WHAT’S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 9 Jul 2010 Washington, DC
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Hubble Redshift is the expansion of time & BP's cap&trade nostrum
Next: Business statistics decision making 7e david f. Groebner test bank
From: Sam Wormley on 9 Jul 2010 17:47 > WHAT�S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 9 Jul 2010 Washington, DC > > 1. PROTON SIZE: IS THAT A CRACK IN THE FOUNDATION? > The only problem we could solve exactly was the hydrogen atom. No matter, > we just built the universe out of hydrogen atoms, using quantum > electrodynamics (QED), and few approximations to take care of the other > stuff, it all worked great -- until now. A group led by R. Pohl at the Paul > Scherrer Institute in Switzerland has measured the Lamb shift in muonic > hydrogen, in which the electron has been replaced by a negative muon. > That should give a far more accurate measure of the proton width. The > problem is it doesn't agree with other methods of determining the proton > width. It's too early to speculate about what the problem might be, but I > find it reassuring that there are still foundational problems. > > 2. CLIMATEGATE: CLIMATE RESEARCH GROUP IS CLEARED � SORT OF. > Last week we reported that Michael Mann, the Penn State University climate > scientist who played a key role in alerting the world to global warming, > was exonerated by the University in the climategate controversy that broke > in December http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN09/wn121809.html . Wednesday > a British panel exonerated the members of the Climate Research Unit at East > Anglia University in the UK. However, the scientists had failed to uphold > the standards of openness on which the credibility and influence of science > is grounded. Everyone involved has now been held accountable for their > actions, except the unknown hackers who broke the law. They must have > imagined the e-mails would set off an explosion, but it was in the end a > barely audible "pop." So everyone has been cleared except the unknown > hackers that selectively leaked the climate scientist�s e-mails. > > 3. PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE: APPLY TO CELL PHONES WITH CAUTION. > The action of San Francisco requiring radiation exposure warnings on cell > phones was justified as �precautionary.� That sounds reassuring, but wait > a minute: The precautionary principle states that, in the absence of a > scientific consensus the burden of proof that an action will not cause harm > to the public or to the environment falls on those taking the action. I�m > inclined to think the first law of thermodynamics is a scientific > consensus, but some biologist keeps sending me angry letters saying > conservation of energy doesn't apply to biology. In a Comment to the London > Free Press last Friday the same biologist wrote: "Most importantly, the > mere fact that the cell phone booklets provide warnings to keep the device > at a certain distance from the body, is itself one of the strongest > indications that the radiation emitted is not totally harmless." So cell > phone makers, hoping to calm hysterical critics by adding a little space, > are now accused of knowing the terrible truth all along. Hmm, maybe it > doesn't pay to be too cautious. > > THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND. > Opinions are the author's and not necessarily shared by the > University of Maryland, but they should be. > --- > Archives of What's New can be found at http://www.bobpark.org > What's New is moving to a different listserver and our > subscription process has changed. |