SemciênciaBlog sobre a (minha) vida científica – "E toda banda larga será inútil se a mente for estreita" |
Já que desisti de ganhar o prêmio Nobel, vou ver se pelo menos ganho o Prêmio Templeton (que vale 3/2 do Nobel e é divulgado na mesma semana!). Na verdade, se vocês pensarem bem, acho que de todos os físicos brasileiros, eu sou o que mais entende de Teologia.
PS: Se você é físico brasileiro e entende mais de Teologia do que eu, por favor me escreva aí nos comentários, para escrevermos a quatro mãos aquele livro que vai ganhar o Prêmio Templeton!
da Livraria da Folha
O matemático britânico John C. Lennox, da Universidade de Oxford, defende com argumentos sólidos a possibilidade de coexistência entre o conhecimento científico e a religião em “Por que a Ciência Não Consegue Enterrar Deus”. O objetivo do livro é fornecer um amparo fortemente embasado para os cientistas, ou qualquer leitor, que sintam necessidade de debater em favor de sua crença.
| Divulgação |
![]() |
| Matemático tenta comprovar que ciência e Deus não são excludentes |
Standard-Model Extension (SME) is an effective field theory that contains the Standard Model, General Relativity, and all possible operators that break Lorentz symmetry.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Violations of this fundamental symmetry can be studied within this general framework. CPT violation implies the breaking of Lorentz symmetry,[9] and the SME includes operators that both break and preserve CPT symmetry.[10][11][12]
Contents[hide] |
In 1989, Alan Kostelecký and Stuart Samuel proved that interactions in string theories could lead to the spontaneous breaking of Lorentz symmetry.[13] Later studies have indicated that loop-quantum gravity, non-commutative field theories, brane-world scenarios, and random dynamics models also involve the breakdown of Lorentz invariance.[14] Interest in Lorentz violation has grown rapidly in the last decades because it can arise in these and other candidate theories for quantum gravity. In the early 1990s, it was shown in the context of bosonicsuperstrings that string interactions can also spontaneously break CPT symmetry. This work[15] suggested that experiments with kaon interferometry would be promising for seeking possible signals of CPT violation due to their high sensitivity.
The SME was conceived to facilitate experimental investigations of Lorentz and CPT symmetry, given the theoretical motivation for violation of these symmetries. An initial step, in 1995, was the introduction of effective interactions.[16][17] Although Lorentz-breaking interactions are motivated by constructs such as string theory, the low-energy effective action appearing in the SME is independent of the underlying theory. Each term in the effective theory involves the expectation of a tensor field in the underlying theory. These coefficients are small due to Planck-scale suppression, and in principle are measurable in experiments. The first case considered the mixing of neutral mesons, because their interferometric nature makes them highly sensitive to suppressed effects.
In 1997 and 1998, two papers by Don Colladay and Alan Kostelecký gave birth to the minimal SME in flat spacetime.[1][2] This provided a framework for Lorentz violation across the spectrum of standard-model particles, and provided information about types of signals for potential new experimental searches.[18][19][20][21][22]
In 2004, the leading Lorentz-breaking terms in curved spacetimes were published,[3] thereby completing the picture for the minimal SME. In 1999, Sidney Coleman and Sheldon Glashowpresented a special isotropic limit of the SME.[23] Higher-order Lorentz violating terms have been studied in various contexts, including electrodynamics.[24]
Lorentz violation implies a measurable difference between two systems differing only by a particle Lorentz transformation. The distinction between particle and observer transformations is essential to understanding Lorentz violation in physics.
In special relativity, observer Lorentz transformations relate measurements made in reference frames with differing velocities and orientations. The coordinates in the one system are related to those in the other by an observer Lorentz transformation – a rotation, a boost, or a combination of both. Both observers will agree on the laws of physics, since this transformation is simply a change of coordinates. On the other hand, identical experiments can be rotated or boosted relative to each other, while being studied by the same inertial observer. These transformations are called particle transformations, because the matter and fields of the experiment are physically transformed into the new configuration.
