The year in Science

[secrets in symmetry]

The BBC have a decent summary of this year's scientific feats. See

Science news highlights of 2012 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20214928)


The year in science news was dominated by the discovery of the Higgs boson, ending a 50-year search for the keystone in our best theory of physics.

But 2012 was also marked by the arrival of a one-tonne rover on the surface of Mars, a record low for Arctic sea ice and - of course - a crab called Hasselhoff.

BBC News website science editor Paul Rincon looks back at an eventful year in science and the environment.

In science, I'll go with the discovery of the Higgs, and in technology, I'll go with the Mars landing and subsequent exploration.

Does anyone have different suggestions for scientific and technological highlights of the year? I imagine a biologist might see something different.

[gleeber]

I only became scientifically minded about 10 years ago and I suppose I became scientifically dogmatic about 7 years. My scientific highlight of this year was discovering being scientifically dogmatic hinders my understanding of me. I know it sounds a bit californian but its a valid scientific enquiry. Anyway, it's Christmas and I'm felling good so bare with me. In fact it's christmas Eve and if you were to believe the story in the New Testement Mary would be feeling uncomfortable by now and the sheep will have lost their shepherds. Now, whether you believe that or not there's a certain reality attached to the story and it's power is evident in the lives of millions of people.
My second scientific highlight would be to agree with SiS and the discovery of the God particle. Since then though, I've found my attention drawn to the split second before the big bang rather than the split second after it. I know the scientifically minded will say that's an impossible pursuit but that's not very scientific.
I have to admit a religous bug hits me on Christmas eve and I enjoy it and Ill tell you something else, it's real so measure that Mr scientist. :lol:

[Rheghead]

So many gains in knowledge this year but one big loss of Sir Patrick

[secrets in symmetry]

Neil Armstrong was also a big loss.

What are your thoughts on the split second before the Big Bang gleeber?

[gleeber]

My thoughts are it may have existed. Mind you it may not have but at least the discovery of my scientific dogmatism allows me the opportunity to consider it scientifically.
The 3 wise men would be getting close to their target now if the stories true. Poor Mary. She deserves the acclaim if not for being the Mother of God then at least as a symbol for all mothers.

[M Swanson]

I can't pretend to understand overmuch about Higgs Boson, but what I do, has led me to wonder of what benefit it is to Mankind? Especially £4 billion pounds worth! If there's something down the line, I haven't been able to discover any ideas coming from any quarter. Bet someone mentions the world being flat. :D

And why was it called the God particle? Anything to do with Higgs being an atheist? Not that this find changes anything for me and I guess millions more believers in the world. After all, even if some believe it's some kind of proof that God doesn't need to exist, it doesn't prove He does not exist. :eek:

[gleeber]

The way I understand it is and Im a layman Right at the point of ignition of the big bang 14 billion years ago there was a particle that came before every other particle. A spark. A bit like a pilot light on a gas cooker. Its an amazing achievment, but they knew it was their through their mathematics. Its quite simple really but most people have other things to think about.

[Whitewater]

The way I understand it is and Im a layman Right at the point of ignition of the big bang 14 billion years ago there was a particle that came before every other particle. A spark. A bit like a pilot light on a gas cooker. Its an amazing achievment, but they knew it was their through their mathematics. Its quite simple really but most people have other things to think about.

Hi gleeber, I like the pilot light idea.

[ywindythesecond]

Hi gleeber, I like the pilot light idea.

Who lit it?

[secrets in symmetry]

My thoughts are it may have existed. Mind you it may not have but at least the discovery of my scientific dogmatism allows me the opportunity to consider it scientifically.
The 3 wise men would be getting close to their target now if the stories true. Poor Mary. She deserves the acclaim if not for being the Mother of God then at least as a symbol for all mothers.I have no idea what happened before the Big Bang - or whether the concept makes any sense at all, but I agree with you on the Mary front.


