Science…

The "Turing pardon" sits comfortably in the "too little too late" category. To "pardon" or forgive for a perceived offence adds injury to the injustices lumped on Turing, one of Britain's true war heroes. And the fact that the British politicians have resisted the calls for any official recognition of the injustice implicit in Turing's appalling treatment until it became clear that a feature movie concerning Turing was in production and its release  imminent, highlights the pusillanimity of the gesture.

And don't expect the movie to set things right either. Turing's biographer who has supposedly seen the script, is already complaining that the movie is not only introducing a significant female love interest, to be played by Keira Knightly, despite the fact that the real woman in question was little more than a brief female detour for the actively gay Turing, but also openly hints that Turing had connections with Soviet spies even though there is no evidence to support the connection other than his sexuality and his Cambridge location.

Additionally the director has also lamented about the difficulties in dramatising ground breaking maths and science on the big screen and is supposedly threatening to focus more on Turing's long distance running obsession. Sort of makes him more like "one of the boys", well it worked for our Tony!

Personally I'd like to see footage of him attending Wittgenstein's lectures, one of the few students offered the privilege according to Wittgenstein's biographer, Ray Monk, but I won't hold my breath in expectation.

Not sure how the movie will deal with the alleged suicide, which the family continue to deny, or the connection with the Apple logo that Jobs and Apple steadfastly rejected. ■■■■■■ difficult to erase a popular urban legend.

Banging Keira Knightly would be like banging a very skinny boy, so I can see the symbolism there.

also openly hints that Turing had connections with Soviet spies even though there is no evidence to support the connection other than his sexuality and his Cambridge location.


Don't even see how that makes sense.

Soviets are pretty un-■■■■ now, anyway.

Well Cambridge was the place to go if you wished to be recruited as a soviet spy and of the infamous "Cambridge 5", Burgess and Blunt were overtly gay and Maclean was bisexual. Philby was straight and the 5th is unknown. Several books, plays and films have focussed on the connection, including "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy", "Another Country" and "Cambridge Spies". Turing was considered a security risk by association in that he was gay and a Cambridge based contemporary of some of the above. The list of names put forward for the 5th spy is longer than the list of candidates for Jack the Ripper.

Banging Keira Knightly would be like banging a very skinny boy, so I can see the symbolism there.


Mmmm, very skinny boys will now somehow look attractive to me.

Probably best to report for chemical castration now rather than after the judge orders it.

Well Cambridge was the place to go if you wished to be recruited as a soviet spy and of the infamous "Cambridge 5", Burgess and Blunt were overtly gay and Maclean was bisexual. Philby was straight and the 5th is unknown. Several books, plays and films have focussed on the connection, including "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy", "Another Country" and "Cambridge Spies". Turing was considered a security risk by association in that he was gay and a Cambridge based contemporary of some of the above. The list of names put forward for the 5th spy is longer than the list of candidates for Jack the Ripper.

Cheers.
Can't think why they would've been miffed at the authorities... probably come full circle now with Putin's laws

 

also openly hints that Turing had connections with Soviet spies even though there is no evidence to support the connection other than his sexuality and his Cambridge location.


Don't even see how that makes sense.

 

Russians used to target the pewfs, just because, as we can see by Turing's conviction, they had a lot to lose if they were caught and were therefore great subjects for blackmail.

 

Banging Keira Knightly would be like banging a very skinny boy, so I can see the symbolism there.


Mmmm, very skinny boys will now somehow look attractive to me.

 

Dear me!

Steven Hawking has gone and done shook up the idea of black holes...

 

"The absence of event horizons mean that there are no black holes — in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity," writes Hawking, in a new paper. In other words, the notion that black holes have an event horizon, which prevents anything from escaping ever, is wrong.

 

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761

Steven Hawking has gone and done shook up the idea of black holes...

 

"The absence of event horizons mean that there are no black holes — in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity," writes Hawking, in a new paper. In other words, the notion that black holes have an event horizon, which prevents anything from escaping ever, is wrong.

 

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761

That's pretty interesting. I think the claim that Hawking's saying that there are no black holes is a little sensationalist. Just that they might be somewhat different to how we've previously thought about them.

Headline writers gotta headline.

