I started blogging on Leap Day 2004, at a little site called Preposterous Universe (from which the current site gets its URL). It was hosted by Blogspot, back in the wild, anarchic early days of the blogosphere. In July 2005 I shuttered that site and moved to a group blog, Cosmic Variance, with a charming and talented group of other physicists and astrophysicists. Before too long we gave up on being a plucky independent outfit and joined The Establishment, in this case in the form of Discover magazine.
Eventually I came to miss the romantic, carefree frontier days of blogging, when it was just me plugging away at my own little site, declaiming fearless truths into an unheeding void. In December 2012 I returned to that state, bidding a bittersweet farewell to my Cosmic Variance colleagues. Now it’s just me again. I did make some attempt to import all of my own previous blog posts, both from Preposterous Universe and from CV, so they should all now be living here as well as elsewhere — although I can’t really vouch for working links and all that. You should probably visit the original sites if you expect things to work. But if you dig into the archives and find me referencing Discover or co-bloggers, that’s why.
I’m a scientist, but this is absolutely not a Science Blog. It’s just my blog, writing about things I like to write about. It’s not a news service by any stretch of the imagination.
As explained in this post, you can leave equations in comments using LaTeX. Just begin your overall comment with {latexpage}, except use square brackets [] rather than braces {}. Then your comment will be interpreted as a LaTeX document. Just put math expressions in dollar signs as usual. So “$\pi R^2 $” should give you:
.
The LaTeX won’t parse in the comment previewer, but you should be able to edit it if you goof. I’m using the QuickLaTeX plugin; more details here.
Comment policy: see here for my general philosophy. This blog is not a free-speech zone; the internet as a whole is, but this blog is my personal space and I treat it accordingly. It’s an interesting-amusing-constructive speech zone. I don’t have time to do serious moderation, nor explain to commenters what they are doing wrong. Comments may — or may not, depending on how I’m feeling — be deleted for being off-topic, rude, boring, repetitive, or generally annoying. Commenters may be banned likewise.
I love comments, and I’ve learned a lot from them, especially from people who know something I don’t or disagree in constructive ways. My goal in pruning comments and commenters is not to stifle debate, it’s to help ensure that it is informative and respectful. Let’s have fun.
Sean would you be interested in my novel Existence New York? It has the concept that religion has misguided civilisation . Its also a thriller novel that readers have stated it explains away Christianity . I m trying to put it out there . Can you offer some help? Thanks Robert . Its on amazon and reason.com
Pingback: Physics Blogs You Need to Be Reading
I don’t know if this is the right place to post a question, but here goes. (Also, I’m a biochemist, not a physicist – that’s my disclaimer!)
From what I understand of quantum mechanics, parameter values (e.g. spin, momentum) are not set until measured. Until then, they are probabilities. Furthermore, only one parameter at a time can be measured, i.e. we cannot know spin AND momentum at the same time for a given particle. But is it possible to measure simultaneously two parameters for entangled particles? In other words if two entangled electrons are sent their separate ways, is it possible to measure spin for one and momentum for the other, thereby simultaneously determining two parameters? If not, please explain why.
Thank you,
TD