The way I understand it is and Im a layman Right at the point of ignition of the big bang 14 billion years ago there was a particle that came before every other particle. A spark. A bit like a pilot light on a gas cooker. Its an amazing achievment, but they knew it was their through their mathematics. Its quite simple really but most people have other things to think about.Where did you get the spark analogy from gleeber? Was it from your reading or was it from inside your head?

[squidge]

I watched the news of the discovery of the Higgs Bosun with awe and excitement. Their thirst for knowledge and understanding and their tenacity massively impresses me. And yet... Tonight a child is born... Fills my heart. I love the Christmas Story and I love the familiarity of Carols and the bowing of heads for a prayer for peace and love.

Man has looked for answers since time began.... Some find those answers in the lab, some in the Lord, some never find answers at all. For me? I havent found answers, but Im ok with that. Im happy for others to have found theirs as long as they dont try to convert me to their religion or their science. Ill say my prayers when i need to (and that isnt always) and be thankful for the scientific minds that strive to make awesome (in the true sense of the word) discoveries.

[embow]

Originally Posted by Whitewater Hi gleeber, I like the pilot light idea.
Who lit it?Pontious? :confused

[M Swanson]

Who lit it?


Don't think there'll be many takers on this one Y. It's a question I asked myself too! :)

[Whitewater]

Pontious could be the correct answer embow, he was around 2000yrs ago, surfaces every Easter, could have been there then, Who knows?

[M Swanson]

The way I understand it is and Im a layman Right at the point of ignition of the big bang 14 billion years ago there was a particle that came before every other particle. A spark. A bit like a pilot light on a gas cooker. Its an amazing achievment, but they knew it was their through their mathematics. Its quite simple really but most people have other things to think about.

For a "layman," Gleeber, your analogy makes a very complicated subject so much easier for all to understand. Thanks for that. :cool:

The achievement is, as you say, amazing, but has it been proven 100%? Will it ever be? Somehow, I have my doubts.

Whilst I believe Science has much to offer and has, I also think it's important to stop and remember some of the tragedies that has unfolded. The creation of the atomic bomb was hailed as a great breakthrough, until we witnessed the terrible outcome in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Einstein wouldn't touch it and Oppenheimer died a broken man. The intentions were good, but the realities were horrific. Then we have Thalidomide and Chernobyl, etc. The list goes on. What led me to this, was thinking about Hadron's Collider. What would be the result of something going terribly wrong and even a tiny black hole opening? There must be some exceptional benefits from such research to justify any kind of risk. Or, maybe somebody can assure us that it's 100% safe? Over to the experts on that one!

[Rheghead]

For a "layman," Gleeber, your analogy makes a very complicated subject so much easier for all to understand. Thanks for that. :cool:

The achievement is, as you say, amazing, but has it been proven 100%? Will it ever be? Somehow, I have my doubts.

Whilst I believe Science has much to offer and has, I also think it's important to stop and remember some of the tragedies that has unfolded. The creation of the atomic bomb was hailed as a great breakthrough, until we witnessed the terrible outcome in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Einstein wouldn't touch it and Oppenheimer died a broken man. The intentions were good, but the realities were horrific. Then we have Thalidomide and Chernobyl, etc. The list goes on. What led me to this, was thinking about Hadron's Collider. What would be the result of something going terribly wrong and even a tiny black hole opening? There must be some exceptional benefits from such research to justify any kind of risk. Or, maybe somebody can assure us that it's 100% safe? Over to the experts on that one!

Aren't you getting a few things mixed up there?

[sids]

Aren't you getting a few things mixed up there?

Yes, you can say what you like about atom bombs, but they worked the way they were supposed to!

[M Swanson]

Aren't you getting a few things mixed up there?

:D Could be Rheg! But what exactly did you have in mind?

[Rheghead]

Yes, you can say what you like about atom bombs, but they worked the way they were supposed to!

Yes the most benevolent thing you can say was that they were a triumph of engineering and scientific endeavour.

