Science anyone?

This is a non–von Neumann architecture which means that its structure has been reduced to just processors and memory. The technical documents are behind a paywall, so I cannot tell for sure, but from what I have read they are still using numbers.

IBM's TrueNorth processor mimics the human brain

Known as TrueNorth, IBM's chip could cram supercomputer-like powers into a microprocessor the size of a postage stamp. Rather than solving problems through brute-force mathematical calculations, like today's processors, it was designed to understand its environment, handle ambiguity, and take action in real time and in context. Plus, it could be among the most power-efficient chips in the history of computing, enabling new types of mobile apps and computing services, IBM principal investigator and senior manager Dharmendra Modha said in an interview.

Modeled after the human brain, the TrueNorth chip incorporates 5.4 billion transistors, the most IBM has ever put on a chip. It also features 1 million programmable neurons and 256 million programmable synapses. That's far lower than the 100 billion neurons and 100 trillion to 150 trillion synapses in the human brain -- but still enough, Modha said, to run devices that could, for example, proactively issue tsunami alerts, do oil-spill monitoring, or enforce shipping lane rules. And all that happens while consuming just 70 milliwatts of power, about the same as a hearing aid.

X-ray animated GIFs of human anatomical parts, like wrist, knee, etc, in action. Warning! They are a bit creepy!

https://www.behance.net/gallery/18065111/X-Ray-Gifs

I should have looked at IBM's site, I just didn't think they would publish anything of significance. Skim over the intro stuff at the bottom are links to real documents detailing the system. It is still using numbers, but now in a much more powerful parallel array:

Brain Power
A brain-inspired chip to transform mobility and Internet of Things through sensory perception

Perhaps we'll be able to see this again tonight.......

%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fen.wikipedia.org%252Fwiki%252FSupermoon%3B2000%3B1980

Voice of the Synthesizer
Through the magic of
Vangelis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7piGHeUUS0E

I thought this was an interesting read:

Death by Inches
The battle over the metric system in America.

Aurora Borealis from space, courtesy of Astronaut Reid Wiseman's twiiter account

Make sure you check out his main page, there are lots of things from space that he tweets about.

“The new version of the Church-Turing thesis (now called the ‘Church-Turing Principle’) does not refer to Turing machines. This is important because there are fundamental differences between the very nature of the Turing machine and the principles of quantum mechanics. One is described in terms of operations on classical bits, the other in terms of evolution of quantum states. Hence there is the possibility that the universal Turing machine, and hence all classical computers, might not be able to simulate some of the behavior to be found in Nature. Conversely, it may be physically possible (i.e. not ruled out by the laws of Nature) to realize a new type of computation essentially different from that of classical computer science. This is the central aim of quantum computing.”

How To Compute Without Numeric Variables In A Non-Von Neumann Architecture

http://tinyurl.com/indiscretelogic

Well this is good, renewable energy now accounts for 22% of the World's electricity:

Renewable energy capacity grows at fastest ever pace

Wind, solar and other renewable power capacity grew at its strongest ever pace last year and now produces 22% of the world's electricity, the International Energy Agency said on Thursday in a new report.

More than $250bn (£150bn) was invested in "green" generating systems in 2013, although the speed of growth is expected to slacken, partly because politicians are becoming nervous about the cost of subsidies.

Maria van der Hoeven, the executive director of the IEA, said governments should hold their nerve: "Renewables are a necessary part of energy security. However, just when they are becoming a cost-competitive option in an increasing number of cases, policy and regulatory uncertainty is rising in some key markets. This stems from concerns about the costs of deploying renewables."

She added: "Governments must distinguish more clearly between the past, present and future, as costs are falling over time. Many renewables no longer need high incentive levels. Rather, given their capital-intensive nature, renewables require a market context that assures a reasonable and predictable return for investors."

Hydro and other green technologies could be producing 26% of the world's electricity by 2020, the IEA said in its third annual Medium-Term Renewable Energy Market Report. They are already used as much as gas for generating electrical power, it points out.

Interactive map of the World with pictures related to regions from astronauts in space, with the ISS location (1 minute delay) above the planet:

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/OnePane/basicviewer/index.html?appid=7cd4e3c8a8fd4e9dbb46cb2e39cd83e3

Good afternoon to our Science fans.
Is anyone interested in a few Science questions?

1. At what point in a Star's life is it doomed?
2. Water turns into ice when it loses what?
3. What is 100million times brighter than a Supernova?
4. What element gives auroras a green color?
What element gives auroras blue-red colors?
5. What planet in our Solar System has no magnetic field?
6. What travels faster than the speed of light?

To ponder: Which came first: the Black Hole or the Galaxy?

Enjoy!
Swan

These are quick answers without much research

#1 When it runs out of fuel in it's core

#2

#3 Gamma Ray bursts

#4 Atomic oxygen

#5 Nitrogen

#4 Venus and Mars

These are quick answers without much research

#1 When it runs out of fuel in it's core - Almost, but not quite specific enough.

