Severian

The Planck length isn't the smallest possible length. It is just the length that gravity is conjectured to become strong. It is also conjectured that it becomes so strong that space breaks up on this scale, into a sort of foam, but since we don't have a quantum theory of gravity that is just speculation.

I agree, it's crap. (It might be less crap though if anyone gave me reputation points.)

The video wasn't ridiculing ID. It was ridiculing Richard Dawkins.

The photon's rest mass is identically zero.

I thought it was a load of rubbish to be honest. The instant you attempt to counter logical arguments with ridicule, you have lost the debate. (I can't believe I am defending Dawkins here!)

No it hasn't. It is a bit peculiar that people are so panicy about black holes. Why do they think black holes are dangerous? After all, a black hole weighting 1 kg would have no more gravitational attraction than 1 kg of iron, so it wouldn't "suck you in". Admitedly very large black holes such as those thought to be at the centre of our galaxy, might be very dangerous, but that says nothing about very small ones. By analogy, neutron stars are very dangerous if you get up close, but neutrons are completely harmless (lots of them in my body!).

I must admit, I have very little sympathy for people who lose their homes due to not being able to pay their mortgages. There are pretty much no outside circumstances which you can't plan for, and it is just people paying for their own stupidity and lack of planning. To many people take out loans they simply can't afford and then whine about it once they have lived the good life and find themselves in debt. For example, take the grandmother living in a trailer after losing her home, in the BBC clip. They lost their home when her husband became ill and couldn't work. But why didn't they have disability insurance? If you have a long term loan which you must pay off, it is a small extra cost to take out insurance in case you suddenly can't work. And I am 100% sure that the bank that sold them the mortgage would have offered them such insurance (they never lose a chance to sell you something).

I never insist on Dr. I think by the time you have got to a highish academic rank, pretty much everyone you know have some sort of similar title, or have in my opinion done enough to deserve one anyway. So I don't feel 'special' and don't feel the need to assert that I am. For example, there is no title to specially address a mother who has successfully brought up 3 kids, but that is a much more arduous task than doing a PhD. So why should I get a special title and her not?

For anyone who will be in the Glasgow area in April, you may be interested in the latest round of Gifford Lectrues: http://www.giffordlectures.org/news.asp#item08 There are letcures on "Natural Theology" (i.e. the interplay between theology and the natural world) so although they don't need to have anything to do with science, quite often they do. Richard Dawkins gave one set of lectures a few years ago for example, and last year Martin Rees gave some lectures on “21st Century Science: Cosmic Perspective and Terrestrial Challenges.” On April 10 there will be a lecture entitled "The implausibility of religious belief: claims and counterclaims" which sounds quite interesting.

What do you have in mind? Automated gun turrets and motion sensors?

The huge wealth of the Catholic Churrch was the first thing I thought of too. I am surprised that they didn't think this themselves and tread a little lightly on excessive wealth. Incidentally, Jesus is very specific about what is a sin - basically anything which stands between you and God (so lusting after chocolate ice-cream is as much a sin as lusting after hardcore porn).

The original poll question is "Is nuclear power ethically right?". Anyone who votes 'no' is therefore saying that nuclear power is not ethically correct. Since the Sun is a giant fusion reactor, and thus nuclear, the respondent must have an ethical objection to the Sun. Therefore they should be forcibly prevented from using any energy originating from the sun to save them from their own hypocrisies. Clear now?

Surely that is up to the people of Serbia to decide as a whole? Or are you just anti-democracy? Well, maybe you are right. Maybe Serbia will function more efficiently with only ultra-nationalists in power.

I have never been physically addicted to anything (and to the smart ass contemplating a witty response, no, water doesn't count). It just seems like addictions don't "stick" with me. I think it may be linked to being a lazy bugger. Going down the shops to buy a pack of fags just doesn't seem worth the effort.

If you mean that it has become apparent that the independence of Kosovo was a bad idea, then I agree. Something tells me that wasn't what you were meaning though....