[Rheghead]

:D Could be Rheg! But what exactly did you have in mind?

I thought you were confusing the promise of cheap nuclear power which was a breakthrough but I wouldn't describe the bombs were a breakthrough until the bombs were dropped.

[M Swanson]

I thought you were confusing the promise of cheap nuclear power which was a breakthrough but I wouldn't describe the bombs were a breakthrough until the bombs were dropped.

I was trying to illustrate examples of what I would consider as scientific discoveries which have had a catastrophic consequence for so many people. A sort of risk evaluation, if you like and applied them to the Hadron Collider. What do you think is the question that prompted Higgs's quest for the Boson? If it's an attempt to discover the ultimate answer to how and why the world began, I don't believe it will ever be solved, by Science. Do you, Rheg?

[Rheghead]

If it's an attempt to discover the ultimate answer to how and why the world began, I don't believe it will ever be solved, by Science. Do you, Rheg?

Well by that reckoning, I suppose we will never find the missing link either, and you are right, because when we find one missing link then we leave 2 more to find either side of the newly discovered one.

Perhaps you need to redefine what science means to you if you feel frustrated that science will never answer the big questions, I think science is more fulfilling if it is seen to be asking new big questions than answering old big questions.

[M Swanson]

Interesting that you should mention the 'missing link,' Rheg. Again, I find myself wondering, why spend billions on this, when I can't see any return? If it was discovered tomorrow, in what way would it advance Mankind? Or, affect it? I really don't know! However, I doubt this scientific eureka moment would carry with it the danger that the Hadron Collider could possibly result in. Can it be guaranteed, 100% that it won't?

One of my close family members, is an eminent scientist and also a practising Christian. I'll pounce on him on his next visit and ask him whether any question is worth risking an answer that may, in theory, cause a catastrophe! Enter the atomic bomb! :eek:

[secrets in symmetry]

Well by that reckoning, I suppose we will never find the missing link either, and you are right, because when we find one missing link then we leave 2 more to find either side of the newly discovered one.Don't forget that the two new links are smaller than the old link they've replaced. :cool:


Perhaps you need to redefine what science means to you if you feel frustrated that science will never answer the big questions, I think science is more fulfilling if it is seen to be asking new big questions than answering old big questions.That's an interesting thought - I'll think about it and post about it when I've thought....

[Rheghead]

Interesting that you should mention the 'missing link,' Rheg. Again, I find myself wondering, why spend billions on this, when I can't see any return? If it was discovered tomorrow, in what way would it advance Mankind? Or, affect it? I really don't know! However, I doubt this scientific eureka moment would carry with it the danger that the Hadron Collider could possibly result in. Can it be guaranteed, 100% that it won't?

One of my close family members, is an eminent scientist and also a practising Christian. I'll pounce on him on his next visit and ask him whether any question is worth risking an answer that may, in theory, cause a catastrophe! Enter the atomic bomb! :eek:

Perhaps we should just save ourselves the billions of expense and just open the Bible for all the answers seeing as they are all in there? Silly of me to think otherwise.

[M Swanson]

And perhaps we should just try answering a question for once and not resort to sarcasm, or straying from the subject, when none spring readily to mind? :D

[Rheghead]

And perhaps we should just try answering a question for once and not resort to sarcasm, or straying from the subject, when none spring readily to mind? :D

I was just exploring the possibility of whether you thought that was best way to search for truth, a lot of people do actually think so. ;)

[secrets in symmetry]

You're right rheghead, the new big questions are more interesting, largely because they're the right questions (to ask at this time). Most of the old questions are the wrong ones (to ask at this time). If you're not a scientist (or have no scientific nous), then you're most likely to ask the old "wrong" questions - as many posts on this forum exemplify.

