NEED ONLINE HELP FOR MATHEMATICS AND PHYSICS
contact me on unaissait@gmail.com or on facebook clickhere
contact me on unaissait@gmail.com or on facebook clickhere
Tuesday, 23 October 2012
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
Social Networks Get Rewound
TimeHop: Free
If there is anyone out there who journals regularly,you know how enlightening it can be to go back on old entries to see how much you’ve grown. It’s also a good way to remember what you were passionate about or what concerns you had during a different time in your life.
Social networks are the diaries and journals of a more connected generation, but they can still serve the same purpose. Now there's a start up called Timehop that can rewind your Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare and Instagram tweets back a year, and send them to you, answering the questions “What was I doing?” or “How far have I come?”
WIDE ANGLE: Social Networking
All it takes is a quick sign up, which adds the application to your Facebook and allows you to control how much access it has to your information. Daily emails will be sent that detail the history of your page from last year. According to an interview on TechCrunch, co-founder Jonathan Wegener wants to build the site into “the best way of recording, remembering and reconnecting around our digital histories.” The company just earned $1.1 million in funding, which will be used to add more engineers to the project.
Via: TechCrunch
Credit: Timehop
Wednesday, 25 July 2012
Popular Science App Integrates Augmented Reality
Popular Science has released a new app for the iPhone and iPad and also for Android, and this particular app, PopSci Interactive, is designed to help augment, not replace, the hardcopy edition of the magazine. The app is designed to work with the June issue, which is the magazine's annual "Invention Awards" issue (shown to the right). By hovering the iPhone, iPad, or Android smartphone's camera over the text of the magazine interviews, the device should begin streaming video of those interviews.
Note that this requires a camera, so it doesn't work with first generation iPads (like the one I own).
What do people think of this way of integrating technology into the magazine? Has anyone gotten their hands on the June 2012 issue to try it out yet? Is this the wave of the future or just a cool gimmick (or both)?
The Casimir Effect - The Ultimate Free Ride ... into Space?
Science has at times sought to reach further than it can actually deliver, such as in the case of attempts to build a perpetual motion machine.
Some recent reports seem to be dancing dangerously close to this line, as they've reported on the invention of a new propulsion method for spacecraft, based on the work of a teenage Egyptian student named Aisha Mustafa:
The process supposedly uses a method known as the dynamic?Casimir effect, in which?vacuum energy actually results in a force acting on metallic plates. The effect is real, but can it be harnessed to create an effective propulsion system? Mustafa seems to be applying for a patent for her method and is seeking funding to turn it into a viable method of space propulsion.
A patent alone doesn't mean much, of course. After all, there's even a patent on a time machine (as described in Dr. Ronald Mallett's non-fiction book Time Traveler), but time machines (or even time communicators, since that's closer to the actual description of Mallett's device) still haven't been created yet. Just applying for a patent on something doesn't prove that the fundamental scientific concept is actually viable.
Only time will tell whether or not Mustafa's method is more science than fantasy.
Tuesday, 17 July 2012
Popular Science App Integrates Augmented Reality
Popular Science has released a new app for the iPhone and iPad and also for Android, and this particular app, PopSci Interactive, is designed to help augment, not replace, the hardcopy edition of the magazine. The app is designed to work with the June issue, which is the magazine's annual "Invention Awards" issue (shown to the right). By hovering the iPhone, iPad, or Android smartphone's camera over the text of the magazine interviews, the device should begin streaming video of those interviews.
Note that this requires a camera, so it doesn't work with first generation iPads (like the one I own).
What do people think of this way of integrating technology into the magazine? Has anyone gotten their hands on the June 2012 issue to try it out yet? Is this the wave of the future or just a cool gimmick (or both)?
How to Transform Physics
Today I received an e-mail containing the following question:
What is the apropriate [sic] way to spread my revoloutionary [sic] message on how to transform modern physics?
When you're at all in the public eye for physics, you get these sorts of requests on a fairly regular basis. I spoke a while back about a rather deft way cosmologist Sean Carroll discussed dealing with physics cranks. Still, this particular individual was polite, so I decided to respond at length, offering some of the insights taken from Carroll's earlier comments on this topic:
Not to be glib, but if you want to have the message taken seriously by the physics community, you'll need to get a doctorate in physics, so that you have a full and complete understanding of existing physics. You can then formulate your revolutionary framework within the language and terminology of the physics community as well as craft experiments that will provide evidence for your approach over the approaches of others. For example, how does your theory account for the array of fundamental particles which have been experimentally identified, as well as their individual properties? What sort of results does your theory predict for various types of particle collisions? That sort of thing.
If you are located near a university, another (less costly) option would be to contact the physics department there and see if they have any physics seminars that are open to the public. Researchers frequently present their findings at universities and going to these things (or to a more established scientific conference, but these things tend to be more costly) will give you an idea of the amount of rigor and detail that the physics community requires in presenting their results.
Consider a timeline of the major work by Albert Einstein:
1895 - Enters the Swiss Federal Polytechnic (i.e. begins rigorous study of physics)1905 - Publishes initial inklings of special relativity, photoelectric effect, and Brownian motions; Earns PhD1915 - Completes work extending special relativity into a full theory of gravity, general relativity1919 - Observational evidence from an eclipse confirms Einstein's predictions; general relativity is largely accepted by the physics community1921 - Albert Einstein receives a Nobel Prize for his work on the photoelectric effectAt best, the argument could be made that Einstein transformed physics after 10 years of intently studying physics, but if he'd never gone further than those original inklings of special relativity he wouldn't be remembered much today. Rather it took not only another decade of work, but rather about 15 more years of active engagement by a large segment of the physics community - Max Planck, Arthur Eddington, & Hermann Minkowski spring to mind immediately - in order to transform his correct intuitions into a workable theory.
The idea that anyone today would be able to do it with less effort than this is highly unrealistic and likely misguided.
One further note: The goal of going to physics seminars should genuinely be to learn about physics, not so that you can corner some poor unsuspecting postdoctoral student and explain to him or her how you're more clever than all of the brilliant physicists that they've spent the last decade or so of their life studying. This will not work. It's fine for you to strike up conversations and build relationships with physicists, but that relationship should be built from you trying to learn what they know.?This tip from Stephen Covey's 7 Habits of Highly Effective People is useful here:
"Seek first to understand, then to be understood."
Warped Space May Create Escher-like Universe
A new theoretical model posted onto the ArXiv website by Stephen Hawking and colleagues proposes something very curious: that space may actually reflect a curious structure that has more in common with the artistic style of M.C. Escher than the smooth fabric that is often taken as the cornerstone of general relativity. As described in New Scientist (registration required):
The images in question are tessellations, arrangements of repeated shapes, such as the images of interlocking bats and angels seen in?Circle Limit IV. Although these are flat, they serve as "projections" of an alternative geometry called hyperbolic space, rather like a flat map of the world is a projection of a globe. For example, although the bats in the flat projection appear to shrink at an exponential rate at the edges, in hyperbolic space they are all the same size. These distortions in the projection arise because hyperbolic space cannot lie flat. Instead, it resembles a twisting, wiggly landscape of saddle-like hills.
Hawking - together with University of California's James Hartle - have been working on an approach to create a quantum picture of cosmology since the 1980's, and the Escher-like structure fell out of that. The problem with their approach was that the expansion of the universe seems to indicate that the universe has a positive cosmological constant, and that makes their equations unstable and fairly useless.
However, the team (also consisting of Thomas Hertog, from the Institute for Theoretical Physics at Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium) has recently realized that when a negative cosmological constant is put into the wave functions of the universe using their models, it turns out that the model can evolve over time to be very similar to a form of string theory developed by Juan Maldacena in 1997. This famous "Maldacena conjecture" stunningly linked the holographic principle to string theory and is seen by many as having the potential to translate string theory into a format that yields more direct insights, because it links a string theory model together with a quantum physics model and helps reduce the complexities arising from the extra dimensions. (Here is a link to the ArXiv copy of Maldacena's 1997 paper, for those interested in the more technical aspects.)
Hawking, Hertog, and Hartle certainly aren't done with their work ... in many ways, it creates more questions than it solves. That is, if the idea even works at all!