In a conventional vacuum, observer and particle transformations can be related to each other in a simple way—basically one is the inverse of the other. This apparent equivalence is often expressed using the terminology of active and passive transformations. The equivalence fails in Lorentz-violating theories, however, because fixed background fields are the source of the symmetry breaking. These background fields are tensor-like quantities, creating preferred directions and boost-dependent effects. The fields extend over all space and time, and are essentially frozen. When an experiment sensitive to one of the background fields is rotated or boosted, i.e. particle transformed, the background fields remain unchanged, and measurable effects are possible. Observer Lorentz symmetry is expected for all theories, including Lorentz violating ones, since a change in the coordinates cannot affect the physics. This invariance is implemented in field theories by writing a scalar lagrangian, with properly contracted spacetime indices. Particle Lorentz breaking enters if the theory includes fixed SME background fields filling the universe.
The SME can be expressed as a lagrangian with various terms. Each Lorentz-violating term is an observer scalar constructed by contracting standard field operators with controlling coefficients called coefficients for Lorentz violation. Notice that these are not parameters of the theory, since they can in principle be measured by appropriate experiments. The coefficients are expected to be small because of the Planck-scale suppression, so perturbative methods are appropriate. In some cases, other suppression mechanisms could mask large Lorentz violations. For instance, large violations that may exist in gravity could have gone undetected so far because of couplings with weak gravitational fields.[25] Stability and causality of the theory have been studied in detail.[26]
In field theory, there are two possible ways to implement the breaking of a symmetry: explicit and spontaneous. A key result in the formal theory of Lorentz violation, published byKostelecký in 2004, is that explicit Lorentz violation leads to incompatibility of the Bianchi identities with the covariant conservation laws for the energy-momentum and spin-density tensors, whereas spontaneous Lorentz breaking evades this difficulty.[3] This theorem requires that any breaking of Lorentz symmetry must be dynamical. Formal studies of the possible causes of the breakdown of Lorentz symmetry include investigations of the fate of the expected Nambu-Goldstone modes. Goldstone’s theorem implies that the spontaneous breaking must be accompanied by massless bosons. These modes might be identified with the photon,[27] the graviton,[28][29] spin-dependent interactions,[30] and spin-independent interactions.[25]
The possible signals of Lorentz violation in any experiment can be calculated from the SME.[31][32][33][34][35][36] It has therefore proven to be a remarkable tool in the search for Lorentz violation across the landscape of experimental physics. Up until the present, experimental results have taken the form of upper bounds on the SME coefficients. Since the results will be numerically different for different inertial reference frames, the standard frame adopted for reporting results is the Sun-centered frame. This frame is a practical and appropriate choice, since it is accessible and inertial on the time scale of hundreds of years.
Typical experiments seek couplings between the background fields and various particle properties such as spin, or propagation direction. One of the key signals of Lorentz violation arises because experiments on Earth are unavoidably rotating and revolving relative to the Sun-centered frame. These motions lead to both annual and sidereal variations of the measured coefficients for Lorentz violation. Since the translational motion of the Earth around the Sun is nonrelativistic, annual variations are typically suppressed by a factor 10−4. This makes sidereal variations the leading time-dependent effect to look for in experimental data.[37]
Measurements of SME coefficients have been done with experiments involving:
All experimental results for SME coefficients are tabulated in the Data Tables for Lorentz and CPT Violation.[38]
Eu tenho um monte de amigos que acham que trabalhar com o Paradoxo de Fermi é ficcção científica, mas ficam submetendo projeto para a FAPESP e CNPq para estudar Inteligencia Artificial, Robôs etc…
Entretanto, o Paradoxo de Fermi é um forte argumento contra a possibilidade de se construir um robô autoreplicante pensante (sondas de Vonn Neuman). Se tais sondas fossem possíveis, tipo Monolitos Negros de 2001 e 2010, elas já teriam tempo de se espalhar por toda a Galaxia e já teriam chegado até nós. Como isso não ocorreu, é impossível construir Sondas de Von Neuman, ou seja, Inteligência Artificial Forte.
A graphical representation of the Arecibo message – Humanity’s first attempt to use radio waves to actively communicate its existence to alien civilizations
The Fermi paradox (Fermi’s paradox or Fermi-paradox) is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence ofextraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of evidence for, or contact with, such civilizations.
The age of the universe and its vast number of stars suggest that if the Earth is typical, extraterrestrial life should be common.[1] In an informal discussion in 1950, the physicist Enrico Fermi questioned why, if a multitude of advanced extraterrestrial civilizations exists in the Milky Way galaxy, evidence such as spacecraft or probes is not seen. A more detailed examination of the implications of the topic began with a paper by Michael H. Hartin 1975, and it is sometimes referred to as the Fermi–Hart paradox.[2] Other common names for the same phenomenon are Fermi’s question (“Where are they?”), the Fermi Problem, the Great Silence,[3][4][5][6][7] and silentium universi[7][8] (Latin for “the silence of the universe”; the misspellingsilencium universi is also common).