#2

#3 Gamma Ray bursts - Yes!

#4 Atomic oxygen - Yes, Oxygen!

Nitrogen - Yes, Nitrogen!

#5 Venus and Mars - Mars, yes! Venus has a slight magnetic field but no where near the strength of the magnetic fields of other planets. Venus rotates too slowly.

http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/venus/V3.html

Good afternoon to our Science fans.
Is anyone interested in a few Science questions?

1. At what point in a Star's life is it doomed?
2. Water turns into ice when it loses what?
3. What is 100million times brighter than a Supernova? Gamma Ray Burst
4. What element gives auroras a green color? Oxygen
What element gives auroras blue-red colors? Nitrogen
5. What planet in our Solar System has no magnetic field? Mars
6. What travels faster than the speed of light?

To ponder: Which came first: the Black Hole or the Galaxy?

Enjoy!
Swan

Anyone? Questions 1,2,and 6 remain; plus the optional Black Hole/ Galaxy.

6. What travels faster than the speed of light?

Enjoy!
Swan

Are you going for wormholes or a theoretical option?

6. What travels faster than the speed of light?

Enjoy!
Swan

Are you going for wormholes or a theoretical option?

Aren't wormholes theoretical? Has someone actually proven that they exist?

Tachyons? Also theoretical.

Quantum entanglements? Wasn't this the basis of the Ansible in Ender's Game? Also theoretical.

6. What travels faster than the speed of light?

Enjoy!
Swan

Are you going for wormholes or a theoretical option?

Aren't wormholes theoretical? Has someone actually proven that they exist?

Tachyons? Also theoretical.

Quantum entanglements? Wasn't this the basis of the Ansible in Ender's Game? Also theoretical.

I understand your thought processes and see how they certainly relate to the question:
Wormholes are considered hypothetical connections between two Black Holes; they are how massive objects can warp Einstein's theoretical 'spacetime' to create gravitational effects such as the Black Hole itself (the funnel effect). If two Black Holes are entangled together and then pulled apart, a wormhole will hypothetically form between the two Black Holes. I would term wormholes as being hypothetical as I also would entanglements, until they are proven; then they are theoretical.

Tachyonic Subatomic Particles hypothesize that a Tachyon moves faster than the speed of light, but basically in terms of Luxon Particles ( which move at the speed of light) and Bradyon Particles (which move slower than the speed of light.). It is accepted that the Tachyon Particle is a hypothetical phenomenon, while the Luxon and Bradyon are scientifically realized as theoretical...by comparison.

Having said that, my question was not actually related to these characters. But I have a feeling that the answer will raise scores of more questions, hypotheses, and theories!

6. What travels faster than the speed of light?

Enjoy!
Swan

Are you going for wormholes or a theoretical option?

Aren't wormholes theoretical? Has someone actually proven that they exist?

Tachyons? Also theoretical.

Quantum entanglements? Wasn't this the basis of the Ansible in Ender's Game? Also theoretical.

I understand your thought processes and see how they certainly relate to the question:
Wormholes are considered hypothetical connections between two Black Holes; they are how massive objects can warp Einstein's theoretical 'spacetime' to create gravitational effects such as the Black Hole itself (the funnel effect). If two Black Holes are entangled together and then pulled apart, a wormhole will hypothetically form between the two Black Holes. I would term wormholes as being hypothetical as I also would entanglements, until they are proven; then they are theoretical.

Tachyonic Subatomic Particles hypothesize that a Tachyon moves faster than the speed of light, but basically in terms of Luxon Particles ( which move at the speed of light) and Bradyon Particles (which move slower than the speed of light.). It is accepted that the Tachyon Particle is a hypothetical phenomenon, while the Luxon and Bradyon are scientifically realized as theoretical...by comparison.

Having said that, my question was not actually related to these characters. But I have a feeling that the answer will raise scores of more questions, hypotheses, and theories!

While we oftentimes refer to that which is a Hypothesis or a Theory, I chose this link which seems to clarify the difference between the two very nicely:
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-difference-between-a-theory-and-a-hypothesis.htm

1. At what point in a Star's life is it doomed?
2. Water turns into ice when it loses what?
3. What is 100million times brighter than a Supernova? Gamma Ray Burst
4. What element gives auroras a green color? Oxygen
What element gives auroras blue-red colors? Nitrogen
5. What planet in our Solar System has no magnetic field? Mars
6. What moves faster than the speed of light?

To ponder: Which came first: the Black Hole or the Galaxy?

Enjoy!
Swan

Anyone? Questions 1,2,and 6 remain. Also, please note that some discussion took place regarding Question #6 - see the previous post.