Already, physicist Lubos Motl has indicated on his blog that he doesn't have particularly high regard for the possibilities of this work being decisive and, in fact, it looks like possibly the calculations have been negated in his own comment thread! (Although the Hawking paper on ArXiv has been edited since then, so it's possible that the sign error he's talking about has been fixed and the paper is still there.)
The truth is that these models are sometimes introduced and get a bit of fanfare, but usually they don't really end up going anywhere ... or, if they do go somewhere, it takes years for them to get there. This model is so new that there's very little discussion of it yet, and it's through that discussion that scientists will help to determine whether or not it has any value. At present, I'm suspect, though ... and I'd urge caution from anyone before they begin declaring that our universe has some bizarre geometric structure that isn't experimentally verified!
Still, if the model could be extended and refined to match experimental data, and if it then makes predictions that could be further tested, it might represent some true progress at creating a theory that combines quantum physics with general relativity. And, if that works, then we'll have discovered that, once again, the universe really doesn't look the way that we expect it to ... and that would be a pretty neat discovery.
Related Articles:
Why the Heck Does Magneto Have a Graviton Shield?
I'm a gamer at heart and recently one of the games that I've been enjoying recently has been Marvel: Avengers Alliance over on Facebook. Readers of the blog will know I'm a big comics fan and recently talked about the science in the Avengers film. So when I was playing this Facebook game and Magneto activated his "Graviton Shield" power I immediately thought one thing ...
Huh?
Magneto is a villain who mostly goes up against the X-Men. That wasn't the confusing part, though, because there are X-Men characters in the game and Magneto has clashed with the Avengers over the years. No, the part that made me go "Huh?" is that Magneto is the "Master of Magnetism" ... ?So why the heck does he have a Graviton Shield?
Gravitons are hypothetical gauge bosons that mediate the force of gravity. As described in the comics (or in The Physics of Superheroes) Magneto's power is the ability to manipulate magnetic energy. The gauge boson that mediates the electromagnetic force is the photon, so if he wields magnetic powers then it is the photon that he should be able to create a shield of, not the graviton. This means that he can do all sorts of great things when manipulating charged particles like electrons or protons.
But a graviton doesn't have any electrical charge at all. (Or, to be precise, it has an electrical charge of zero.) Not only should he not be generating gravitons, but he shouldn't even be able to affect them!
Of course, I suppose there could be something much deeper going on here. Under string theory, the most fundamental type of object wouldn't be an electron or a graviton, but instead a tiny vibrating string of energy. Is it possible that Magneto has developed the ability to get these strings to vibrate at different frequencies, changing from an electron into a graviton?
This does, however, seem to be a bit outside of Magneto's wheelhouse, more the sort of power that is normally wielded by Molecule Man, who (despite the name) is shown to be able to manipulate matter at its most fundamental levels.
So it looks like this is another case of comic book & video game science abuse. That is, unless any of you loyal readers have a suggestion for how Magneto could manipulate gravitons. Offer your theories in the comment section and let's see if we can reverse-engineer an explanation that makes sense!
Dr. Higgs, Your Boson Is Here
Researchers at the Large Hadron Collider announced yesterday that they may well have found the long-sought after Higgs boson, sometimes called the "God particle," which is the final missing part of the Standard Model of particle physics. Theoretical physicist Peter Higgs predicted the existence of the particle back in the 1960's, but he was so far ahead of the technology that it took nearly half a century to actually get the first glimpse of the thing ... except, of course, for the glimpses that are all around us, if Higgs is right.
Peter Higgs awaits word from CERN on the potential discovery of the Higgs boson
Source: CERN
Because if he is right, then evidence of the Higgs boson is everywhere. See, the reason Peter Higgs needed to propose his theory was that the physical theories he had to work with at the time had one major flaw: they didn't explain why there was any stuff in the universe.
That's right. The very best scientific explanations that physicists could come up with had a gaping hole in the middle of them. They depicted a universe that was so elegant and finely tuned that ... it shouldn't actually have anything in it. For example, the gauge bosons that mediate the weak nuclear force (called the W boson and Z boson) should, according to theory, have absolutely no mass. But they do have mass!?So Peter Higgs set out to try to explain why and how matter itself could exist, in a way that was fully consistent with all of the known laws of physics.
The result was to propose a field in empty space, a field that permeates all of space, called the Higgs field, which has the right properties needed to give mass to these particles ... and, in turn, to cause the mass of all the rest of the universe, as well.
And, in quantum physics, fields can also be expressed as particles (one of the many weird things about quantum physics), so the resulting particle was called the Higgs boson. (It was called a boson because it had a spin of 0. If it had a spin of one-half it would have been a Higgs fermion, but then it wouldn't have been able to do what it needed to do!)
As with most things in physics, that's an over-simplification of the story. It sounds like Higgs came up with the whole idea out of nowhere, and he didn't. The ideas were built on the work of others and many others came upon similar ideas at almost exactly the same time, so even calling the resulting fields and particles "Higgs" can be a controversial thing to do. Still, the fact is that he was a key player in creating the model which, over the last almost-fifty years, has been refined to explain how the symmetries of the universe are broken in the precise way that we need in order to get matter.
And that model may be about to be confirmed by experimental evidence!
Congrats to you, Peter Higgs ... and to all the other players in this drama that is theoretical physics!
Related Articles:
Physics on Twitter
Last week, I was honored to be listed among the top "must-follow" physicists on Twitter, as named by The Huffington Post's Science section. While this was quite an honor, it did strike me that I should be keeping such a list myself ... and so here it is now: our Top Physics Feeds on Twitter. I'm sure that this list will grow over time, but if you want to keep up on the list, then it's simple enough... just go to the @AboutPhysics list page and subscribe directly to the Twitter lists that I maintain there! As I add new physics resources on Twitter, you'll instantly have access to them.
Or, of course, feel free to check back on the article regularly to see who has been added.
Kepler's Laws Rule the Worlds (that's right ... all of them)
Earlier this month, fans of science may have heard a lot of commotion about the transit of Venus. The transit of Venus describes an event that happens at most twice a century in which Venus passes directly in a path directly between the Earth and the Sun. When the moon does this, it's an eclipse. When Venus does it, it's the transit of Venus.
The commotion was mostly related to the rarity of the event and the fact that it was truly beautiful, for those who were able to witness it. (Remember, don't stare directly at the sun to observe any astronomical event.) If you missed it, then you can check out the transit of Venus images over at About.com Space. Comedian/faux political pundit Stephen Colbert nailed it when he identified the transit of Venus as:
"Truly one of the most majestic examples of something passing in front of something else."
But once upon a time, the transit of Venus carried some pretty heavy stakes. In 1769, nations around the world (well, okay, mostly Europe) sent expeditions to measure the time of the transit of Venus. Using these calculations, they were able to apply Kepler's laws of planetary motion to figure out the distance between the Earth and the Sun. By having a more precise measurement of this distance, it improved a navigator's ability to calculate longitude while at sea, which ultimately had benefits for warfare and trade. (Back then, it seems, funding pure scientific endeavors wasn't any more popular than it is now.)
The reason this works is that Kepler's laws govern the motion of planets orbiting the sun, defining the paths that these planets take and the rates at which they move. Kepler derived these values from careful observations maintained by his mentor, astronomer Tycho Brahe, over the course of his lifetime. So, in other words, Kepler knew that his laws applied to the motion of the planets, but he didn't have a firm theoretical explanation for why this was. It was later shown that Kepler's laws could be derived from Newton's law of gravity, developed nearly a century later in 1687, thus providing Kepler's laws with a theoretical framework as well as the empirical support of evidence. It is always nice to have both, after all.
Kepler's Second Law:
A line from the sun to each planet sweeps out equal areas in equal time.
Source: Wikipedia via GNU Free Documentation License
With these laws firmly in place, the only thing that remained was to make measurements of?the transit of Venus and then apply some angular calculations to figure out the resulting details about the solar system ... which is where the 1769 transit of Venus expeditions come in.
The adventure of three of the major expeditions is described in thrilling detail in Mark Anderson's recent book The Day the World Discovered the Sun. ?I've got to admit that I'm not necessarily the sort of guy who jumps at the chance to read travelogues of eighteenth century scientific expeditions ... but if you are, then it should definitely rank high on your reading list!