There is a helpful breakdown of the Hawking paper on New Scientist:

 

 

 

Stephen Hawking's new theory offers black hole escape

Stephen Hawking has a new mind-bending theory about black holes, the bizarre cosmic objects that cemented his reputation as the world's most famous living scientist. Rather than getting sucked into a singularity of confusion, read our explainer

What exactly is a black hole?
Good question. According to theoretical physicists, they used to be regions of space-time – the fabric that makes up the universe – that have become so dense that their huge gravity generates an event horizon, from inside which nothing, not even light, can escape. Then in 1974, Hawking added quantum mechanics to the black hole picture and sparked a row that has raged on until the present day.

What's wrong with a bit of quantum?
Quantum mechanics doesn't get along with the other grand theory of physics,general relativity, making it difficult to understand situations in which both are relevant, such as black holes. Hawking applied quantum theory to black holes and realised they aren't quite black. Instead, they should emit small amounts of radiation, causing them to shrink and eventually evaporate.

OK, so black holes aren't immortal. What's the problem?
The theory of Hawking radiation also suggested that when a black hole dies, it takes everything inside with it, but that is a big quantum no-no. Quantum physics says that information about matter is never destroyed, even when it falls into a black hole. Other theorists suggested solving this "information paradox" by allowing information to escape from the black hole as it evaporated. Hawking disagreed – until 30 years later, when he showed how it might be possible and was forced to concede a seven-year-old wager with another physicist.

Meaning now everyone agrees about black holes?
If only. For the past 18 months the black hole community has been up in arms over a descendant of the information paradox, known as the firewall paradox. A group led by Joseph Polchinski of the University of California in Santa Barbara suggested information leaving a black hole would produce massive amounts of energy, creating a wall of fire at the event horizon that would consume anything falling in. This would break a rule of general relativity that says crossing a black hole's event horizon should be uneventful – hence the paradox.

It's yet another quantum versus relativity showdown!
Indeed. Firewalls mean that one of the two theories is wrong, so physicists have been scrambling to find a compromise that doesn't produce these flaming problems. Now Hawking has waded in and says the solution is to give up the very thing that makes black holes so intriguing – the event horizon.

Wait a minute… does that mean you could actually escape from a black hole?
Potentially, although you would probably need to be travelling at the speed of light. "The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes – in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity," writes Hawking in his new paper, which he posted online earlier this week. Instead, black holes have "apparent horizons", surfaces which trap light but can also vary in shape due to quantum fluctuations, leaving the potential for light to escape.

Are the two horizons really that different?
It is unclear. The idea of an apparent horizon isn't completely new, and Hawking – along with Roger Penrose of the University of Oxford – has previously used general relativity to prove that the two horizons are actually identical. In his most recent paper he is proposing that quantum mechanics might reveal them to be different.

Ah, so is that the new bit?
Not quite. The main contribution of the new paper is an attempt to use these ideas to resolve the firewall paradox. Removing the event horizon also kills off the firewall. That would normally suggest that quantum information must be lost – but Hawking says that needn't be the case. He proposes that the structure of a black hole just below the horizon is chaotic, making it difficult to understand the information being released. In other words, the information is lost in the sense that it is almost impossible to interpret, but it isn't actually destroyed. "It will be like weather forecasting on Earth," he writes. "One can't predict the weather more than a few days in advance."

Is he right? Is the paradox solved?
Hawking's paper is very short, just two pages of text with no calculations, making it difficult to draw any strong conclusions, but there is already some scepticism. "It is not clear what he expects the infalling observer to see," says Polchinski. "It almost sounds like he is replacing the firewall with a chaos-wall, which could be the same thing." Samuel Braunstein of the University of York, UK, who has waded into the firewall debate previously, also isn't convinced: "I don't see any evidence which really demonstrates that the thing he is talking about doesn't have a firewall."

Does it matter if Hawking is right?
If black holes are how he describes, it could lead to a better understanding of quantum mechanics and general relativity. "We might learn some new physics, which may have real implications about the non-trivial structure of the universe," says Braunstein. But he also points out that we might not.

Does Hawking mind being wrong?
Everyone hates being wrong – and Hawking is human. On his 70th birthday, he told New Scientist that he regards his idea that information was destroyed by black holes, which later turned out to be wrong, as his "biggest blunder" â€“ in science, at least.

New Scientist is in the process of contacting Stephen Hawking for comment on his latest paper.

