Install Theme

Your web-browser is very outdated, and as such, this website may not display properly. Please consider upgrading to a modern, faster and more secure browser. Click here to do so.

ⁿSci[ence++] = pop(sci);

A science journal dedicated to the limitless complexity of nature.
Apr 23 '14
allofthemath:

So pretty…

allofthemath:

So pretty…

(Source: minimalmathconcepts)

Apr 23 '14

prostheticknowledge:

Quixter

First-to-market biometric payment system scans your hand of it’s vein layout to identify the customer and their account.

To those unfamiliar with vein biometrics, the way your veins are structured around your body are more unique than a fingerprint, therefore considered a far more accurate form of personal identification - video from the University of Lund, Sweden below:

Paying for a coffee or lunch by simply scanning your palm still sounds like science fiction to most of us. However, an engineering student at Lund University in Sweden has made it happen - making his the first known company in the world to install the vein scanning technique in stores and coffee shops.

[Link]

Link to Quixter’s website can be found here

Apr 15 '14
ingenierodelmonton:

Así es como funcionan las demostraciones directas.
Q.E.D. bitches.

ingenierodelmonton:

Así es como funcionan las demostraciones directas.

Q.E.D. bitches.

(Source: deepspace2k14)

Apr 6 '14

the-science-llama:

Bismuth Hopper Crystals
— Synthetically grown crystals of Bismuth form “Hopper crystals

In the formation of hopper crystals, the outer edges of the crystal grows faster than the interior edge, leading to these angular crystals with a stepped structure. Gaps also form in the middle because the inner crystals grow slower and don’t have time to fill up that region, forming the ”hopper cart” shape. This characteristic is known to occur in a number of other minerals and elements such as calcite, halite, gold, and even in water (snowflakes). There are even instructions online on how to grow your own crystals.

Mar 31 '14
Mar 26 '14

hyrodium:

The proof of Sum of Square Numbers!

Mar 26 '14

jtotheizzoe:

karaniwangbinatilyo:

FORCES OF NATURE

Here’s what keeps it all together (and breaks it all apart)

Mar 26 '14
sagansense:

Watch the full episode here.
Mar 26 '14
s-c-i-guy:

Simple, like a neutron star: How neutron stars are like (and unlike) black holes
For astrophysicists neutron stars are extremely complex astronomical objects. Research has demonstrated that in certain respects these stars can instead be described very simply and that they show similarities with black holes.
In how many ways can one describe an object? Take an apple: by just looking at it we can easily estimate its weight, shape and colour but we are unable to describe it at any other level, for example, to evaluate the chemical composition of its flesh. Something similar also applies to astronomical objects: until today one of the challenges facing scientists was to describe neutron stars at the nuclear physics level. The matter these stars are made up of is in fact extremely complex, and several complicated equations of state have been proposed. However, to date there is no agreement as to which is the correct (or the best) one. A theoretical study conducted by SISSA (the International School for Advanced Studies of Trieste), in collaboration with Athens University, has demonstrated that neutron stars can also be described in relatively simple terms, by observing the structure of the space-time surrounding them.
"Neutron stars are complex objects owing to the matter that composes them. We can picture them as enormous atomic nuclei with a radius of about ten kilometres," explains Georgios Pappas, first author of the study carried out at SISSA. "A neutron star is what remains of the collapse of a massive star: the matter inside it is extremely dense and mostly consisting of neutrons."
"The nuclear physics required to understand the nature of the matter contained in these astronomical objects generally makes their description very complicated and difficult to formulate," continues Pappas. "What we have demonstrated, by using numerical methods, is that there are properties that can provide a description of some aspects of neutron stars and the surrounding space-time in a simple manner, similar to the description used for black holes."
Black holes are truly unique objects: they have lost all matter and are only made up of space and time. Just like neutron stars they are the result of the collapse of a bigger star (in this case much bigger than the stars giving rise to neutron stars) and in the implosion all the matter has been swept away. “They are considered to be the most perfect objects in the Universe and the expression ‘hairless’ that was coined by John Archibald Wheeler to indicate their simplicity has become famous. According to our calculations even neutron stars can be depicted in a very similar manner.”
Scientists use “multipole moments” as parameters to describe objects. The moments required to describe a black hole are two, mass and angular momentum (the speed at which it rotates around its axis). For neutron stars three moments are needed: mass, angular momentum and quadrupole moment, that is, a coefficient that describes the deformation of the object produced by its rotation.
"Our calculations revealed two unexpected findings. First, we discovered that these three parameters are sufficient since higher levels moments are not independent and can be derived from the first three," explains Pappas. "The second surprising finding is that the description based on these parameters is independent of the equation of equation of state, or rather: we don’t even need to know which is the equation of state."
In practice, we can have a description of a neutron star that is independent of the matter that forms it. “This has major implications,” concludes Pappas. “In fact, by using the data collected with astrophysical observations — for example, the radiation emitted by a neutron star, or information about objects gravitating around the star or other information — we can reconstruct the features of a neutron star.”
source

s-c-i-guy:

