"Getting Your Quarks in a Row" by Brian Hayes. American Scientist, November-December, 2008.
This article deals with the challenges of using QCD (quantum chromodynamics) instead of QED (quantum electrodynamics). In a nutshell, QED is about understanding the interactions between quarks as interactions along axes of "charge" (I use the term charge here loosely, metaphorically, and not altogether correctly). QCD is a way of understanding quantum behavior in which the mechanism by which quarks interact is through the emission of various photons of different wavelengths.
QED has been more useful for making predictions in the past, due in part to the fact that it's easier to handle mathemetically. Basically, the Feynman sum-over-paths method (a way of "averaging" all the different possible states of the subatomic particles to determine where they are "likely" to be) works naturally for QED because the infinitely long series it produces converge, and so can be treated like perturbation models. QCD is more problematic, because the series it creates do not converge and are made more complex by the fact that gluons can "emit" other gluons, not just photons.
Lattice computing methods are used to calculate these things. The lattics is typically 4D (4th dimension is time). Every conceivable path via which things can "move" (even just in time) is mapped out on a big grid, and the paths are "summed." As the size of the grid squares over which the paths are described shrinks to 0, the lattice-based calculations should be useful predictions. However, the computing power for these models is still massive (and higher for QCD than for QED).
New techniques in QCD as well as new computing power are starting to make the QCD predictive models more feasible. These methods and computing systems will be more useful once the new Large Hadron Collider is available for experimentation.
Monday, January 5, 2009
The Second Sex
"The Second Sex" by Sally Scholz. Philosophy Now, Issue 69.
This article was basically a review of The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir. The most interesting part of the article was this one...
Women fundamentally see themselves as "other" and thereby are complicit in their own oppression by society (this is all from de Beauvoir). The examples given in the book of women who play the role of "other" most clearly are three:
1) Prostitute - She is the absolute other, but also is the exploiter. She exploits men for money and recognition of her "otherness."
2) Narcissist - She is also unable to be a subject; unable to freely pursue projects and goals herself. She turns instead to her otherness, and becomes her own object. She spends her time improving the object: herself.
3) Mystic - The mystic loses herself in God. She seems to be possessed, rather than to feel oppressed in her freedom.
Essentially, for women to achieve freedom, they must break out of the "woman as other" paradigm. De Beauvoir ridiculously thinks this requires that they embrace socialism, but it does not. However, women do face the constant struggle to identify themselves as actors, instead of falling into the narcisisst, prostitute, or mystic roles in which they can view themselves only as they are viewed by others.
This article was basically a review of The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir. The most interesting part of the article was this one...
Women fundamentally see themselves as "other" and thereby are complicit in their own oppression by society (this is all from de Beauvoir). The examples given in the book of women who play the role of "other" most clearly are three:
1) Prostitute - She is the absolute other, but also is the exploiter. She exploits men for money and recognition of her "otherness."
2) Narcissist - She is also unable to be a subject; unable to freely pursue projects and goals herself. She turns instead to her otherness, and becomes her own object. She spends her time improving the object: herself.
3) Mystic - The mystic loses herself in God. She seems to be possessed, rather than to feel oppressed in her freedom.
Essentially, for women to achieve freedom, they must break out of the "woman as other" paradigm. De Beauvoir ridiculously thinks this requires that they embrace socialism, but it does not. However, women do face the constant struggle to identify themselves as actors, instead of falling into the narcisisst, prostitute, or mystic roles in which they can view themselves only as they are viewed by others.
The Merits of the Milesians
"The Merits of the Milesians" by Chad Trainer. Philosophy Now, Issue 69.
The Milesians were Mycenaean Greeks from Miletus (in SW Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey)). At Miletus they had a rich trading and manufacturing colony. Three famous pre-Socratic philosophers stationed themselves at Miletus. They were largely responsible for the "non-religious" or "non-mythical" origins of classical Greek philosophy.
The three were:
Thales - Thales described a world made from water/liquid. He believed that moisture was the essence of life.
Anixamander - Anaximander believed the essential material of the world was infinite, boundless, and intermediate. He thought it had no definite physical qualities of its own, and that it just acted as a medium for organizing matter.
Anaximenes - Anaximenes was the third in the chain of teacher/students, following Thales and Anixamander. He believed that "air" was the most fundamental substance. He was trained in geometry and applied a more rigorous, mathematical approach to his work than did his teachers.
Anaximenes had perhaps the first theory of the origin of the world without supernatural influence.
As Cyrus conquered Lydia in 547-546 BC, the capitol of Greek thought moved west to Southern Italy and the Mediterranean islands.
These guys were the first materialist philosophers, pre-dating the "4 elements" natural philosophy that persisted until the middle ages. However, it isn't necessarily right to call them materialists, because in their time, there was little notion of the mind/soul to contrast with the material interpretation of the world. Later materialists were rejecting the mind/soul primacy. These three simply hadn't thought of it, yet.
The Milesians were Mycenaean Greeks from Miletus (in SW Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey)). At Miletus they had a rich trading and manufacturing colony. Three famous pre-Socratic philosophers stationed themselves at Miletus. They were largely responsible for the "non-religious" or "non-mythical" origins of classical Greek philosophy.
The three were:
Thales - Thales described a world made from water/liquid. He believed that moisture was the essence of life.
Anixamander - Anaximander believed the essential material of the world was infinite, boundless, and intermediate. He thought it had no definite physical qualities of its own, and that it just acted as a medium for organizing matter.
Anaximenes - Anaximenes was the third in the chain of teacher/students, following Thales and Anixamander. He believed that "air" was the most fundamental substance. He was trained in geometry and applied a more rigorous, mathematical approach to his work than did his teachers.
Anaximenes had perhaps the first theory of the origin of the world without supernatural influence.
As Cyrus conquered Lydia in 547-546 BC, the capitol of Greek thought moved west to Southern Italy and the Mediterranean islands.
These guys were the first materialist philosophers, pre-dating the "4 elements" natural philosophy that persisted until the middle ages. However, it isn't necessarily right to call them materialists, because in their time, there was little notion of the mind/soul to contrast with the material interpretation of the world. Later materialists were rejecting the mind/soul primacy. These three simply hadn't thought of it, yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