[M Swanson]

I was just exploring the possibility of whether you thought that was best way to search for truth, a lot of people do actually think so. ;)

Anything's possible! :D Until, Science can find the proof, I'll keep the faith, along with "a lot of other people." Gawd luv ya Rheg! :lol:

[Rheghead]

Anything's possible! :D Until, Science can find the proof, I'll keep the faith, along with "a lot of other people." Gawd luv ya Rheg! :lol:

As I thought, I can spot them a mile off.

[M Swanson]

Spot who, Rheg? :confused

[Rheghead]

I think the graphene story that broke this week looks very interesting, good ol' Osbourne for funding more development.

[M Swanson]

LOL. I'll add my last question to the fast-growing number of others nobody seems to want, or can, answer, shall I Rheg? Moving on, for now! :cool:

[gleeber]

I was just exploring the possibility of whether you thought that was best way to search for truth, a lot of people do actually think so. ;)


You're right rheghead, the new big questions are more interesting, largely because they're the right questions (to ask at this time). Most of the old questions are the wrong ones (to ask at this time). If you're not a scientist (or have no scientific nous), then you're most likely to ask the old "wrong" questions - as many posts on this forum exemplify.


I have no idea what happened before the Big Bang - or whether the concept makes any sense at all, but I agree with you on the Mary front.

Where did you get the spark analogy from gleeber? Was it from your reading or was it from inside your head?
That's a strange question from a scientist. We are inseperable from our environment whether you like it or not. Thats science too. I know yourself and Rheghead have been pumping on about the importance of objectivity and although I understand that in relation to science your both going off on one and losing me. Is it me or are they on a wind up? :eek:Are they serious? Whatna hell are they talking about? What big questions? Who's big questions?
Here's a question.
Tell me what you think about the split second before the big bang. Just whether its possible will do. :lol:

[gleeber]

Here's a question.
Tell me what you think about the split second before the big bang. Just whether its possible will do. :lol:
Its all the more amazing when you consider what the scientists have done in travelling back 14 billion years to just a milli second after the ignition of the big bang. Oh for another 2 milliseconds back.:lol:

[M Swanson]

So, maybe there was nothing before, Gleeber? That would put the cat among the scientific pigeons, wouldn't it? I'd love SiS, or Rheg to give us their thoughts on this possibilty, but I'm not hopeful! :D

[secrets in symmetry]

That's a strange question from a scientist. We are inseperable from our environment whether you like it or not. Thats science too. I know yourself and Rheghead have been pumping on about the importance of objectivity and although I understand that in relation to science your both going off on one and losing me. Is it me or are they on a wind up? :eek:Are they serious? Whatna hell are they talking about? What big questions? Who's big questions?
Here's a question.
Tell me what you think about the split second before the big bang. Just whether its possible will do. :lol:I'm not going off on anything, I would like to know where your "spark" idea came from. Did you conjure it up yourself, or are you reporting on something you read elsewhere?

In inflationary cosmology, the initial period of rapid inflation is driven by the inflaton field (which is (arguably) a sort of Higgs field) rolling down a potential hill. In that sense, it (sort of) "sparks" the big bang, although I'm not sure the analogy is very strong.

As for the split second before the Big Bang.... Who knows? Classical General Relativity breaks down before you get back to the initial singularity (if there was one), and there is no established quantum theory of gravitation. There are some who think they can go back to before the Big Bang, they have models of a cyclic universe which somehow bypass the singularity. God knows how you would test this - it would be a severe challenge.

[M Swanson]

Thanks so much for starting this thread SiS. I find it such a fascinating subject and must say I'm a little hooked! :cool:

Just a couple of questions, if you please.

Firstly, where did gravity, energy, matter, or singularity come from?

And secondly, Gleeber's interest in the second, or two, before the Big Bang, makes me wonder if there was anything before it. If that was the case, how could it ever be proved and wouldn't it mean that as there was nothing, there are no Laws? And if there's no Laws, there's no physics? Guess we all know where that would lead us! :)

[Rheghead]

It is easier to claim to have read the most published book ever but to never have done so in reality than it is to read several hard books and not to understand them. :)

[gleeber]

I'm not going off on anything, I would like to know where your "spark" idea came from. Did you conjure it up yourself, or are you reporting on something you read elsewhere
I already answered your question but you obviously didnt understand it. Thats the problem with scientists. Always looking for the complexity in things. Keats, the poet, accused Isaac newton of destroying the mystery of the rainbow because Newton explained how it occured.