Beyond the Higgs: The Other Bosons
With all the excitement about the Higgs boson, it seems like a good time to think about the other bosons that we know about. The Standard Model of particle physics contains a total of four bosons (not counting the theoretical Higgs). These bosons are considered force carriers, because they communicate the three fundamental forces of physics that are explained by quantum physics. The bosons associated with these three forces are:
There are four bosons because the W boson and Z boson work together to mediate the weak nuclear force.
In addition to the above bosons, theories of quantum gravity also propose another type of boson, the graviton, which would mediate the gravitational force. To date, however, this boson has not been confirmed.
Thursday, 31 May 2012
Book Review: Physics of the Future
In Physics of the Future, theoretical physicist Michio Kaku brings the knowledge he's gleaned from interviewing over 300 scientific experts in a diverse range of disciplines to explore the ways that new scientific discoveries will affect the next century of human civilization. The book is broken up in a very clear manner, exploring the near future, midcentury, and far future discoveries that will shape our world in the century to come.
Of course, Kaku himself makes it clear that these are only predictions, and he goes to great lengths to explain that those who have tried to make such predictions in the past are wrong more often than not.
Still, this is a great book from a master at presenting science to the general public, so should be of interest to any readers who want an idea about what to expect from science in the next century.
Read more in our full review of the book or, if you've already read the book, let us know what you thought about it in the Comments!
Big Bang Theory - Season 5 Round-Up
With the conclusion of season 5 of The Big Bang Theory, we've got our reviews of the last couple of episodes up on the site now, along with links to the science-related subjects that get mentioned in the course of the geek-related comedy.
You can access all of our The Big Bang Theory season 5 reviews.
Science Fiction and the End of Science
Last weekend, I discussed using popular culture to present science. Yesterday, PBS's NOVA physics blog, "The Nature of Reality," published an essay from me about how science fiction influences scientists.
In that article, I discuss the ways that science fiction can inspire science, making the point that the science fiction of H.G. Wells was anticipating Einstein's relativity concepts while other scientists were thinking that science was about done with its job. (This idea was pointed out in Lawrence Krauss' book Hiding in the Mirror.)
In fact, just a few years later Lord Kelvin made a speech where described "two clouds" that were on the horizon of physics at the turn of the century:
It's safe to say that?Lord Kelvin's "two clouds" speech is among the greatest?scientific under-estimations in history. While Kelvin considered this to be a mere measurement issue, instead it turned out to set the stage for a radical transformation in our way of thinking about the universe, rivaled only by the scientific revolution itself.
Today, it's easy to once again think that maybe science has all of the answers. I'll occasionally hear people who seem to think that science is in its final days, just doing some adjustments on the decimal points and then we'll be in an age where there are no new scientific discoveries to be made. Science will be finished at that point, these people claim.
Let me assure you that we're far from having all of the answers. Every discovery made by science unlocks more doors of the imagination.
Consider this:?At best, physicists can claim that we understand 4% of the universe really well. The rest is shrouded in mystery, because it consists of the poorly-understood dark matter and?dark energy that make up the other 96%.
There are still worlds to conquer and scientific secrets to unlock, and not just in the science fiction novels. Anyone who's trying to convince you that science currently has all the answers is missing out on how cool some of the questions are.
Science is nowhere close to ending.
Related Articles:
P.S. As I was about to publish this blog post, I discovered that my article had been quoted by Nancy Atkinson over at Universe Today, in an article about a study showing that there is little evidence of alien life. (Even I question whether this particular study was needed.)
Still, this is a cool thing to show up in your inbox. I think that this means I've gone viral!
Vacuum Energy and Virtual Particles
One of the weirdest facts about quantum physics is that particles are constantly springing into and out of existence all around us. Even within "empty space," which seems like it should contain no energy at all, there are virtual particle pairs that manifest for a moment before annihilating each other.
This means that energy is contained even in the empty vacuum of space itself, a fact which yields all sort of strange behavior. This vacuum energy may explain the dark energy that cosmologists observe, but the problem is that the theoretical calculations and experimental observations are off by quite a lot. ?If the theoretical calculations were correct, there'd be a lot more vacuum energy (sometimes called vacuum pressure) and the universe's acceleration would be a lot faster ... so fast that, in fact, the universe probably wouldn't have been able to form galaxies, stars, and planets.
It's precisely this sort of behavior that physicist Brian Greene refers to as quantum jitters in his popular science books. In fact, there's a very high likelihood that this sort of "energy from nothing" aspect of quantum physics provides the physical basis for the formation of the universe. The Big Bang theory describes how the universe proceeded from the moment of its creation, but doesn't actually dictate how that creation occurred. Actually, once you have the laws of quantum physics in place, the idea of manifesting something from nothing becomes relatively commonplace, as described in Lawrence Krauss' A Universe From Nothing and Hawking & Mlodinow's The Grand Design. Of course, general relativity is also needed, for that universe to begin expanding ... at least until we figure out a theory of quantum gravity.
Virtual particles are important in astrophysics for at least one other reason: they provide the basis for the Hawking radiation, the radiation that should be emitted by black holes.
April 2012 Physics Books
March was kind of a slow month for new physics book releases, but April sees things picking up again. There are five books of particular interest in the realm of science and technology this month, and I've got them covered in our April 2012 book list. The range is wide, from one about how the Earth could be destroyed (just in time for Mayan calendar fanaticism) to one about how we could save ourselves from an energy crisis and one that explains how to survive the crazy adventures of an intrepid time traveler!
Avengers' Physics
When a major blockbuster film comes out, there's no shortage of attempts among scientists to make it a "teachable moment." The new comic-based film The Avengers, however, may have more than its fair share of this ... and rightfully so. As I mentioned a while back, even I got on this bandwagon with my recent article about time travel and how it is utilized in some of the Avengers comic book plotlines.
The Avengers film doesn't have time travel, but it has been steadily building its storyline and fictional universe over a serious of previous films and that effort has had scientific elements to it. As I discussed when Thor came out, the creators were making specific efforts to ensure that the universe made sense and held together in a realistic way. The comic books rarely deal with the conflict between the science that fuels Iron Man's armor and the magic that fuels Thor's hammer, but since the films were reaching beyond your average comic reader, it needed to find a way to bridge that gap.
In Thor they did so by establishing the premise that the Asgardian race of "gods" were actually trans-dimensional beings who, though they resembled humans, were able to harness far more advanced scientific knowledge and became increasingly powerful as a result. In this latest film, the entire conflict centers around this advanced science.
Specifically, the film focuses on a real scientific problem: trying to find sustainable energy. The conflict is about control of a nearly-infinite energy source. (I'm not giving much away, because this is revealed in about the first 5 minutes of The Avengers and was previously hinted at in both the Captain America film and in the post-credits teaser at the end of Thor.) The energy source is called the Tesseract, or a doorway in space.
A tesseract is a mathematical concept. The simplest explanation is that the tesseract is a four-dimensional cube (in the same way that a cube is a 3-dimensional square). More on the comic book (and film) version of the Tesseract is covered here.
Though the physics of the tesseract isn't really laid out, what is clear from the film is that it has something to do with dark energy, the mysterious substance that physicists believe is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate. The discovery of this acceleration earned the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics, so it's kind of a big deal these days. The thing about dark energy is that it isn't particularly strong ... but there's a lot of it. The overall impact is quite a lot of power, enough to push the universe apart more quickly than we would expect it to be expanding.
In the film, the Tesseract has the capacity to somehow draw power from the dark energy to become a nearly-unlimited energy source. I won't spoil any part of the plot about how this energy is utilized, but there's the basic science behind it.
Of course, that isn't all the science that made its way into the film. Below are some additional links to some interesting articles on how science shows up in the Avengers film (and its predecessors).
Related Articles:
Pseudophysics
A few weeks ago, I discussed one issue with "physics cranks," as referenced on a podcast by renowned astrophysicist and science communicator Sean Carroll. His main objection was that many of the people who believe they're revolutionizing the fundamental theories of physics do not really understand the existing theories, so they can't really quantify how their theories would resolve the problems which existing theories can solve.