Journal reference: arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761

From http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24937-stephen-hawkings-new-theory-offers-black-hole-escape.htm

 

<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/12/21/1523497.htm'>http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/12/21/1523497.htm</a>

&nbsp;

Folding paper

When my son was near the end of his primary school years, I thought that it was time that I should impart some of my Weird Freaky Science Wisdom - and have a little bit of fun as well.

I told him that I would give him a million dollars if he could fold a piece of paper in half, and in half again, and so on for a total of 10 times. Of course he tried, and of course he failed.

I knew that this would happen, because it was "Accepted Wisdom" that it was impossible to fold a piece of paper in half 10 times (or seven, or nine, for that matter.). I told him that it couldn't be done, even if he used paper the size of a football field. But I now know that I was wrong.

Suppose that you start with an standard A4 sheet of paper - about 300 mm long, and about 0.05 mm thick.

The first time you fold it in half, it becomes 150 mm long and 0.1 mm thick. The second fold takes it to 75 mm long and 0.2 mm thick. By the 8th fold (if you can get there), you have a blob of paper 1.25 mm long, but 12.8 mm thick. It's now thicker than it is long, and, if you're trying to bend it, seems to have the structural integrity of steel.

A typical claim on the Internet might run, "No matter its size or thickness, no piece of paper can be folded in half more than 7 times", and as you stare sadly at your block of folded paper, you tend to agree.

In fact, if you had a sheet of paper, and folded it in half 50 times, how thick would it be?

The answer is about 100 million kilometres, which is about two thirds of the distance between the Sun and the Earth.

And so Accepted Wisdom on Paper-Folding ruled, until 2001.

That was when a high school student, Britney Gallivan (of Pomona, California) was given a maths problem. She would get an extra maths credit, if she took up the option of solving the problem of folding a sheet in half 12 times. She tried and failed with reasonably-sized sheets of paper.

So she got smart, and used something incredibly thin - gold foil, only 0.28 of millionth of a metre thick. She started with a square sheet, 10 cm by 10 cm. It took lots of determination and practice, as well as rulers, soft paint brushes and tweezers, but she finally succeeded in folding her gold foil in half 12 times. She ended up with a microscopic square sheet of gold foil.

But her maths teacher said that ultra-thin gold foil was too easy - she had to fold paper 12 times.

She studied the problem, and came with two mathematical solutions.

The first solution was for the classical fold-it-this-way, fold-it-that-way method of folding the paper. Here you fold the paper in alternate directions. She derived a formula relating the number of folds possible (n) to the width (w, of the square sheet you start with) and the material's thickness (t):

20051222_1523497_01.gif

The second solution was for folding the paper in a single direction. This is the case when you try to fold a long narrow sheet of paper. She derived another formula relating the number of folds possible in one direction (n) to the minimum possible length of material (l) and the material's thickness (t):

20051222_1523497_02.gif

When she looked closely, she found that if you are trying to fold the sheet as many times as possible, there are advantages in using a long narrow sheet of paper.

Her formula told her that to successfully fold paper 12 times, she would need about 1.2 km of paper.

After some searching she found a roll of special toilet paper that would suit her needs - and that cost US $85. In January 2002, she went to the local shopping mall in Pomona. With her parents, she rolled out the jumbo toilet paper, marked the halfway point, and folded it the first time. It took a while, because it was a long way to the end of the paper. Then she folded the paper the second time, and then again and again.

After seven hours, she folded her paper for the 11th time into a skinny slab, about 80 cm wide and 40 cm high, and posed for photos. She then folded it another time (to get that 12th fold essential for her extra maths credit), and wrote up her achievement for the Historical Society of Pomona in her 40 page pamphlet, "How to Fold Paper in Half Twelve Times: An "Impossible Challenge" Solved and Explained". She wrote in her pamphlet, "The world was a great place when I made the twelfth fold."

Britney Gallivan succeeded because she was as contrary and determined as Juan Ramon Jiminez, the Spanish poet and winner of the 1956 Nobel Prize for Literature. He wrote, in a metaphor for the questioning and resilient human spirit, "If they give you ruled paper, write the other way."

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/12/21/1523497.htm   Folding paper

When my son was near the end of his primary school years, I thought that it was time that I should impart some of my Weird Freaky Science Wisdom - and have a little bit of fun as well.