There have been attempts to resolve the Fermi paradox by locating evidence of extraterrestrial civilizations, along with proposals that such life could exist without human knowledge. Counterarguments suggest that intelligent extraterrestrial life does not exist or occurs so rarely or briefly that humans will never make contact with it.
Starting with Hart, a great deal of effort has gone into developing scientific theories about, and possible models of, extraterrestrial life, and the Fermi paradox has become a theoretical reference point in much of this work. The problem has spawned numerous scholarly works addressing it directly, while questions that relate to it have been addressed in fields as diverse as astronomy, biology, ecology, and philosophy. The emerging field ofastrobiology has brought an interdisciplinary approach to the Fermi paradox and the question of extraterrestrial life.
The Fermi paradox is a conflict between an argument of scale and probability and a lack of evidence. A more complete definition could be stated thus:
The apparent size and age of the universe suggest that many technologically advanced extraterrestrial civilizations ought to exist.
However, this hypothesis seems inconsistent with the lack of observational evidence to support it.
The first aspect of the paradox, “the argument by scale”, is a function of the raw numbers involved: there are an estimated 200–400 billion[9] (2–4 ×1011) stars in the Milky Way and 70 sextillion (7×1022) in the visible universe.[10] Even if intelligent life occurs on only a minuscule percentage of planets around these stars, there might still be a great number of civilizations extant in the Milky Way galaxy alone. This argument also assumes the mediocrity principle, which states that Earth is not special, but merely a typical planet, subject to the same laws, effects, and likely outcomes as any other world.
The second cornerstone of the Fermi paradox is a rejoinder to the argument by scale: given intelligent life’s ability to overcome scarcity, and its tendency to colonize new habitats, it seems likely that at least some civilizations would be technologically advanced, seek out new resources in space and then colonize first their own star system and subsequently the surrounding star systems. Since there is no conclusive or certifiable evidence on Earth or elsewhere in the known universe of other intelligent life after 13.7 billion years of the universe’s history, we have the conflict requiring a resolution. Some examples of which may be that intelligent life is rarer than we think, or that our assumptions about the general behavior of intelligent species are flawed.
The Fermi paradox can be asked in two ways. The first is, “Why are no aliens or their artifacts physically here?” If interstellar travel is possible, even the “slow” kind nearly within the reach of Earth technology, then it would only take from 5 million to 50 million years to colonize the galaxy.[11] This is a relatively small amount of time on a geological scale, let alone acosmological one. Since there are many stars older than the Sun, or since intelligent life might have evolved earlier elsewhere, the question then becomes why the galaxy has not been colonized already. Even if colonization is impractical or undesirable to all alien civilizations, large-scale exploration of the galaxy is still possible; the means of exploration and theoretical probes involved are discussed extensively below. However, no signs of either colonization or exploration have been generally acknowledged.
The argument above may not hold for the universe as a whole, since travel times may well explain the lack of physical presence on Earth of alien inhabitants of far away galaxies. However, the question then becomes “Why do we see no signs of intelligent life?” since a sufficiently advanced civilization[Note 1] could potentially be observable over a significant fraction of the size of the observable universe.[12] Even if such civilizations are rare, the scale argument indicates they should exist somewhere at some point during the history of the universe, and since they could be detected from far away over a considerable period of time, many more potential sites for their origin are within range of our observation. However, no incontrovertible signs of such civilizations have been detected.