Thanks so much for starting this thread SiS. I find it such a fascinating subject and must say I'm a little hooked!

Just a couple of questions, if you please.

Firstly, where did gravity, energy, matter, or singularity come from?

And secondly, Gleeber's interest in the second, or two, before the Big Bang, makes me wonder if there was anything before it. If that was the case, how could it ever be proved and wouldn't it mean that as there was nothing, there are no Laws? And if there's no Laws, there's no physics? Guess we all know where that would lead us! :)
If you close your eyes and put yourself on the edge of our solar system and then watch the big planets thundering around the sun (apparently the earths moving around 3000 MPH) that'll give you an idea of the pulls involved in space and how gravity keeps it all together. I would need to phone a friend to find out how it all came together but once you get the gist the rest is much easier to understand.



It is easier to claim to have read the most published book ever but to never have done so in reality than it is to read several hard books and not to understand them. :)
Now thats what i call complex. :lol:

[gleeber]

And secondly, Gleeber's interest in the second, or two, before the Big Bang, makes me wonder if there was anything before it. If that was the case, how could it ever be proved and wouldn't it mean that as there was nothing, there are no Laws? And if there's no Laws, there's no physics? Guess we all know where that would lead us! :)
I dont think science needs to prove something at the beginning of an enquiry. Only whether it was possible and then to look for evidence. I think it was possible and it appears so does SiS so thats a start. I always assumed the spark that ignited the big bang came from nothing. Now it seems theres no evidence to suggest it could self ignite. It reminds me of the story of Galileo when he was a student. He had a wired up kit of the planets on his table in his room long before anyone had an idea what the solar system looked like. He took a freind into his room one day and his freind looked at the model and said, wow who made that? Galileo said no one. It was an accident.:lol:

[gleeber]

In inflationary cosmology, the initial period of rapid inflation is driven by the inflaton field (which is (arguably) a sort of Higgs field) rolling down a potential hill. In that sense, it (sort of) "sparks" the big bang, although I'm not sure the analogy is very strong.
The analogy is strong enough to allow ordinary punters to understand what science means when it talks about the big bang. That's what's off putting about science. Scientists! I sometimes think they dont want Joe public to understand what theyre talking about but that probably has more to do with me than it does them. I dont need to know about the innards involved at the beginning of a process that leads to an explosion. The explosion itself is enough to whet my appetite for understanding Mother Nature.

[M Swanson]

Yes, your analogy was a good place to start for those new to the subject, Gleeber. Opened a door for me, anyway. :cool: I'm sure you're right about some scientists too. They definitely have an air of superiority about them and think it's enough to blind us with their science and accept, without argument, whatever they say. I read a classic example of this earlier, when an alleged scientist was locked into conversation with a Christian. It all started off civilly, but the first mention of God and whoooooosh, the swearing, name-calling and nastiness hit town! Whilst the Christian remained calm, the scientist lost it, big time. It carried on through countless posts, until the Christian declared that nothing could be proved about the milliseconds preceding the Big Bang and he'd keep his faith until such time as it was! He then exited the conversation gracefully, whilst the scientist ranted to nobody in particular. :) The big difference, I felt, between the two, was in being asked to consider the nothingness theory, there would be nowt left for him. But the Christian still had the comfort of his faith. Not sure how I arrived here. :lol:

[M Swanson]

It is easier to claim to have read the most published book ever but to never have done so in reality than it is to read several hard books and not to understand them. :)

:D Are you having a Stanley Unwin moment here, Rheg? I'm sure there's a message in there somewhere, but darned if I know what it is? :)

[secrets in symmetry]

I already answered your question but you obviously didnt understand it. Thats the problem with scientists. Always looking for the complexity in things.You're wrong about me, but you raise an interesting point about different branches of science. Biology is (mostly) complicated - just look at the wide range of life in the world around you if you're unsure of my claim. Physical science is (or can be) very simple in reductionist sub-fields, although there are complicated sub-fields, such as Climate Change and (some) Materials Science. There are of course problems in Biology that can be formulated very simply, but whose solutions are (as yet) unknown.