1) when it was created
2) when it loses density

Anyways here is an interesting article I thought I would share:

Four ways you can see the multiverse

Every time you make a choice, you spawn a multitude of universes, leading to umpteen other yous – some of them living very different lives. This raises a myriad of moral conundrums, from what we owe our other selves to the death of hope.

Read more: "Multiverse me: Should I care about my other selves?Movie Camera"

It sounds like a concept from a philosopher's fevered imagination, but many physicists believe the multiverse is real. And they've got evidence – here are four here are four ways that multiverse may show itself in our everyday world.

1 The wave function

This mathematical entity describes the properties of any quantum system. Such properties –– an atom's direction of spin, say –– can take several values at once, in what is known as quantum superposition. But when we measure such a property we only get a single value: – in the case of spin, it is either up or down.

In the traditional Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the wave function is said to "collapse" when the measurement is taken, but it isn't clear how this happens. (Schrödinger's famous cat, neither alive nor dead until someone looks inside its box, illustrates this.) In the multiverse, the wave function never collapses: rather, it describes the property across multiple universes. In this universe, the atom's spin is up; in another universe, it's down.

2 Wave-particle duality

In the landmark experiment, photons are were sent one at a time towards a pair of slits, with a phosphorescent screen behind them. Take a measurement at either slit, and you'll register individual photons passing particle-like through one or the other. But leave the apparatus alone, and an interference pattern will build up on the screen, as if each photon had passed through both slits simultaneously and diffracted at each, like a classical wave.

This dual character has been described as the "central mystery" of quantum mechanics. In the Copenhagen interpretation, it is down to wave function collapse. Left to its own devices, each photon would pass through both slits simultaneously: the measurement at the slit forces it to "choose". One way to explain the interference pattern through many worlds, by contrast, is that each photon only ever goes through only one slit. – Tthe pattern comes about when a photon interacts with its clone passing through the other slit in a parallel universe.

3 Quantum computing

Though quantum computers are in their infancy, they are in theory incredibly powerful, capable of solving complex problems far faster than any ordinary computer. In the Copenhagen interpretation, this is because the computer is working with entangled "qubits" which can take many more states than the binary states available to the "bits" used by classical computers. In the multiverse interpretation, it's because it conducts the necessary calculations in many universes at once.

4 Quantum Russian roulette

This amounts to playing the role of Schrödinger's cat. You'll need a gun whose firing is controlled by a quantum property, such as an atom's spin, which has two possible states when measured. If the Copenhagen interpretation is right, you have the familiar 50-50 odds of survival. The more times you "play", the less likely you are to survive.

If the multiverse is real, on the other hand, there always will be a universe in which "you" are alive, no matter how long you play. What's more, you might always end up in it, thanks to the exalted status of the "observer" in quantum mechanics. You would just hear a series of clicks as the gun failed to fire every time – and realise you're immortal. But be warned: even if you can get hold of a quantum gun, physicists have long argued about how this most decisive of experiments would actually work out.

Heh, want some poison with that shot?

Chemists recruit anthrax to deliver cancer drugs

Bacillus anthracis bacteria have very efficient machinery for injecting toxic proteins into cells, leading to the potentially deadly infection known as anthrax. A team of MIT researchers has now hijacked that delivery system for a different purpose: administering cancer drugs.

"Anthrax toxin is a professional at delivering large enzymes into cells," says Bradley Pentelute, the Pfizer-Laubauch Career Development Assistant Professor of Chemistry at MIT. "We wondered if we could render anthrax toxin nontoxic, and use it as a platform to deliver antibody drugs into cells."

In a paper appearing in the journal ChemBioChem, Pentelute and colleagues showed that they could use this disarmed version of the anthrax toxin to deliver two proteins known as antibody mimics, which can kill cancer cells by disrupting specific proteins inside the cells.

This is the first demonstration of effective delivery of antibody mimics into cells, which could allow researchers to develop new drugs for cancer and many other diseases, says Pentelute, the senior author of the paper.

Answers from NoOne:

1) when it was created - Great concept! But not quite the physical characteristic involved.

2) when it loses density - Close....

Answers from NoOne:

1) when it was created - Great concept! But not quite the physical characteristic involved.

2) when it loses density - Close....

I'm used to trick questions from school and even more so in the tech field .

I don't think trick questions should be part of any test that matters.

Answers from NoOne:

1) when it was created - Great concept! But not quite the physical characteristic involved.

2) when it loses density - Close....

I'm used to trick questions from school and even more so in the tech field .

I don't think trick questions should be part of any test that matters.

I totally agree with you. No question I have ever posted has been a trick question, I'm proud to say; I do hope they are fun, educational, and challenging, however! Thanks.

The answer to Question #1:
At what point in a Star's life is it doomed? When the star's core starts making iron. It is the start of eventual core collapse, resulting in a supernova.

The answer to Question #2:
Water turns into ice when it loses what? Energy.

The answer to Question #6:
What moves faster than the speed of light? Space.

A little silliness, anyone?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYZsm-qNJEg