I told him that I would give him a million dollars if he could fold a piece of paper in half, and in half again, and so on for a total of 10 times. Of course he tried, and of course he failed.

I knew that this would happen, because it was "Accepted Wisdom" that it was impossible to fold a piece of paper in half 10 times (or seven, or nine, for that matter.). I told him that it couldn't be done, even if he used paper the size of a football field. But I now know that I was wrong.

Suppose that you start with an standard A4 sheet of paper - about 300 mm long, and about 0.05 mm thick.

The first time you fold it in half, it becomes 150 mm long and 0.1 mm thick. The second fold takes it to 75 mm long and 0.2 mm thick. By the 8th fold (if you can get there), you have a blob of paper 1.25 mm long, but 12.8 mm thick. It's now thicker than it is long, and, if you're trying to bend it, seems to have the structural integrity of steel.

A typical claim on the Internet might run, "No matter its size or thickness, no piece of paper can be folded in half more than 7 times", and as you stare sadly at your block of folded paper, you tend to agree.

In fact, if you had a sheet of paper, and folded it in half 50 times, how thick would it be?

The answer is about 100 million kilometres, which is about two thirds of the distance between the Sun and the Earth.

And so Accepted Wisdom on Paper-Folding ruled, until 2001.

That was when a high school student, Britney Gallivan (of Pomona, California) was given a maths problem. She would get an extra maths credit, if she took up the option of solving the problem of folding a sheet in half 12 times. She tried and failed with reasonably-sized sheets of paper.

So she got smart, and used something incredibly thin - gold foil, only 0.28 of millionth of a metre thick. She started with a square sheet, 10 cm by 10 cm. It took lots of determination and practice, as well as rulers, soft paint brushes and tweezers, but she finally succeeded in folding her gold foil in half 12 times. She ended up with a microscopic square sheet of gold foil.

But her maths teacher said that ultra-thin gold foil was too easy - she had to fold paper 12 times.

She studied the problem, and came with two mathematical solutions.

The first solution was for the classical fold-it-this-way, fold-it-that-way method of folding the paper. Here you fold the paper in alternate directions. She derived a formula relating the number of folds possible (n) to the width (w, of the square sheet you start with) and the material's thickness (t):

20051222_1523497_01.gif

The second solution was for folding the paper in a single direction. This is the case when you try to fold a long narrow sheet of paper. She derived another formula relating the number of folds possible in one direction (n) to the minimum possible length of material (l) and the material's thickness (t):

20051222_1523497_02.gif

When she looked closely, she found that if you are trying to fold the sheet as many times as possible, there are advantages in using a long narrow sheet of paper.

Her formula told her that to successfully fold paper 12 times, she would need about 1.2 km of paper.

After some searching she found a roll of special toilet paper that would suit her needs - and that cost US $85. In January 2002, she went to the local shopping mall in Pomona. With her parents, she rolled out the jumbo toilet paper, marked the halfway point, and folded it the first time. It took a while, because it was a long way to the end of the paper. Then she folded the paper the second time, and then again and again.

After seven hours, she folded her paper for the 11th time into a skinny slab, about 80 cm wide and 40 cm high, and posed for photos. She then folded it another time (to get that 12th fold essential for her extra maths credit), and wrote up her achievement for the Historical Society of Pomona in her 40 page pamphlet, "How to Fold Paper in Half Twelve Times: An "Impossible Challenge" Solved and Explained". She wrote in her pamphlet, "The world was a great place when I made the twelfth fold."

Britney Gallivan succeeded because she was as contrary and determined as Juan Ramon Jiminez, the Spanish poet and winner of the 1956 Nobel Prize for Literature. He wrote, in a metaphor for the questioning and resilient human spirit, "If they give you ruled paper, write the other way."

 

Having put zero thought into this, I'm skeptical. Where do the factors of pi come from?

At a complete guess, the pi values come from working out how much paper length is used in the actual fold itself, on the assumption that the paper making up the fold follows a semicircular path.

At a complete guess, the pi values come from working out how much paper length is used in the actual fold itself, on the assumption that the paper making up the fold follows a semicircular path.

Yeah. Having put a bit of thought into it now, I can see probably should have thought harder before I called shenanigans.