The only one of them I've ever heard of is Fred Alan Wolf, who is well known for his work in trying to relate human consciousness to quantum theory. He is also quoted in both the video and book "The Secret" and here's what I said about this on my website (http://physics.about.com/od/scienceandreligionbooks/p/secretphysicserrors.htm):"Two physicists, Dr. Fred Alan Wolf and Dr. John Hagelin, are directly quoted in the book. While both are respected and accomplished in various circles, their stances on these issues of physics and consciousness are definitely not mainstream. The attempt within The Secret to make these controversial views appear to be a consensus of quantum physicists is misleading."What will very likely happen in the ALICE AND THE QUANTUM CAT book is that there will be a lot of very real science. In fact, probably about 90% of the science will be perfectly valid and correct. The other 10% will contain assumptions or conclusions that are at odds with the mainstream physics community and have no direct experimental support. The problem is that the authors will make no real effort to make it clear that this 10% is any different from the other 90% ... they'll make it sound like physicists are completely confident about everything they're saying.http://znfl.blogspot.com/2006/12/wolf-in-sheeps-clothing.htmlHowever, there is another problem that is nearly as pervasive. This comes from people who have legitimate physics credentials and do (or, at least, should) understand the complexities surrounding a scientific concept, but when they communicate these concepts they do not make these complexities clear.
I was reminded of this when a friend recently approached me about a book she'd come across, which claimed to discuss the way quantum physics affects our lives. There was a list of physicists who were involved in the book and she wanted to know if it was trustworthy. The only name I recognized was Dr. Fred Alan Wolf, who is well known for his work in trying to relate human consciousness to quantum physics. He is one of the physicists who is quoted in both the book and film of The Secret. Here is a quote from my article "Physics Errors in The Secret":
Two physicists, Dr. Fred Alan Wolf and Dr. John Hagelin, are directly quoted in the book. While both are respected and accomplished in various circles, their stances on these issues of physics and consciousness are definitely not mainstream. The attempt within The Secret to make these controversial views appear to be a consensus of quantum physicists is misleading.
I actually have a great deal of sympathy for those who investigate the foundations of quantum physics and even the role of the observer ... when it's handled carefully, as it was in the fantastic book The Quantum Enigma. This was a legitimate discussion of the issues and complexities involved in observers in quantum physics, such as the role of measurement in the quantum double slit experiment. They didn't take a bit of uncertainty and try to use it to justify things well outside the realm of what they were discussion.
And that, ultimately, is one of the major problems when quantum physics gets referenced in many books aimed at a popular audience, especially those that seem inclined to imply some sort of mystical result from quantum physics. Here is the response I provided to my friend about her book question, and I think this tends to apply broadly to these sorts of physics books:
What will very likely happen in this book is that there will be a lot of very real science. In fact, probably about 90% of the science will be perfectly valid and correct. The other 10% will contain assumptions or conclusions that are at odds with the mainstream physics community and have no direct experimental support. The problem is that the authors will make no real effort to make it clear that this 10% is any different from the other 90% ... they'll make it sound like physicists are completely confident about everything they're saying.
There are a lot of curious properties of quantum physics, such as the ways to resolve quantum entanglement issues, such as those that show up in the EPR paradox. And some very respected physicist (most notably Roger Penrose) have ventured speculations in this area. The problem is how carefully these speculations are framed and the degree to which they make their uncertainty clear.
A scientist who is truly trying to examine the possibility of these things will make it absolutely clear that they are speculating.?A true scientist will qualify their speculative claims, quantifying their uncertainty as much as possible. This is, to a large degree, the very essence of scientific inquiry.
Those who make it sound like such speculations are completely resolved questions aren't interested in furthering knowledge. They're trying to sell you something, not practice real science.
This sort of reminds me of a quote from mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russel:
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
Presidential Candidates Should Debate Science ... Thus Sayeth Religious People
Most people that I know are absolutely disgusted by politicians. No matter what a person's political affiliation, if you're an intelligent person then you want decisions to be based on a firm understanding of the reality of the situation. There may be perfectly valid disagreements about how best to address the problems within this reality, of course, but ultimately no one wants decisions to be made on a faulty understanding of reality.
And how do we understand reality? Well, the most well-established and consistent method for understanding the working of reality is science.
Why is this so? Basically it is because science (and, so far as I know, only science) has built into it a systematic method to continually question its base assumptions, to really get at the fundamental truths about how reality functions.?Sean Carroll put this eloquently in a recent YouTube video, when he describes skepticism:
Scientists are taught that we should be our own theories' harshest critics. Scientists spend all of their time trying to disprove their favorite ideas. This is a remarkable way of doing things that is a little bit counter-intuitive, but helps us resist the allure of wishful thinking.
Unfortunately, virtually no politicians approach things this way. Political thinking typically starts with a conviction and then proceeds to amass evidence that supports that conviction ... and disregards evidence that conflicts with their conviction.
However, when really considering the policies that we want implemented, people believe that scientific reality is a fairly good thing to consider. Some science enthusiasts believe that religion and religious people are inherently anti-scientific, but a recent poll indicates that this isn't really the case. Even people who self-identify as religious provide a strong indication that they want a scientific-based debate between presidential candidates.
In fact, a science debate came in third among presidential debate themes, right behind economy/taxes and foreign policy/national security, but well ahead of themes such as faith/values or the environment.
Do you believe that there should be a Science Debate as part of the 2012 presidential election, focusing on science-themed areas such as innovation, healthcare, and energy policy? Is this a realistic proposition, or will both parties run from such an enterprise? Offer your thoughts in the comments below.
Related Articles:
Science, Philosophy, and Pop Culture
My study plan in college was simple: Learn as much as I could.
Much to my mother's chagrin, this plan didn't include considering how well classes would serve me in the workforce once college was over, but rather scheduling them based on my personal interests. As much as I could, I chose classes that I thought would give me some clue for understanding an aspect of the universe that had been a mystery to me.
Physics was top on my list of interests, of course, but I also picked up a minor in Philosophy. While Physics is a degree that draws a lot of respect and demand in the workforce, Philosophy doesn't so much.
However, I found the two areas of study strangely complementary. While Physics teaches the specifics of how to think about problems scientifically, Philosophy goes beyond that to the more general question of how to think logically, even about questions which are not inherently scientific. (Of course, some would argue that there are no questions that aren't scientific ... but that, too, is a philosophical question.)
These days, I find that method of thinking logically to be very helpful. Science, after all, got its start in the realm of "natural philosophy." I apply the thinking skills from philosophy not only to scientific questions, but to the realm of politics (where logical thinking is woefully absent) and to other aspects of my own life.
And, miraculously, I've found some way to put this thinking to productive use ... and tie it directly into my scientific writing! (My mother is very proud.) In fact,?this month I'm pleased to appear in two different books which blend philosophical and scientific thinking.
Time Traveling Warlords
The first of these volumes is The Avengers and Philosophy: Earth's Mightiest Thinkers, which contains my essay:
"Can Kang Kill His Past Self? The Paradox of Time Travel"
Readers of The Avengers comic book will be familiar with Kang, a time-hopping conqueror from the distant future, who exists (and has existed and will exist) in various versions and iterations throughout the colorful history (and future) of the series. In this essay, I explore a bit of the science behind time travel as well as the paradoxes related to it, including a variation of the famous Twin Paradox featuring the superheroic twins Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch.
This essay was a lot of fun to write. These ideas are typically very esoteric, so explaining them in the context of a fictional scenario like The Avengers, which is already familiar to readers, is a great opportunity. Kang was an especially good choice, because he specifically sought to destroy alternate versions of himself. With over forty years of comic stories to pull from, an essay on time paradoxes virtually wrote itself!
Quantum Gravity Sitcom
Just today I received my contributor's copies of The Big Bang Theory and Philosophy: Rock, Paper, Scissors, Aristotle, Locke, which contains my essay:
"Sheldon, Leonard, and Leslie: The Three Faces of Quantum Gravity"
If you've watched the CBS television series The Big Bang Theory for any length of time, you likely know that Sheldon Cooper's area of expertise is string theory. But string theory is not the only approach toward a theory of quantum gravity--a theory that tries to unify the concepts of quantum physics with those of general relativity.