Simple, like a neutron star: How neutron stars are like (and unlike) black holes

For astrophysicists neutron stars are extremely complex astronomical objects. Research has demonstrated that in certain respects these stars can instead be described very simply and that they show similarities with black holes.

In how many ways can one describe an object? Take an apple: by just looking at it we can easily estimate its weight, shape and colour but we are unable to describe it at any other level, for example, to evaluate the chemical composition of its flesh. Something similar also applies to astronomical objects: until today one of the challenges facing scientists was to describe neutron stars at the nuclear physics level. The matter these stars are made up of is in fact extremely complex, and several complicated equations of state have been proposed. However, to date there is no agreement as to which is the correct (or the best) one. A theoretical study conducted by SISSA (the International School for Advanced Studies of Trieste), in collaboration with Athens University, has demonstrated that neutron stars can also be described in relatively simple terms, by observing the structure of the space-time surrounding them.

"Neutron stars are complex objects owing to the matter that composes them. We can picture them as enormous atomic nuclei with a radius of about ten kilometres," explains Georgios Pappas, first author of the study carried out at SISSA. "A neutron star is what remains of the collapse of a massive star: the matter inside it is extremely dense and mostly consisting of neutrons."

"The nuclear physics required to understand the nature of the matter contained in these astronomical objects generally makes their description very complicated and difficult to formulate," continues Pappas. "What we have demonstrated, by using numerical methods, is that there are properties that can provide a description of some aspects of neutron stars and the surrounding space-time in a simple manner, similar to the description used for black holes."

Black holes are truly unique objects: they have lost all matter and are only made up of space and time. Just like neutron stars they are the result of the collapse of a bigger star (in this case much bigger than the stars giving rise to neutron stars) and in the implosion all the matter has been swept away. “They are considered to be the most perfect objects in the Universe and the expression ‘hairless’ that was coined by John Archibald Wheeler to indicate their simplicity has become famous. According to our calculations even neutron stars can be depicted in a very similar manner.”

Scientists use “multipole moments” as parameters to describe objects. The moments required to describe a black hole are two, mass and angular momentum (the speed at which it rotates around its axis). For neutron stars three moments are needed: mass, angular momentum and quadrupole moment, that is, a coefficient that describes the deformation of the object produced by its rotation.

"Our calculations revealed two unexpected findings. First, we discovered that these three parameters are sufficient since higher levels moments are not independent and can be derived from the first three," explains Pappas. "The second surprising finding is that the description based on these parameters is independent of the equation of equation of state, or rather: we don’t even need to know which is the equation of state."

In practice, we can have a description of a neutron star that is independent of the matter that forms it. “This has major implications,” concludes Pappas. “In fact, by using the data collected with astrophysical observations — for example, the radiation emitted by a neutron star, or information about objects gravitating around the star or other information — we can reconstruct the features of a neutron star.”

source

Mar 17 '14
thenewenlightenmentage:

What is the Level II Multiverse?
It has been described as a tree, as bubbles, as a block of Swiss cheese. The Level II multiverse is an implication of chaotic inflation. Max Tegmark described these universes as regions where inflation came to a stop sprouting bubble universes. The fundamental laws of physics may have been exactly the same to start with. Over time, however, the effective laws of physics would be manifestly different containing perhaps different constants, particles (and with that particle charges, spins, and masses), and dimensionality. An Einstein in one of those universes—assuming intelligent life exists, if any life at all (!)—he/she would come up with a different, though perfectly valid, set of field equations. In a nutshell, general relativity would look very different in such a universe.
So how can we envision a Level II multiverse? I’ve alluded to some examples above. So prior to fleshing out those examples, it’ll be useful to invoke an image first.