 

 

We‘ve found the oldest star in the known universe – and it‘s right on our galactic doorstep
oldest-star-in-the-sky-640x414.jpg

 

Astronomers have discovered the oldest living star in the (known) universe — and, remarkably, it‘s situated right on our galactic doorstep, just 6,000 light years away, well within the Milky Way. The star, which has the abbreviated name of SM0313, was born 13.6 billion years ago — just 100 or 200 million years after the Big Bang (and a whopping 400 million years before the previous record breaker). It is believed that SM0313 is an elusive Population II star — a star that was formed from the remnants of one of the universe‘s very first supernovae. By using SM0313′s spectrographic fingerprint as a baseline, we will hopefully be able to find more ancient stars, eventually allowing us to build up a better picture of what actually happened during (and before?) the Big Bang.

 

SM0313 (full designation SMSS J031300.36-670839.3) was first spotted by the Australian National University‘s Siding Spring Observatory‘s SkyMapper Telescope, which is in the process of mapping out a billion stars, galaxies, and asteroids in the southern sky. The Magellan Telescopes in Chile then followed up with some high-resolution imagery. As the astronomers took a closer look at the images, they noticed something rather odd: SM0313 contains almost no iron — less than one ten millionth of the iron found in our local Sun, in fact. (Read: 9 gigapixels, 84 million stars: Peer into the world‘s most detailed photo of the Milky Way.)

 

Cassiopeia_A_Spitzer_Crop-640x487.jpg

The remnants of Cassiopeia A, a massive supernova that occurred about 11, 000 light years away from us

 

As you may know, our current understanding of the formation of the universe (i.e. galaxies, stars, planets) is that supernovae play a very central role. Basically, the theory is that the Big Bang produced vast amounts of hydrogen, helium, and small amounts of lithium. All of the matter in the universe, and all of the matter that will ever be in the universe, is derived from that initial pool of three elements. After a few thousand years, as the universe started to cool, dense regions of hydrogen started to coalesce under gravity — and in some cases, if they became dense enough, a fusion reaction would begin. Thus, the the universe‘s first stars were born. These early stars fused hydrogen into helium — but more importantly, when they went supernova, they produced the first instances of carbon, and traces of heavier elements like iron. Slowly but surely, through repeated cycles of star formation and supernovae, the universe started to fill up with heavier elements, eventually resulting in the formation of metal-rich stars and planets like our Sun and Earth. (Read: Supernova explodes nearby in the Cigar Galaxy, but don‘t worry, we‘re safe.)

 

SM0313, however, is almost pure hydrogen and helium, with almost no heavy elements at all. This indicates that it‘s a Population II star — a star that was formed very early in in the universe‘s history, from the remnants of the very first stars (so-called Population III stars, which are hypothetical and thought to be long extinct). SM0313 contains some carbon, and light metals like lithium, magnesium, and calcium, but that‘s it. This is surprising to astronomers, because they thought that first-generation supernovae produced a lot of iron. â€œThis indicates the primordial star‘s supernova explosion was of surprisingly low energy. Although sufficient to disintegrate the primordial star, almost all of the heavy elements, such as iron, were consumed by a black hole that formed at the heart of the explosion,” said Stefan Keller, operational scientist of the SkyMapper Telescope. [Research paper: doi:10.1038/nature12990 - "A single low-energy, iron-poor supernova as the source of metals in the star SMSS J031300.36−670839.3"]

 

By fingerprinting SM0313′s spectrographic signature (its elemental composition), we should be able to find more similar stars in the universe — and thus paint a more accurate picture of what the universe was like, soon after the Big Bang. (Read: Hubble captures photo that looks back 13.2 billion years to the creation of the universe.)

 

oldest-star-finder-chart-640x589.jpg

How to find SM0313, the oldest star in the sky [Image credit: National Geographic]

 

While surprising astronomical finds are always nice, it‘s even more striking when that discovery is in your own backyard. SM0313 is located just 6,000 light years away from Earth, in the southern constellation of Dorado. If you had a large‘ish telescope, you could see it in the night sky yourself. We‘re not entirely sure how this star — aged at 13.6 billion years — ended up in the Milky Way (which is roughly 13.2 billion years old). One theory, according to Keller, is that SM0313 was formed in an “isolated gas blob,” which was later absorbed by our rapidly expanding Milky Way.

 

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/176497-weve-found-the-oldest-star-in-the-known-universe-and-its-right-on-our-galactic-doorstep

Anyone here own a kick ■■■ telescope?