Probably the second most popular approach is loop quantum gravity. In the series, this is the theory studied by Leslie Winkle, one of Sheldon's numerous nemeses.?In the middle of these two warring theoretical physicists is the character of Leonard, who is clearly identified as an experimental physicist.
Against this backdrop, I use the circumstances of Leonard and Leslie's tumultuous relationship (especially the dramatic break-up from the Season 2 episode "The Codpiece Topology") to explain some of the core scientific challenges facing scientists searching for a viable theory of quantum gravity.
Related Articles:
March Big Bang Episodes
This month had a bit of a lull in episodes of the CBS sitcom The Big Bang Theory, but there were still two great episodes leading up toward the finale. Neither of them were the most science heavy of episodes, although episode 20 did have a classically silly physics knock-knock joke.
Tuesday, 29 May 2012
Widgets for Dashboard X: Dashtweet, Music, Clock
Couple of weeks back, we told you about Dashboard X - a jailbreak tweak that brings widgets to iPhone's Home screen.
While Dashboard X includes full support for the Notification Center widgets, we're already seeing custom widgets that have been specially created for Dashboard X.
We take a look at these Dashboard X custom widgets:
Dashtweet:
As the name suggests, Dashtweet is a Dashboard X widget for Twitter. It allows you to quickly send tweets right from the Home screen.
The custom widget makes use of the default accounts in Settings - Twitter so its quite easy to setup. It also includes Pastie integration for long tweets.
Music Widget (for Dashboard X):
The music widget displays the "Now Playing" song along with artwork and play, pause, skip controls. The music widget is also compatible with third-party music apps such as Spotify, Pandora etc.
Clock Widget (for Dashboard X):
The Clock Widget allows you to add the neat looking digital clock to your iPhone's home screen. The widget is developed by the developer of Dashboard X.
Dashboard X is available on Cydia for $1.99, while the custom widgets mentioned above are available for free in Cydia.
Adding the custom widgets to the Home screen is quite simple (assuming you've already installed Dashboard X).
Touch and hold on any app on the Home screen until it begins to jiggle.Arrange the apps by dragging them to make room for custom widgetTap and hold on any blank spaceThis should bring up the Add widget menu option, select the widget you want to add to the Home screen from the listHere you get an option to center align it and also to make it interactiveThen tap on Add widgetThat's it, you should be able to place the custom widget wherever you like on that Home screen by dragging it.While none of the widgets that are available in Cydia currently come anywhere close to blowing your mind away, it does give a glimpse of the potential of Dashboard X.We're waiting for someone to create a custom widget for Google search, as it would be a lot quicker to search from the Home Screen than launching mobile Safari and using the search bar.Sn0wbreeze 2.9.5 Adds Support For Revised iOS 5.1.1; Includes Location Services Fix For iPhone 3GS
iH8sn0w has also released a new version of Sn0wbreeze (v2.9.5), which adds support for the revised iOS 5.1.1 that was released by Apple for GSM iPhone 4 users.
iH8sn0w has released Sn0wbreeze v2.9.4, which includes suport for iOS 5.1.1 untethered jailbreak for iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch and Apple TV.
In addition to support for the revised iOS 5.1.1, iH8sn0w has also included a fix for location services for iPhone 3GS users (iPad baseband users).
Sn0wbreeze allows users to create custom iOS 5.1.1 firmware file that is pre-jailbroken, which can then be used to upgrade their iPhone, iPad or iPod Touch to iOS 5.1.1. In case of iPhone, Sn0wbreeze also preserves the baseband from getting upgraded so that it can be unlocked using Ultrasn0w (though Ultrasn0w is not yet compatible with iOS 5.1.1).
Here's what's new in Sn0wbreeze v2.9.5:
Added 5.1.1/9B208 untether payload for the iPhone 4 GSMAdded iPhone 3GS (iPad Baseband users) location services fixSn0wbreeze 2.9.5 supports the following iOS devices running on iOS 5.1.1:iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4iPad 1iPod Touch 3G, iPod Touch 4GApple TV 2iPhone 4 and iPhone 3GS users who depend on unlocking should use Sn0wbreeze or Redsn0w (whenever Dev team releases it with iOS 5.1.1 untethered jailbreak support) as it preserves the baseband. If you're only after jailbreaking then you could use the Absinthe jailbreak tool as it is easier to use. Users having trouble jailbreaking their iOS device with Absinthe can also try Sn0wbreeze.You can download the latest version Sn0wbreeze, which is available only for Windows users using this link.If you need help with Absinthe 2.0.x, then check out our step-by-step guide to jailbreak your iOS device using Absinthe 2.0.1: As always, let us know how it goes in the comments.Over a Million iOS Devices Jailbroken Using Absinthe 2.0
pod2g and the Chronic Dev team released Absinthe 2.0 on Friday, which allows users to jailbreak their iOS devices running iOS 5.1.1. It was also the first jailbreak for the new iPad (3rd generation iPad).
Chronic Dev team has just revealed that more than a 1 million new iOS devices have been jailbroken since Absinthe 2.0 was released.
Chronic Dev team has shared the following numbers:
Some stats since release of #Absinthe - 211,401 jailbroken iPad3's and 973,086 devices newly jailbroken! #JBFTW ! ;D
This means that 1,184,487 new iOS devices were jailbroken using the Absinthe jailbreak in less than 3 days. Earlier in the year, almost a million devices (953,232) were jailbroken in 3 days using the Absinthe jailbreak for iOS 5.0.1 and iOS 5.
The data is based on the query that is sent to saurik's servers when Cydia is launched to get the list of available SHSH blobs for that iOS device.
Have you jailbroken your iOS device using Absinthe? Let us know in the comments.
Widgets for Dashboard X: Dashtweet, Music, Clock
Couple of weeks back, we told you about Dashboard X - a jailbreak tweak that brings widgets to iPhone's Home screen.
While Dashboard X includes full support for the Notification Center widgets, we're already seeing custom widgets that have been specially created for Dashboard X.
We take a look at these Dashboard X custom widgets:
Dashtweet:
As the name suggests, Dashtweet is a Dashboard X widget for Twitter. It allows you to quickly send tweets right from the Home screen.
The custom widget makes use of the default accounts in Settings - Twitter so its quite easy to setup. It also includes Pastie integration for long tweets.
Music Widget (for Dashboard X):
The music widget displays the "Now Playing" song along with artwork and play, pause, skip controls. The music widget is also compatible with third-party music apps such as Spotify, Pandora etc.
Clock Widget (for Dashboard X):
The Clock Widget allows you to add the neat looking digital clock to your iPhone's home screen. The widget is developed by the developer of Dashboard X.
Dashboard X is available on Cydia for $1.99, while the custom widgets mentioned above are available for free in Cydia.
Adding the custom widgets to the Home screen is quite simple (assuming you've already installed Dashboard X).
Touch and hold on any app on the Home screen until it begins to jiggle.Arrange the apps by dragging them to make room for custom widgetTap and hold on any blank spaceThis should bring up the Add widget menu option, select the widget you want to add to the Home screen from the listHere you get an option to center align it and also to make it interactiveThen tap on Add widgetThat's it, you should be able to place the custom widget wherever you like on that Home screen by dragging it.While none of the widgets that are available in Cydia currently come anywhere close to blowing your mind away, it does give a glimpse of the potential of Dashboard X.We're waiting for someone to create a custom widget for Google search, as it would be a lot quicker to search from the Home Screen than launching mobile Safari and using the search bar.Rocky Racoon 5.1.1 Untether Updated to Add Support For Revised iOS 5.1.1 (9B208)
Categories : Absinthe 2.0 Jailbreak, Chronic Dev team, Jailbreak iPad 3 (New iPad), iPad 2, iPad 1, Jailbreak iPhone 4, Jailbreak iPhone 3GS, Jailbreak iPhone 3G, Jailbreak iPhone, Jailbreak iPhone 4S, Jailbreak iPod touch 4G, iPod touch 3G, Rocky Racoon Untether
How Does Samsung’s S Voice Stack Up Against Siri?