Well, it looks like Serbia's government has collapsed: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7285322.stm On the heels of Kosovo's independence I think we can expect a new government less sympathetic with the west. I wouldn't be suprised if we didn't see a lot more violence.

Anyone who votes no should be forcibly prevented from using any energy originating from the sun. To save them from their own hypocrisies.

Yes.

As has been pointed out before, that is not the cause - that is the mechanism. They are very different things. To put it another way, I can have a quantum mechanical system with the correct parameters (energy etc) to decay to a lower energy state, that 'chooses' not to decay for some measurable amount of time. What is the physics which sets that time? Why didn't it decay earlier? What 'caused' it to decay at that particular time?

I think the reason for your confusion is probably that the "speed of light" is a very bad name for 'c'. c is a limiting velocity caused by the non-linear nature of the relation between velocity and momentum. Light happens to travel at this speed (i.e. as fast as possible) simply because it has no mass - any other particle with no mass would also travel at c too. The actual value c=3x108ms-1 is just a matter of convention in the units we choose, i.e. the definition of metres and seconds. If we measured time in uints of seconds and distance in units of light-seconds, then c = 1 light-second s-1.

Red-Bull should use the opening 10 seconds for an advert I think. Just him drinking it, saying "red-bull" gives you wings, and jumping out.

While it is certainly true that you can't have happiness without the correct mental attitude, the correct mental attitude is not enough to guarantee happiness. If you are being tortured, or are starving to death in Africa, or in an abusive relationship, or suffering form severe medical problems, then it is hard to be happy. The problem with life, in my opinion, is that there is really no material way of guaranteeing, or even working towards a 'happier' life. We are always told in school the route to a happy life is to work hard, live a moral life and be a constructive member of society. But frankly, that is just such bullshit. Even if you work really hard at school, graduate top of your class at university, and get an outstanding PhD in a difficult and global subject, you will most probably end up in a job where you are underpaid, unappreciated and made to feel generally worthless. Even if you stick to your romantic notions about love, give the girl flowers, be a gentleman and wait for the one you feel you truely love, you will probably still up end 15 years later wondering what the hell you are doing in this horrible relationship. If you live a moral life, give large amounts of money to charity, volunteer for community projects, work with disadvantaged schoolchildren, you will still find yourself wondering if life wouldn't have been more fun if you had made those "sex, drugs and roll and roll" choices long long ago. Even if you work out every day, eat all the right foods, and generally look after yourself pretty well, you will still probably be told you have a degenerative brain disease before you are 30. People keep saying that modern society is a place of opportunity, that all you have to do is reach out and grab success and happiness. I think that is rubbish - I think it is harder to be happy in modern society than it has ever been. Most of us are just treading water, waiting to grow old and die. If you are expecting the material world to make you happy, ultimately you are going to be disappointed.

Oh yes, of course. So do I. When you are applying for a grant, you need to make as strong a case as possible, and an unpublished paper on the arXiv means it is finished and awaiting peer review.

The problem with peer review of grant applications is that everyone is going for the same money, so there is an incentive to give bad peer reviews. If you know that only one special programme grant will be funded, and you have applied for it, it is very tempting to be negative about any grants (competing for the same money) that you are asked to review.

It has become a lot worse in recent years (in my field anyway). It is difficult to tell how much that is my perception though - over the years I have gotten much better at spotting the bullshit. The most worrying trend in modern physics is that papers are now being judged not on their scientific merit, but by the number of citations they have. In my opinion, this is very dangerous. I think it would be of interest to only a very small number of people. In fact, if anything it will only mislead them, especially since they may be unable to tell a good paper from a bad one. I am a referee for several journals, and the last three papers I have reviewed I have rejected, not because I didn't like their subject (or even viewpoint), but because they were actually wrong. They all based significant parts of their work on quantifiable false statements. However, all 3 of these articles are still available on arXiv and I don't believe an interested amateur (or for that matter a careless professional) would spot the mistake.