In the image above, if pictured as an axis, space would represent the x-axis whilst time would represent the y-axis. Max Tegmark puts it this way:

Any inflating region keeps expanding rapidly, but inflation eventually ends in various parts of it, forming U-shaped regions that each constitute an infinite Level I multiverse. This tree continues growing forever, creating an infinite number of such U-shaped regions—all of them together form the Level II multiverse. Within each such region, the end of inflation transforms the inflating substance into particles that eventually cluster into atoms, stars, and galaxies. Alan Guth likes to call each Level I multiverse, a “pocket universe,” because it conveniently fits into a small part of the tree.1

Briefly, a Level I multiverse can exist right here in our universe. Put simply, if you were to travel trillions of lightyears in some direction, you’d eventually find a solar system just like ours, with an Earth just like ours, and a copy of yourself, friends, and family members. That universe may be different, but the differences may be so subtle that they’re virtually negligible. Sounds crazy? Well, I’m not talking about the Level I multiverse…yet.
There is another way to imagine a Level II multiverse.

Behold our cosmic Swiss cheese! Admittedly, the holes in this swiss cheese can be a little exaggerated, but the image should be clear. The holes or in this case, the circles, represent one of Alan Guth’s “pocket universes.” The small spaces between the holes are places where inflation has continued. Brian Greene offered the following:

Think of the universe as a gigantic block of Swiss cheese, with the cheesy parts being regions where the inflaton field’s value is high and the holes being regions where it’s low. That is, the holes are regions, like ours, that have transitioned out of the superfast expansion and, in the process, converted the inflaton field’s energy into a bath of particles, which over time may coalesce into galaxies, stars, and planets. In this language, we’ve found that the cosmic cheese requires more and more holes because quantum processes knock the inflaton’s value downward at a random assortment of locations. At the same time, the cheesy parts stretch ever larger because they’re subject to inflationary expansion driven by the high inflaton field value they harbor. Taken together, the two processes yield an ever-expanding block of cosmic cheese riddled with an ever-growing number of holes. In the more standard language of cosmology, each hole is called a bubble universe (or a pocket universe). Each is an opening tucked within the superfast stretching cosmic expanse.
Don’t let the descriptive but diminutive-souding “bubble universe” fool you. Our universe is gigantic. That it may be a single region embedded within an even larger cosmic structure—a single bubble in an enormous block of cosmic cheese—speaks to the fantastic expanse, in the inflationary paradigm, of the cosmos as a whole. This goes for the other bubbles too. Each would be as much a universe—a real, gigantic, dynamic expanse—as ours.2

Briefly, an inflaton field is a field corresponding to a given inflationary model. Like the Higgs field corresponds to the Higgs boson and an electromagnetic field corresponds to electromagnetism, an inflaton field corresponds to inflation.
So, if cosmic Swiss cheese and eternally growing cosmic trees don’t float your boat, you can continue to think of the Level II multiverse as a plethora of floating bubbles. The issue there is that this gives the impression that these universes can somehow interact with one another—perhaps fissioning and fusioning during collisions with one another. This, to my knowledge, is wrong since each pocket universe would be separated by infinite space undergoing continuous inflation. Barring something extreme—perhaps an inflation busting wormhole—these universes wouldn’t be able to share information with one another.
Too hypothetical? Not exactly. Einstein’s general relativity suggested both an expanding universe and black holes long before there was evidence for either. Likewise, quantum mechanics (i.e. Everett’s Many Worlds Interpretation), string theory, and other equations suggest a multiverse. Some consider the multiverse the best explanation for the so called Fine-Tuning problem in physics. When mathematics strongly suggests that something is the case, it’s not long before we find out that that something is the case. It’s only a matter of time!
I strongly recommend Max Tegmark’s Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality and Brian Greene’s The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos.
1 Tegmark, Max. Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest For the Ultimate Nature of Reality, p. 133-134. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2014. Print.
2 Greene, B.. The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and The Deep Laws of the Cosmos, p.56-58. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2011. Print.
3 Image Credit: Tegmark, Max. Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest For the Ultimate Nature of Reality, p. 134. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2014. Print.
4 Image Credit: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe/

thenewenlightenmentage:

What is the Level II Multiverse?

It has been described as a tree, as bubbles, as a block of Swiss cheese. The Level II multiverse is an implication of chaotic inflation. Max Tegmark described these universes as regions where inflation came to a stop sprouting bubble universes. The fundamental laws of physics may have been exactly the same to start with. Over time, however, the effective laws of physics would be manifestly different containing perhaps different constants, particles (and with that particle charges, spins, and masses), and dimensionality. An Einstein in one of those universes—assuming intelligent life exists, if any life at all (!)—he/she would come up with a different, though perfectly valid, set of field equations. In a nutshell, general relativity would look very different in such a universe.