In the third iteration of its flagship smartphone, the Galaxy S, Samsung has used software along with hardware to differentiate itself from other Android manufacturers, and of course the iPhone. A part of the software suite bundled with the Galaxy S III, Samsung introduced S Voice, a voice assistant just like Siri.
Given that this is a clear response to Apple baking in Siri right into the iPhone 4S, we were curious to know how do the two voice assistants stack up in terms of performance, effectiveness, accuracy and speed.
The Verge's Galaxy S III review has already gone up, which includes a section that has a side by side comparison of Siri and S Voice.
From the review:
Say hello to Siri for Android, as produced by Samsung. If you harbored any doubt as to whether or not Samsung ripped off Apple’s voice assistant, let it go now. That’s not to suggest that Apple invented voice commands on mobile phones — Samsung had the Vlingo-powered Voice Talk on the Galaxy S II — but the look and feel of this application takes so much inspiration from Apple’s effort on the iPhone 4S as to deserve being labelled a clone. Not that any of this matters a great deal — neither Siri nor S Voice is good enough in its present incarnation.
S Voice consistently chews up my words when I try asking it questions, although it works better when instructed to schedule an appointment or set an alarm. It can also be used as an unlocking mechanism once you pre-record a pass phrase. That adds to the face unlocking option that’s native to Android 4.0 in being frustratingly unwieldy and planted firmly within gimmick territory — more than once I was stuck repeating "hello" without any recognition from the phone
Here's the side by side comparison video:
Although there are occasions where one outperforms the other, overall both seem to be average performers with Siri incapable of handling location queries outside the U.S., and S Voice often turning to a Google search for answers. Unfortunately for Samsung, Apple's early entry into this space ensured them a lot of good press surrounding the technology (at least initially).
Head over to this link for more on Siri and S Voice.
See also: Apple responds to Siri lawsuits, tells unsatisfied customers to return their iPhones.
Update on iOS 5.1.1 Untethered Jailbreak For iPad2,4
iPad 2 users probably know by now that Absinthe 2.0.x released few days back by iOS 5.1.1 jailbreak team does not support the $399 iPad 2 Wi-Fi only model (iPad2,4).
The good news is that the jailbreak team is working hard to add support for iPad2,4 to Absinthe 2.0 - the iOS 5.1.1 untethered jailbreak.
iOS hacker - planetbeing tweeted:
Need someone with an iPad2,4, can upload 200 MB quickly, knowledge of FTP. Send screenshot of Absinthe not working for confirmation.
He quickly got a response from a iPad2,4 user.
i have Mac OS and Ubuntu 12.04 on virtual machine can get windows 7 if needed pic.twitter.com/Yg5ELcO6
Tip: You can follow these simple steps to find out if you own an iPad2,4:
Download the free linpack app from the App Store (direct iTunes link)Launch the app and on the Home screen, it should display your iPad's model number as seen below:
TinyUmbrella Updated to Add Support For Revised iOS 5.1.1 (Build 9B208)
notcom a.k.a semaphore has released a new version of TinyUmbrella (5.11.01) to add support for the revised iOS 5.1.1 (9B208), that was quietly released for GSM iPhone 4 users yesterday.
TinyUmbrella allows you to take backups of SHSH blobs (ECID SHSH) that can be used to downgrade to older iOS versions even after Apple stops signing the iOS firmware file.
It can come in handy if you end up accidentally upgrading to the latest version of iOS.
Initially, it was possible to downgrade only iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPad 1, iPod touch 4G and iPod touch 3G from iOS 5.1 to iOS 5.0.1 using the SHSH blobs saved using TinyUmbrella. But iPhone Dev team released a new version of Redns0w few days back that also allows users to downgrade their iPhone 4S, iPad 2 and iPad 3.
It's very simple to save SHSH blobs. All you need to do is follow these steps:
Update: Download the latest version of TinyUmbrella from hereConnect your iOS device to the computerInstall and then launch the latest version of TinyUmbrella (ensure it says v5.11.00 in the title)Select your iOS device from the "Connected Devices" listThen click on the "Save SHSH" button.After the SHSH blobs are successfully saved, you should see your iOS device listed along with the iOS version that it is running on currently under the General section, which says Saved SHSHs.
Chronic Dev team had also released Absinthe 2.0.2 to add support for revised iOS 5.1.1 (9B208).
Let us know how it goes.
[via notcom]
TinyUmbrella Updated to Add Support For Revised iOS 5.1.1 (Build 9B208)
notcom a.k.a semaphore has released a new version of TinyUmbrella (5.11.01) to add support for the revised iOS 5.1.1 (9B208), that was quietly released for GSM iPhone 4 users yesterday.
TinyUmbrella allows you to take backups of SHSH blobs (ECID SHSH) that can be used to downgrade to older iOS versions even after Apple stops signing the iOS firmware file.
It can come in handy if you end up accidentally upgrading to the latest version of iOS.
Initially, it was possible to downgrade only iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPad 1, iPod touch 4G and iPod touch 3G from iOS 5.1 to iOS 5.0.1 using the SHSH blobs saved using TinyUmbrella. But iPhone Dev team released a new version of Redns0w few days back that also allows users to downgrade their iPhone 4S, iPad 2 and iPad 3.
It's very simple to save SHSH blobs. All you need to do is follow these steps:
Update: Download the latest version of TinyUmbrella from hereConnect your iOS device to the computerInstall and then launch the latest version of TinyUmbrella (ensure it says v5.11.00 in the title)Select your iOS device from the "Connected Devices" listThen click on the "Save SHSH" button.After the SHSH blobs are successfully saved, you should see your iOS device listed along with the iOS version that it is running on currently under the General section, which says Saved SHSHs.
Chronic Dev team had also released Absinthe 2.0.2 to add support for revised iOS 5.1.1 (9B208).
Let us know how it goes.
[via notcom]
Facebook Planning to Release Facebook Phone by 2013; Hiring iPhone Engineers
The New York Times reports that Facebook is planning to release a smartphone by 2013 and has hired former Apple employees who have worked on the iPhone and iPad.
This is not the first time we're hearing rumors of a Facebook phone. Back in November 2011, a rumor claimed that the Facebook Phone existed and is codenamed "buffy". Facebook had reportedly partnered with HTC to build these phones, which would be running a custom version of Android.
The NYT report claims that it would be Facebook's third attempt to build a phone.
Employees of Facebook and several engineers who have been sought out by recruiters there, as well as people briefed on Facebook’s plans, say the company hopes to release its own smartphone by next year.
The company has already hired more than half a dozen former Apple software and hardware engineers who worked on the iPhone, and one who worked on the iPad, the employees and those briefed on the plans said.
Experts believe that Facebook could monetize on mobile devices better if it launches its own mobile phone (platform).
The chatter about the possibility of a Facebook phone has grown louder after it highlighted in the S-1 filing before the IPO, that the number of ads per user was dropping due to the growth of users using the site on their mobile devices.
“When you offer an advertising-based phone, you’re targeting all the users on prepay that are budget-conscious of their communications costs,” said Carolina Milanesi, a vice president and analyst for the Gartner Group. [..]
[..] After all, both Facebook and Google make their money through advertising. If the companies have the opportunity to continually put ads in front of people on a smartphone screen, you would think the only question left would be to pick the right ringtone that makes that ka-ching sound.
With Twitter being baked into iOS and Google+ being built into Android, it isn't really surprising that Facebook wants to build its own phone. With negotiations between Apple and Facebook breaking down over deep integration into iOS, the social network desperately needs to figure out a strategy for mobile devices beyond just apps.
Mark Zuckerberg also doesn't seem to be happy creating just apps for other mobile platforms as he does not have much control.
“Mark is worried that if he doesn’t create a mobile phone in the near future that Facebook will simply become an app on other mobile platforms,” a Facebook employee said.
As Business Insider points out, Facebook seems to be slowly building the apps required for a smartphone such as the Facebook messages, Facebook Camera. It is reportedly interested in buying browser maker Opera, which would solve the problem of developing a web browser for the Facebook phone.