How is that spark in your head gleeber? Is it simple or complicated? Is it still sparking? Will you create your own Universe with it?

[Moira]

I'm sensing deja-vu right now. ;)

[ywindythesecond]

It would be useful to know SiS and Rheg what your scientific qualifications are. That would help us to evaluate your pronouncements. ywy2

[gleeber]

You're wrong about me, but you raise an interesting point about different branches of science. Biology is (mostly) complicated - just look at the wide range of life in the world around you if you're unsure of my claim. Physical science is (or can be) very simple in reductionist sub-fields, although there are complicated sub-fields, such as Climate Change and (some) Materials Science. There are of course problems in Biology that can be formulated very simply, but whose solutions are (as yet) unknown.

How is that spark in your head gleeber? Is it simple or complicated? Is it still sparking? Will you create your own Universe with it?
I'm aware of those things (kinda) but its always the explosion that catches my attention and then I can work backwards from their if Im interested enough and take advantage of other people work.
You'll know better than most that all our heads are full of sparks, continually, even when asleep. Every head is full of multiple universes too, every one unique but all being fired by the same spark or sparks if you prefer. Most sparks will cause an explosion of thought and depending on the fertility of the terrain its born into may develop into a good thought, a bad thought or even a though we may not want to think and discard it. But like all things in a universe, nothing can be destroyed, only transformed.
Thoughts are no different.
As for my own sparker. I'm just grateful it's still sparking. :lol:

[secrets in symmetry]

I'm sensing deja-vu right now. ;)You've said that about me before....

[secrets in symmetry]

I'm aware of those things (kinda) but its always the explosion that catches my attention and then I can work backwards from their if Im interested enough and take advantage of other people work.
You'll know better than most that all our heads are full of sparks, continually, even when asleep. Every head is full of multiple universes too, every one unique but all being fired by the same spark or sparks if you prefer. Most sparks will cause an explosion of thought and depending on the fertility of the terrain its born into may develop into a good thought, a bad thought or even a though we may not want to think and discard it. But like all things in a universe, nothing can be destroyed, only transformed.
Thoughts are no different.
As for my own sparker. I'm just grateful it's still sparking. :lol:You're beginning to sound like the one with the crystals in that post!

Keep on sparking. :cool:

[M Swanson]

Gleeber does it for me. Nowt wrong with his sparking! :lol:

Any chance of you answering any questions posed earlier in the thread, Sis? Just one, or two will stoke the fire. Go, on, you know you want to! :cool:

[secrets in symmetry]

I think the graphene story that broke this week looks very interesting, good ol' Osbourne for funding more development.It's certainly good that the (Westminster) government is putting more money into science than it originally said it would. Targeting can be very good, but only if you have the right targets. I hope the government consulted a wide range of scientists and engineers before raising this particular target. I'm not sufficiently well placed to judge the case for graphene. Let's hope they're right. :cool:

Of course, the cuts of a couple of years ago dug far deeper holes than this increase can fill - especially the cuts in capital expenditure.

The Scottish government is increasing funding for taught postgraduate courses in science and engineering, but this funding is targeted much too narrowly in my opinion. I'm afraid it reflects the ignorance, bias, and bizarre hobby horses of the Eckish tendency.

[Moira]

You've said that about me before....

Have I? When was that then?

[secrets in symmetry]

Have I? When was that then?It's a feeling I get sometimes.

[Moira]

Was this feeling scientific ...... or

just a feeling?

[M Swanson]

Another question! When does the Creation of Man enter the debate? So far, I haven't found any reference to this. What I have noticed though, is that minor differences and adjustments have been made already to Higgs's theory. Is this a step forward to new discoveries, or backwards to validate further, Higgs's claim? Any takers? ;)

[ducati]

Another question! When does the Creation of Man enter the debate? So far, I haven't found any reference to this. What I have noticed though, is that minor differences and adjustments have been made already to Higgs's theory. Is this a step forward to new discoveries, or backwards to validate further, Higgs's claim? Any takers? ;)

I believe that man was created as a joint venture by Walt Disney and Coca Cola as a marketing exercise. Evolution took over and some time later, Tesco and ASDA came along to take it to the next level.

[M Swanson]

Have I missed the Royal Institution Christmas Lecture? :mad: I thought they were on Ch4, but can't find this years one. They're so interesting, even to a novice like me. Any pointers, please? :cool:

[secrets in symmetry]

Was this feeling scientific ...... or

just a feeling?
Oh, what a feeling....

Esto ya se ha visto.

[canuck]

Off the topic of physics and perhaps an earlier discovery than this year, but being recognized this year in the Nobel Prize for Chemistry, I like the work being done on protein receptors. It is a recognition of that place where chemistry meets biology and takes us one step closer to understanding humans as a soup of chemical reactions. Oh yes there is a tremendous organization and regulation to the soup. And the chemical configurations lead to all the beautiful aspects of humanity.

Years ago I read a fabulous book on the chemistry of feelings. It terrified me and challenged me all at the same time. So when I hear or read of development of such topics within the biochemical world I take note. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2012/

[secrets in symmetry]

Off the topic of physics and perhaps an earlier discovery than this year, but being recognized this year in the Nobel Prize for Chemistry, I like the work being done on protein receptors. It is a recognition of that place where chemistry meets biology and takes us one step closer to understanding humans as a soup of chemical reactions. Oh yes there is a tremendous organization and regulation to the soup. And the chemical configurations lead to all the beautiful aspects of humanity.

Years ago I read a fabulous book on the chemistry of feelings. It terrified me and challenged me all at the same time. So when I hear or read of development of such topics within the biochemical world I take note. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2012/
At last - some support for scientific greatness in Biology and Chemistry, and also to the great complicatedness of biology in the form of Human life. :cool:

[Dadie]

Hey SIS I know its early yet .....but science week?
Catch the wee ones with a Nina and the neurons type stall?
Or bubbleology etc.....to catch them when little...my 3 have done bubbles, tadpoles to frogs (though we ended up with 1 fat toadlet) and caterpillar to butterfly and the tattie clock... to encomass all ages....might be worth a think in what would work or is "elf and safety" safe for wee ones!

[secrets in symmetry]

Good suggestion Dadie. I'd be hopeless with young kids and science, but I know a man who's good. I'll have a word with him.

[ywindythesecond]

Good suggestion Dadie. I'd be hopeless with young kids and science, but I know a man who's good. I'll have a word with him.
You say you would be "hopeless" but you "know a man who's good"?
What are your scientific qualifications?
Perhaps you are a scientist but some credentials would be useful to allow us to evaluate your posts on this thread about science.

[gleeber]

You're beginning to sound like the one with the crystals in that post!

Keep on sparking. :cool:


Good suggestion Dadie. I'd be hopeless with young kids and science, but I know a man who's good. I'll have a word with him.

Your not very good with grown ups either. That's an observation not a criticism. We all have our peculiarities. :lol:
The spark seems to have gone out of this thread. It felt seasonal. It was ok until he started talking about crystals and then I stopped taking him seriously.

[Dadie]

Heck im not good with grown ups apparently ...
or kids....I like my own and love them dearly but cant understand other kids...or put up with bad behavior easily....
if its bad for being bads sake...dont touch means dont touch etc...you are likely to encounter something not nice if you do...etc...electricution?
Or stuck between two strong magnets?....bruising more than a possibility?...yup an ouch or 2..by not listening.....or bitten by a hamster by not letting it move..squishing injury.....

[secrets in symmetry]

Your not very good with grown ups either. That's an observation not a criticism. We all have our peculiarities. :lol:
The spark seems to have gone out of this thread. It felt seasonal. It was ok until he started talking about crystals and then I stopped taking him seriously.How would a teen idol know how good I am with grown ups?

http://i.imgur.com/XWJtO.jpg (http://imgur.com/XWJtO)

What's your space group gleeber? :cool:

[secrets in symmetry]

Heck im not good with grown ups apparently ...
or kids....I like my own and love them dearly but cant understand other kids...or put up with bad behavior easily....
if its bad for being bads sake...dont touch means dont touch etc...you are likely to encounter something not nice if you do...etc...electricution?
Or stuck between two strong magnets?....bruising more than a possibility?...yup an ouch or 2..by not listening.....or bitten by a hamster by not letting it move..squishing injury.....You blind them with science Dadie - and they don't understand you, so they go into defensive mode, and they suggest you're not good with adults, or children....

It's a bit like a big cat snarling and peeing when it's cornered....

[secrets in symmetry]

Here are the breakthroughs of 2012 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/dec/20/top-scientific-discoveries-higgs-boson?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487) according to the journal Science:



Breakthrough of the year

Discovery of the Higgs boson (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/higgs-boson) – the elusive "god" particle of physics.

Runners-up

Denisovan DNA (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/aug/30/scientists-genetic-makeup-denisovan-girl) – sequencing genetic code from an extinct group of humans who lived in Siberia 50,000 years ago.

Genome engineering (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/oct/31/genomes-project-inventory-human-genetic-variation) – new "cutting" tools that can modify the genomes of rats, crickets and human cells.

Neutrino mixing (http://www.rdmag.com/news/2012/03/daya-bay-unveils-last-neutrino-mixing-angle) – last part of the jigsaw describing how neutrino particles morph from one strain to another.

Eggs from stem cells (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/oct/04/baby-mice-stem-cells) – embryonic stem cells from mice coaxed into becoming viable egg cells.

Curiosity's landing (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/aug/06/curiosity-rover-mars-landing-live-blog) – "sky crane" dropped Mars rover from a hovering platform.

X-ray laser (http://phys.org/news/2012-11-x-ray-laser-sickness-exploiting-parasite.html) – used to determine structure of an enzyme required by the parasite that causes African sleeping sickness.

Majorana fermions (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17695944) – discovery of particles that act as their own antimatter and annihilate themselves.

Encode project (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/05/genes-genome-junk-dna-encode) – human genetic code is more functional than first believed.

Brain-machine interface (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/dec/17/paralysed-woman-robotic-arm-pittsburgh) – hope for people paralysed by strokes and spinal injuries as technique by which thought can move robot arms is improved.

[Rheghead]

Brain-machine interface – hope for people paralysed by strokes and spinal injuries as technique by which thought can move robot arms is improved.

A worthy but rather limited take on its potential impact on society, do you not think?

[gleeber]

A worthy but rather limited take on its potential impact on society, do you not think?
No way!
That's an incredible bit of technology. Transferring thoughts via a machine. That's on the same track as conscious robots. I'm not sure that's a good idea. :eek:

[secrets in symmetry]

A worthy but rather limited take on its potential impact on society, do you not think?Yes, you get this week's prize for an understatement. (Science won last month's prize lol.)


No way!
That's an incredible bit of technology. Transferring thoughts via a machine. That's on the same track as conscious robots. I'm not sure that's a good idea. :eek:I wouldn't say it has much to do with conscious robots. I think the conscious human brain is doing all the work, the robot is obeying signals from the human brain as interpreted by some software. The latter may or may not be very sophisticated.