So how can we envision a Level II multiverse? I’ve alluded to some examples above. So prior to fleshing out those examples, it’ll be useful to invoke an image first.

In the image above, if pictured as an axis, space would represent the x-axis whilst time would represent the y-axis. Max Tegmark puts it this way:

Any inflating region keeps expanding rapidly, but inflation eventually ends in various parts of it, forming U-shaped regions that each constitute an infinite Level I multiverse. This tree continues growing forever, creating an infinite number of such U-shaped regions—all of them together form the Level II multiverse. Within each such region, the end of inflation transforms the inflating substance into particles that eventually cluster into atoms, stars, and galaxies. Alan Guth likes to call each Level I multiverse, a “pocket universe,” because it conveniently fits into a small part of the tree.1

Briefly, a Level I multiverse can exist right here in our universe. Put simply, if you were to travel trillions of lightyears in some direction, you’d eventually find a solar system just like ours, with an Earth just like ours, and a copy of yourself, friends, and family members. That universe may be different, but the differences may be so subtle that they’re virtually negligible. Sounds crazy? Well, I’m not talking about the Level I multiverse…yet.

There is another way to imagine a Level II multiverse.

Behold our cosmic Swiss cheese! Admittedly, the holes in this swiss cheese can be a little exaggerated, but the image should be clear. The holes or in this case, the circles, represent one of Alan Guth’s “pocket universes.” The small spaces between the holes are places where inflation has continued. Brian Greene offered the following:

Think of the universe as a gigantic block of Swiss cheese, with the cheesy parts being regions where the inflaton field’s value is high and the holes being regions where it’s low. That is, the holes are regions, like ours, that have transitioned out of the superfast expansion and, in the process, converted the inflaton field’s energy into a bath of particles, which over time may coalesce into galaxies, stars, and planets. In this language, we’ve found that the cosmic cheese requires more and more holes because quantum processes knock the inflaton’s value downward at a random assortment of locations. At the same time, the cheesy parts stretch ever larger because they’re subject to inflationary expansion driven by the high inflaton field value they harbor. Taken together, the two processes yield an ever-expanding block of cosmic cheese riddled with an ever-growing number of holes. In the more standard language of cosmology, each hole is called a bubble universe (or a pocket universe). Each is an opening tucked within the superfast stretching cosmic expanse.

Don’t let the descriptive but diminutive-souding “bubble universe” fool you. Our universe is gigantic. That it may be a single region embedded within an even larger cosmic structure—a single bubble in an enormous block of cosmic cheese—speaks to the fantastic expanse, in the inflationary paradigm, of the cosmos as a whole. This goes for the other bubbles too. Each would be as much a universe—a real, gigantic, dynamic expanse—as ours.2

Briefly, an inflaton field is a field corresponding to a given inflationary model. Like the Higgs field corresponds to the Higgs boson and an electromagnetic field corresponds to electromagnetism, an inflaton field corresponds to inflation.

So, if cosmic Swiss cheese and eternally growing cosmic trees don’t float your boat, you can continue to think of the Level II multiverse as a plethora of floating bubbles. The issue there is that this gives the impression that these universes can somehow interact with one another—perhaps fissioning and fusioning during collisions with one another. This, to my knowledge, is wrong since each pocket universe would be separated by infinite space undergoing continuous inflation. Barring something extreme—perhaps an inflation busting wormhole—these universes wouldn’t be able to share information with one another.

Too hypothetical? Not exactly. Einstein’s general relativity suggested both an expanding universe and black holes long before there was evidence for either. Likewise, quantum mechanics (i.e. Everett’s Many Worlds Interpretation), string theory, and other equations suggest a multiverse. Some consider the multiverse the best explanation for the so called Fine-Tuning problem in physics. When mathematics strongly suggests that something is the case, it’s not long before we find out that that something is the case. It’s only a matter of time!

I strongly recommend Max Tegmark’s Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality and Brian Greene’s The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos.

1 Tegmark, Max. Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest For the Ultimate Nature of Reality, p. 133-134. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2014. Print.

2 Greene, B.. The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and The Deep Laws of the Cosmos, p.56-58. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2011. Print.

Image CreditTegmark, Max. Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest For the Ultimate Nature of Reality, p. 134. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2014. Print.

Image Credithttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article/multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe/