaviour. You've used the word produce, but certain primates have gone beyond mere selection of a tool for some given purpose, one example are Capuchin Monkeys, who take it further by modifying an object they've selected for a given purpose. A good example of cultural development can be seen in Japanese Maquaques, where the act of washing food has been passed down the generations, and has shaped and defined their behaviour. Although these are certainly more basic than our manipulation, there's no reason to believe it stops there for the primate, it just means the process takes much longer. It's still reciprocal determinism, just in it's most basic form. Humans are unique, because they can manipulate tools to such an extent (I'm using the word tool, in its most general sense) that the result can go way beyond our intuition and that we can accept and appreciate that, and it's the fact that we have developed tools that operate outside our inherent intuition, that makes us unique. I'm very busy at work, so there's probably a flaw in the above, but I'll come back to it later, when I have more time. Oops, I missed this bit...I'm still wondering if there are situations that arise where immediate reward is overridden due to future planning (that isn't an evolved instinctive trait e.g a squirrel that hoards hazelnuts for the winter) within primates, but I can't think of one at the moment.

Not sure if any of you have seen this, but below is a youtube link so you get an idea of the variety of situations you can simulate / create... Here's a link if you wish to download (only windows and Linux)... http://www.acc.umu.se/~emilk/ I really should be in bed, but another half an hour on this won't hurt

Out of interest, does this have anything to do with the TV series ?

Until they look at the logo.

I was interested to hear some thoughts from someone who understands the technical details of the idea proposed by the British astrophysicist, Dr Hongsheng Zhao. Please see the sciencedaily and arxiv articles below...at face value it seems like chalk and cheese to me, but as a lowly undergrad, I'd like to hear an expert opinion on the idea... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080131094056.htm http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3616

What makes you think humans don't behave, due to a set of laws ? Who's 'we' exactly, not only are you generalizing, but there are plenty of organizations and groups who rally against the issues you brought up. Now, you can come to terms with the fact the world isn't fair, and complete w*nkers come into power, or you can do your part and help a little...sitting on your butt and being apathetic about the state of the world won't get you, or anyone else, anywhere. I don't mean to sound rude, but don't you think all the people who have responded, have thought about the issues you've brought up, have been completely incensed by certain issues, and have tried to do their part ? That sounds a little contradictory to your first sentence.

Although this thread seems to be concentrating on the human aspects of what constitutes the world we live in, I'm reminded of the following from Hamlet, seemed quite apt, and illustrates how stark in contrast conflicting perspectives of the world can be. It also reminds me of the realizations I went through in my early teens, very similar to the OP, but I get a warm and fuzzy feeling just knowing there's many people such as Glider (very nice post) and many others on SFN and on this planet, who care about these issues, and have the intellect to read between the lines, and question the actions and decisions of others...

No sh*t It's even less likely to work, because it was announced to the whole school, and it was the advice of the headmistress... Victim: 'I don't like this, I want it to stop' Bully: 'Well, I was going to go easy on you, but now you really deserve to get beaten up.'

At middle school during an assembly, our headmistress announced a highly effective solution to the problem. Confront the bully, and tell them very calmly...'I don't like this, I want it to stop.' If they don't listen, simply repeat 'I don't like this, I want it to stop.'

Issuing contraceptives is one thing, expecting schools to provide parachutes and flame resistant underpants is another.

Strange that a consensus can be reached through the ignorance of the opposition, and both parties (as far as they're concerned) walk away victorious. That situation must be quite a rare occurrence, or maybe I'm being politically ignorant.

DJ indeed, Sir you insult me. I do write music, and if this is an ongoing project, (creating / remixing music for games et.c) I'd recommend Ableton, and perhaps Cool Edit or the Adobe Audition (the 2003 onwards Cool Edit.) You could probably get them cheap off E-bay, and they'll be more than suffice for what you want to do, and give you flexibility to be a bit more creative for future projects. However it sounds like a one-off, judging by your post, and I havn't personally used Audacity, so I can't comment...but it's free, so no harm in giving it a try.

Despite the term 'scientific theory' being bastardized (through whatever dilution the term has undergone), it's really just a lack of understanding of science itself, and an appreciation of the rigor that's required in deriving a scientific theory that causes the problem. If a student does understand the scientific method, and yet still chooses to cherry pick which theory agrees with their world view, I would class that as worse, than a simple lack of knowledge, which can be rectified...the former will be a lot more tricky, if they've already decided what constitutes a 'scientific theory' over another 'scientific theory.'