It is unclear which version of the paradox is stronger.[Note 2]
In 1950, while working at Los Alamos National Laboratory, the physicist Enrico Fermi had a casual conversation while walking to lunch with colleagues Emil Konopinski, Edward Tellerand Herbert York. The men discussed a recent spate of UFO reports and an Alan Dunn cartoon[13] facetiously blaming the disappearance of municipal trashcans on marauding aliens. They then had a more serious discussion regarding the chances of humans observing faster-than-light travel by some material object within the next ten years, which Teller put at one in a million, but Fermi put closer to one in ten. The conversation shifted to other subjects, until during lunch Fermi suddenly exclaimed, “Where are they?” (alternatively, “Where is everybody?”)[14] One participant recollects that Fermi then made a series of rapid calculations using estimated figures (Fermi was known for his ability to make good estimates from first principles and minimal data, see Fermi problem.) According to this account, he then concluded that Earth should have been visited long ago and many times over.[14][15]
JorgeStolfi Jorge Stolfi
JorgeStolfi Jorge Stolfi
JorgeStolfi Jorge Stolfi
JorgeStolfi Jorge Stolfi
JorgeStolfi Jorge Stolfi
Be_neviani Bê Neviani
Steven Weinberg, Nobelist 1979
“It must be acknowledged that there is a big difference in the degree of confidence we can have in neo-Darwinism and in the multiverse. It is settled, as well as anything in science is ever settled, that the adaptations of living things on Earth have come into being through natural selection acting on random undirected inheritable variations. About the multiverse, it is appropriate to keep an open mind, and opinions among scientists differ widely. In the Austin airport on the way to this meeting I noticed for sale the October issue of a magazine called Astronomy, having on the cover the headline “Why You Live in Multiple Universes.” Inside I found a report of a discussion at a conference at Stanford, at which Martin Rees said that he was sufficiently confident about the multiverse to bet his dog’s life on it, while Andrei Linde said he would bet his own life. As for me, I have just enough confidence about the multiverse to bet the lives of both Andrei Linde and Martin Rees’s dog.“
- Steven Weinberg, “Living in the Multiverse”, The Nature of Nature , pp. 554-555



Meus votos de sucesso à nova presidência do CLFC,
tenho esperança de que farão uma belíssima gestão.
Acho que a atitude desse grupo (chapa Capitão
Barbosa) é a melhor possível.
Presidente: *Clinton Davisson Fialho* – sócio nº 546
Secretário-Executivo : *Osame Kinouche Filho* – sócio nº 186
Tesoureiro: *Daniel Fusco Borba* – sócio nº 547
Aproveito o ensejo para enviar uma ideia que pode
alavancar recur$o$ para projetos do CLFC.
Existe o site *Catarse*, que permite arrecadar dinheiro para
projetos. Essa ferramenta pode ser muito útil ao CLFC,
dentre outros sites semelhantes.
Aqui um exemplo de projeto que está arrecadando $$ (clicar no vídeo)
http://catarse. me/pt/projects/ 292-yatra- uma-viagem- externa-interna- e-secreta
Abraços,
Marta
[As partes desta mensagem que não continham texto foram removidas]
Parabéns pela eleição, Clinton e chapa Capitão Barbosa!
Desejo muita sorte e toda a força que eu puder oferecer a vocês daqui de
SC.
Tenho certeza que vai ser um excelente mandato. Tem tudo para dar certo.
Um grande abraço,
Roberto Belli. Read more [+]
Descobri que o ArXiv não lista todos os meus papers depositados lá… Muito estranho…
Os papers que faltam estão a seguir:
2. arXiv:1109.2036 [pdf, ps, other]
A Statistical Physics approach to dendritic computation: the excitable-wave mean-field approximation
Acho que isso vai dar um upgrade para cima na Equação de Drake e deixar o Paradoxo de Fermi ainda mais premente…
the physics arXiv blog
|
|
One third Of Sun-Like Stars Have Earth-Like Planets In Habitable Zone Posted: 26 Sep 2011 09:10 PM PDT Astronomers have calculated the likelihood of finding Earth-like planets around other stars using the latest data from the Kepler mission ![]() The Kepler orbiting observatory is specifically designed to find Earth-like planets around nearby stars. Earlier this year, the Kepler team released the mission’s first 136 days of data and it has turned out to be a veritable jackpot. In that time Kepler looked at some 150,000 target stars and found evidence for 1235 potential exoplanets. That’s quite a haul. Since then, most of the work on this database has been to identify the characteristics of all these exoplanets. But such a large dataset also allows for statistical analyses too, from which various projections can be made. Today, Wesley Traub at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, reveals the results of just such a study. Traub has looked only at the stars that are most similar to the Sun, namely those with the classification F, G or K and worked out often various types of planets occur. The results are straightforward to state. Traub says that mid-size planets are just as likely to be found around faint stars and bright ones. By contrast, far fewer small planets show up around faint stars. That’s almost certainly because small planets are more difficult for Kepler to see. It’s also easier for Kepler to see planets that are closer to their stars because it looks for the tiny changes in brightness that these transits cause. That’s why almost a third of all Kepler’s detections orbit their star in less than 42 days. For the most part, these planets orbit too closely to be in the habitable zone. What interests most astronomers is how many exoplanets orbit at a greater distance, inside the habitable zone. Most of these planets are too far away from their stars to have been picked up by Kepler yet. But Traub says his data analysis provides a way to work out how many their ought to be. That’s because he’s found a power law that describes how the number of stars with a given orbital period. So all he has to do is assume a longer orbital period equivalent to being in the habitable zone to work out how many planets there ought to be at this distance. Here’s the answer: “About one-third of FGK stars are predicted to have at least one terrestrial, habitable-zone planet,” he says. So by this measure, there are plenty of other Earths out there. Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1109.4682: Terrestrial, Habitable-Zone Exoplanet Frequency from Kepler |
Igor,
Não sei por que mas acho que a comunidade anda muito conservadora. Por anos ficamos reclamando que a física anda muito parada, que não há nada de novo, que seria legal o LHC começar logo a revelar “física nova”. Mas física nova, por definição, é a física que abala e mesmo muda o paradigma anterior.