However, we don't think building a Facebook phone for a company, which has very little expertise in hardware seems like the best strategy, especially if the motivation is monetization by showing users ads. We're also concerned how this would impact Facebook apps on competing mobile platforms like iOS. We've already seen this not go in the favor of users. For example: Google hasn't launched its free Navigation app for the iPhone as it wants it to be one of the unique selling points for Android-based smartphones. That seems like a good strategy from a short term point of view, but once Apple launches its own Maps app (along with a desktop version), iOS device users could end up switching to Apple's maps app even on the computer. We don't think alienating users just because they're using other mobile platform will play out well in the long term.
It will be interesting to see how Facebook approaches this conflict of interest if it does indeed end up launching a Facebook Phone.
What do you think about the possibility of a Facebook
First-Gen iPad Prototype With Two Dock Connectors Shows Up On eBay
Patent applications and rumors in the past have pointed to the existence of an iPad with dual dock connectors, and today, via an eBay listing, we know that Apple indeed manufactured such iPad prototypes in a small quantity before the actual launch.
The iPad prototype being auctioned in the eBay listing is a first generation, 16GB, Wi-Fi only model with two dock connectors, one each for portrait and landscape mode. It runs a beta version of iOS 3.2 alongside Apple's software testing suite called "SwitchBoard."
Although Apple intentionally disabled the device and removed its battery, the seller managed to get the prototype working except for the touchscreen. In normal cases this would be a deal breaker, but since this prototype is meant to be a collectors item, it shouldn't matter much.
Since the prototype was manufactured before the specs were finalized, the numbers at the back are nothing but 'X's, and the serial number of the device shows up as invalid on Apple's website. The seller says the prototype was built somewhere around late 2009 or early 2010.
Apple, for good reason, shelved the design, but the choice of docking the iPad in both, portrait and landscape mode would have been nice.
Click on the image above to see the slideshow of all the photos of the first-gen iPad prototype with two dock connectors
You can buy it right now for $10,000 or place a bid above $4,800 and hope that no one's willing to pay more than you. The auction ends in 10 hours. Here's the eBay link.
[via MacRumors]
Facebook Planning to Release Facebook Phone by 2013; Hiring iPhone Engineers
The New York Times reports that Facebook is planning to release a smartphone by 2013 and has hired former Apple employees who have worked on the iPhone and iPad.
This is not the first time we're hearing rumors of a Facebook phone. Back in November 2011, a rumor claimed that the Facebook Phone existed and is codenamed "buffy". Facebook had reportedly partnered with HTC to build these phones, which would be running a custom version of Android.
The NYT report claims that it would be Facebook's third attempt to build a phone.
Employees of Facebook and several engineers who have been sought out by recruiters there, as well as people briefed on Facebook’s plans, say the company hopes to release its own smartphone by next year.
The company has already hired more than half a dozen former Apple software and hardware engineers who worked on the iPhone, and one who worked on the iPad, the employees and those briefed on the plans said.
Experts believe that Facebook could monetize on mobile devices better if it launches its own mobile phone (platform).
The chatter about the possibility of a Facebook phone has grown louder after it highlighted in the S-1 filing before the IPO, that the number of ads per user was dropping due to the growth of users using the site on their mobile devices.
“When you offer an advertising-based phone, you’re targeting all the users on prepay that are budget-conscious of their communications costs,” said Carolina Milanesi, a vice president and analyst for the Gartner Group. [..]
[..] After all, both Facebook and Google make their money through advertising. If the companies have the opportunity to continually put ads in front of people on a smartphone screen, you would think the only question left would be to pick the right ringtone that makes that ka-ching sound.
With Twitter being baked into iOS and Google+ being built into Android, it isn't really surprising that Facebook wants to build its own phone. With negotiations between Apple and Facebook breaking down over deep integration into iOS, the social network desperately needs to figure out a strategy for mobile devices beyond just apps.
Mark Zuckerberg also doesn't seem to be happy creating just apps for other mobile platforms as he does not have much control.
“Mark is worried that if he doesn’t create a mobile phone in the near future that Facebook will simply become an app on other mobile platforms,” a Facebook employee said.
As Business Insider points out, Facebook seems to be slowly building the apps required for a smartphone such as the Facebook messages, Facebook Camera. It is reportedly interested in buying browser maker Opera, which would solve the problem of developing a web browser for the Facebook phone.
However, we don't think building a Facebook phone for a company, which has very little expertise in hardware seems like the best strategy, especially if the motivation is monetization by showing users ads. We're also concerned how this would impact Facebook apps on competing mobile platforms like iOS. We've already seen this not go in the favor of users. For example: Google hasn't launched its free Navigation app for the iPhone as it wants it to be one of the unique selling points for Android-based smartphones. That seems like a good strategy from a short term point of view, but once Apple launches its own Maps app (along with a desktop version), iOS device users could end up switching to Apple's maps app even on the computer. We don't think alienating users just because they're using other mobile platform will play out well in the long term.
It will be interesting to see how Facebook approaches this conflict of interest if it does indeed end up launching a Facebook Phone.
What do you think about the possibility of a Facebook
Analyst: Next-Gen iPhone in October; Apple Television in Early 2013
Piper Jaffray's Gene Munster, a long time Apple analyst, is quite bullish on Apple's stock.
Fortune reports that he is predicting that Apple's stock will hit $1000 within the next two years.
Here're his top 10 ideas, which he believes will help Apple's stock, which closed at $562.29 on Friday, to reach $1000.
An aggressive product roadmap. Munster expects a rapid sequence of new products and product updates over the next 12 months, including a new iPhone, new Macs, a new iPad and a TV.A huge iPhone 5 upgrade. He predicts it will happen in October and be, in his words, "the biggest consumer electronics product launch of 2012 as well as the biggest device upgrade cycle in smartphone history."Apple television in 2013. Munster hasn't lost the faith. He expects it to be announced this December and priced between $1,500 and $2,000 for screen sizes ranging from 42" to 55".Carrier subsidies to continue. For at least another 2-3 years. Despite the chatter about reducing the subsidies they pay for the iPhone, carriers like the low churn rates, the fact that the device sells itself and that they don't have to pay Apple a bounty for each sale.40% gross margins. Apple's profit margins are the envy of the tech sector, and Munster expects them to continue for at least three more years."Heart transplant" strategy. This is Apple's strategy of eliminating old products as quickly as possible, streamlining its product line and securing the best component prices possible (which translates to higher margins).China's adoption curve. In the U.S., iPhone sales slowed down 34% in the second quarter of iPhone 4S sales. Munster doesn't think that will happen in China, where the iPhone and iPad are just taking off.Tablets will be bigger than PCs. By 2020, Munster estimates, tablets will be outselling personal computers and the iPad will still dominate the market.Enterprise sales. Apple won't change its spots; it will continue to rely on consumer adoption to drive adoption in the corporate market -- at least for iPhones and iPads. Macs not so much, because unlike Microsoft (MSFT), Apple doesn't support old operating systems until the end of time.The largest registered user base in the tech world. Although Apple runs its services (iTunes, App Store, etc.) at just above break-even, those services make Apple's hardware platforms both very big and very sticky. Once you give Apple your credit card number, you tend to stick around.
You can also check out Gene Munster's interview on Bloomberg Television's "Bloomberg West" back in April, where he claimed that the next generation iPhone will be the mother of all upgrades (unfortunately, it won't work on iOS devices as it needs Flash).
[via Fortune]First-Gen iPad Prototype With Two Dock Connectors Shows Up On eBay
Patent applications and rumors in the past have pointed to the existence of an iPad with dual dock connectors, and today, via an eBay listing, we know that Apple indeed manufactured such iPad prototypes in a small quantity before the actual launch.
The iPad prototype being auctioned in the eBay listing is a first generation, 16GB, Wi-Fi only model with two dock connectors, one each for portrait and landscape mode. It runs a beta version of iOS 3.2 alongside Apple's software testing suite called "SwitchBoard."
Although Apple intentionally disabled the device and removed its battery, the seller managed to get the prototype working except for the touchscreen. In normal cases this would be a deal breaker, but since this prototype is meant to be a collectors item, it shouldn't matter much.
Since the prototype was manufactured before the specs were finalized, the numbers at the back are nothing but 'X's, and the serial number of the device shows up as invalid on Apple's website. The seller says the prototype was built somewhere around late 2009 or early 2010.