Eu vejo as pessoas se comportarem como Lorentz que, mesmo a trasnformação tendo o seu nome, nao aceitou a relatividade e acreditou no eter até o final da vida.
Eu gostei do comentario de um dos caras acima, em que ele propoe que, dado que fótons interagem com os pares eletron-positrons virtuais, ou seja, dado que o vácuo quantico (nao previsto pela Relatividade) se comporta como um dielétrico, a luz teria uma velocidade na verdade um pouco menor de a velocidade limite C (vamos usar C maiusculo e reservar c minusculo para a medida da velocidade da luz em laboratorio, OK?).
Já no caso dos neutrinos, eles nao interagiriam com os pares eletron-pósitrons, de forma que sua velocidade estaria proxima de C (mesmo levando em conta que eles possuem massa nao nula).
Me explica uma coisa: em teoria de campo, os neutrinos sao descritos por um campo spinorial? Eles seguem a equação de Dirac? Ou é melhor descrever em termos de segunda quantização? Mas de que tipo de campo? Ainda um campo spinorial de spin 1/2 ?
Outra duvida: Com quantas casas decimais se pode medir a velocidade da luz c antes que as correcoes quanticas via interacao com os pares virtuais se façam sentir? Se a constante c for universal, isso significa que eu posso medir infinitas casas decimais (ou seja, é um problema apenas de tecnologia de medição?). Ou existe um limite fundamental para o numero de casas decimais que se pode medir nas constantes fisicas (ao contrario das constantes matematicas tipo /pi)?
Eu ouvi falar que a convenção de tomar c = 1 pode ser conveniente mas está, em termos fisicos, errada, pois supoe, por exemplo, que c(t) = c = cte a priori, e teoricamente isto nao é justificavel (por exemplo, a teoria VLS (variable light speed) de João Magueijo, que é a concorrente da teoria da Inflação, postula que não houve inflação no inicio do Big Bang mas apenas que c era muito maior no inicio do Universo… Ver o video sensacional: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig-50Rz_Q1Q
Por outro lado, se Einstein estivesse vivo hoje, acho que ele estaria super excitado, afinal ele reclamava que “Sempre gostei de contestar autoridades, e a vida, para me punir, me tornou uma”… ou algo assim, estou lembrando a citação de cabeça…
Dado que voce comentou, eu imagino que você optou pelo item B. Neste caso, veremos o resultado no dia 21 de dezembro deste ano, OK?
Usarei os R$ 100 seus para me ajudar a comprar o telescópio que meus filhos me pediram…
Standard-Model Extension (SME) is an effective field theory that contains the Standard Model, General Relativity, and all possible operators that break Lorentz symmetry.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Violations of this fundamental symmetry can be studied within this general framework. CPT violation implies the breaking of Lorentz symmetry,[9] and the SME includes operators that both break and preserve CPT symmetry.[10][11][12]
Contents[hide] |
Olá Osame,
Sou avesso a apostas e bolões : – ) Não participo nem em Copa do Mundo. Mas vou confessar que torço para que o sinal do OPERA revele-se um erro sistemático ou, se for mesmo confirmado, alguém apareça com uma explicação MUITO boa que acabe salvando o princípio da causalidade.
Abraços,
Igor