Apple, for good reason, shelved the design, but the choice of docking the iPad in both, portrait and landscape mode would have been nice.
Click on the image above to see the slideshow of all the photos of the first-gen iPad prototype with two dock connectors
You can buy it right now for $10,000 or place a bid above $4,800 and hope that no one's willing to pay more than you. The auction ends in 10 hours. Here's the eBay link.
[via MacRumors]
Rocky Racoon 5.1.1 Untether Updated to Add Support For Revised iOS 5.1.1 (9B208)
Categories : Absinthe 2.0 Jailbreak, Chronic Dev team, Jailbreak iPad 3 (New iPad), iPad 2, iPad 1, Jailbreak iPhone 4, Jailbreak iPhone 3GS, Jailbreak iPhone 3G, Jailbreak iPhone, Jailbreak iPhone 4S, Jailbreak iPod touch 4G, iPod touch 3G, Rocky Racoon Untether
Sn0wbreeze 2.9.5 Adds Support For Revised iOS 5.1.1; Includes Location Services Fix For iPhone 3GS
iH8sn0w has also released a new version of Sn0wbreeze (v2.9.5), which adds support for the revised iOS 5.1.1 that was released by Apple for GSM iPhone 4 users.
iH8sn0w has released Sn0wbreeze v2.9.4, which includes suport for iOS 5.1.1 untethered jailbreak for iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch and Apple TV.
In addition to support for the revised iOS 5.1.1, iH8sn0w has also included a fix for location services for iPhone 3GS users (iPad baseband users).
Sn0wbreeze allows users to create custom iOS 5.1.1 firmware file that is pre-jailbroken, which can then be used to upgrade their iPhone, iPad or iPod Touch to iOS 5.1.1. In case of iPhone, Sn0wbreeze also preserves the baseband from getting upgraded so that it can be unlocked using Ultrasn0w (though Ultrasn0w is not yet compatible with iOS 5.1.1).
Here's what's new in Sn0wbreeze v2.9.5:
Added 5.1.1/9B208 untether payload for the iPhone 4 GSMAdded iPhone 3GS (iPad Baseband users) location services fixSn0wbreeze 2.9.5 supports the following iOS devices running on iOS 5.1.1:iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4iPad 1iPod Touch 3G, iPod Touch 4GApple TV 2iPhone 4 and iPhone 3GS users who depend on unlocking should use Sn0wbreeze or Redsn0w (whenever Dev team releases it with iOS 5.1.1 untethered jailbreak support) as it preserves the baseband. If you're only after jailbreaking then you could use the Absinthe jailbreak tool as it is easier to use. Users having trouble jailbreaking their iOS device with Absinthe can also try Sn0wbreeze.You can download the latest version Sn0wbreeze, which is available only for Windows users using this link.If you need help with Absinthe 2.0.x, then check out our step-by-step guide to jailbreak your iOS device using Absinthe 2.0.1: As always, let us know how it goes in the comments.Analyst: Next-Gen iPhone in October; Apple Television in Early 2013
Piper Jaffray's Gene Munster, a long time Apple analyst, is quite bullish on Apple's stock.
Fortune reports that he is predicting that Apple's stock will hit $1000 within the next two years.
Here're his top 10 ideas, which he believes will help Apple's stock, which closed at $562.29 on Friday, to reach $1000.
An aggressive product roadmap. Munster expects a rapid sequence of new products and product updates over the next 12 months, including a new iPhone, new Macs, a new iPad and a TV.A huge iPhone 5 upgrade. He predicts it will happen in October and be, in his words, "the biggest consumer electronics product launch of 2012 as well as the biggest device upgrade cycle in smartphone history."Apple television in 2013. Munster hasn't lost the faith. He expects it to be announced this December and priced between $1,500 and $2,000 for screen sizes ranging from 42" to 55".Carrier subsidies to continue. For at least another 2-3 years. Despite the chatter about reducing the subsidies they pay for the iPhone, carriers like the low churn rates, the fact that the device sells itself and that they don't have to pay Apple a bounty for each sale.40% gross margins. Apple's profit margins are the envy of the tech sector, and Munster expects them to continue for at least three more years."Heart transplant" strategy. This is Apple's strategy of eliminating old products as quickly as possible, streamlining its product line and securing the best component prices possible (which translates to higher margins).China's adoption curve. In the U.S., iPhone sales slowed down 34% in the second quarter of iPhone 4S sales. Munster doesn't think that will happen in China, where the iPhone and iPad are just taking off.Tablets will be bigger than PCs. By 2020, Munster estimates, tablets will be outselling personal computers and the iPad will still dominate the market.Enterprise sales. Apple won't change its spots; it will continue to rely on consumer adoption to drive adoption in the corporate market -- at least for iPhones and iPads. Macs not so much, because unlike Microsoft (MSFT), Apple doesn't support old operating systems until the end of time.The largest registered user base in the tech world. Although Apple runs its services (iTunes, App Store, etc.) at just above break-even, those services make Apple's hardware platforms both very big and very sticky. Once you give Apple your credit card number, you tend to stick around.
You can also check out Gene Munster's interview on Bloomberg Television's "Bloomberg West" back in April, where he claimed that the next generation iPhone will be the mother of all upgrades (unfortunately, it won't work on iOS devices as it needs Flash).
[via Fortune]Update on iOS 5.1.1 Untethered Jailbreak For iPad2,4
iPad 2 users probably know by now that Absinthe 2.0.x released few days back by iOS 5.1.1 jailbreak team does not support the $399 iPad 2 Wi-Fi only model (iPad2,4).
The good news is that the jailbreak team is working hard to add support for iPad2,4 to Absinthe 2.0 - the iOS 5.1.1 untethered jailbreak.
iOS hacker - planetbeing tweeted:
Need someone with an iPad2,4, can upload 200 MB quickly, knowledge of FTP. Send screenshot of Absinthe not working for confirmation.
He quickly got a response from a iPad2,4 user.
i have Mac OS and Ubuntu 12.04 on virtual machine can get windows 7 if needed pic.twitter.com/Yg5ELcO6
Tip: You can follow these simple steps to find out if you own an iPad2,4:
Download the free linpack app from the App Store (direct iTunes link)Launch the app and on the Home screen, it should display your iPad's model number as seen below:How Does Samsung’s S Voice Stack Up Against Siri?
In the third iteration of its flagship smartphone, the Galaxy S, Samsung has used software along with hardware to differentiate itself from other Android manufacturers, and of course the iPhone. A part of the software suite bundled with the Galaxy S III, Samsung introduced S Voice, a voice assistant just like Siri.
Given that this is a clear response to Apple baking in Siri right into the iPhone 4S, we were curious to know how do the two voice assistants stack up in terms of performance, effectiveness, accuracy and speed.
The Verge's Galaxy S III review has already gone up, which includes a section that has a side by side comparison of Siri and S Voice.
From the review:
Say hello to Siri for Android, as produced by Samsung. If you harbored any doubt as to whether or not Samsung ripped off Apple’s voice assistant, let it go now. That’s not to suggest that Apple invented voice commands on mobile phones — Samsung had the Vlingo-powered Voice Talk on the Galaxy S II — but the look and feel of this application takes so much inspiration from Apple’s effort on the iPhone 4S as to deserve being labelled a clone. Not that any of this matters a great deal — neither Siri nor S Voice is good enough in its present incarnation.
S Voice consistently chews up my words when I try asking it questions, although it works better when instructed to schedule an appointment or set an alarm. It can also be used as an unlocking mechanism once you pre-record a pass phrase. That adds to the face unlocking option that’s native to Android 4.0 in being frustratingly unwieldy and planted firmly within gimmick territory — more than once I was stuck repeating "hello" without any recognition from the phone
Here's the side by side comparison video:
Although there are occasions where one outperforms the other, overall both seem to be average performers with Siri incapable of handling location queries outside the U.S., and S Voice often turning to a Google search for answers. Unfortunately for Samsung, Apple's early entry into this space ensured them a lot of good press surrounding the technology (at least initially).
Head over to this link for more on Siri and S Voice.
See also: Apple responds to Siri lawsuits, tells unsatisfied customers to return their iPhones.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)