The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Thanks. Plausible suggestions - but she doesn't take any other medication. I've no idea what caused the tremor in the first place.
Antibiotics - lie or tell the truth?

This morning, on BBC World Service, I was listening to a radio review programme which ran a short story on antibiotics.

The radio announcer asked why there were no new antibiotics and rhetorically answered her own question. She said there were 3 reasons:
1. No new class of antibiotics has been discovered.
2. Drug companies are not interested in developing new antibiotics. No money there for them.
3. Clinical trials take too long. 3 decades ago there were 30 companies developing antibiotics. Today there are none.

Reading the history of penicillin, it seems the original 'clinical trials' took months and consisted of individual medical cases!  It takes years today and every trial proceeds a laborious route.

As we all know, bacteria evolve resistance to the antibiotics we currently have. Several non-scientifically inclined friends of mine regard disease with terror. Especially after the last Ebola outbreak. It was put to me, by a well educated finance journalist, editor, and analyst (PhD) that up to half the population of the planet could be wiped out by a new disease. I'm personally more worried about harm caused by paranoia in the population. In my view, pessimism like this more often leads to a despair and cynicism about the human condition. Panic is not conducive to rational action.

I know there are several small groups working on new antibiotics who are prepared to by-pass drug companies to get them developed. I put the current antibiotic situation entirely down to the length and expense of clinical trials. The one size fits all approach.

The question I have : is it acceptable to lie, to over-egg the issue of antibiotic resistance?, perhaps to raise awareness  [ As this radio announcer did when she said "No new class of antibiotics has been discovered" ]

I know for a fact that new classes of antibiotics have been discovered. They have not gone through clinical trials. Many of them discovered in the last 2 years.
Submit the paper to whatever journal you think is most lilely to publish it. They don't care whether you get paid for your work, only whether it is correct. If it looks and sounds professional, they will send it to expert referees who will check your proof, and if it is original and apparently valid, they will publish it.
New Theories / Re: A new perspective on Overbalanced Wheel
« Last post by wheelMetal on Today at 03:04:33 »
As the ball may take some time before it can start to roll down, so

- the faster the wheel rotates (higher RPM),
- the higher the ball rises (before it start to roll down),
- the more the torque force increases (as the ball is still further from the axis),
- the heavier the ascending side of the wheel becomes (or lighter on the descending side),
- which causes the wheel to slow down, thus regulating the speed

* regardless of whether a heavy ball or a light ball, both roll down at the same time.... like dropping two different mass of objects and both will reach the ground at the same time.
Physiology & Medicine / Re: Can you recover from traumatic brain injury?
« Last post by RD on Today at 01:10:36 »
So then is the implication that the findings/claims made in this abstract are false as a result?
We may be at cross purposes. I'm talking about "BioQuark Inc" mentioned in this thread, [Reply #2].
Subatomic particles, like quarks, have no relevance to their allegedly regenerative biologic product.

If any sales-spiel shoehorns-in irrelevant quantum mechanics terms,  either the product does not work , or is overpriced.

"BioQuark Inc" seem to be claiming their products can enable body parts to be regenerated.
That's unbelievable.

All the photos on their website of laboratories & scientists are stock-photos,
as would be the case if they didn't actually have a lab or scientists.

On this BioQuark page ...
it says "... living human egg ... Bioquark is the first company that has taken the step to export this biochemical regulatory architecture to somatic tissue in mammals",
 but the image shown on that page is a stock-photo of worm eggs. Not human, not mammal.

I'm not being unduly skeptical to say BioQuark has scam written all over it, not just it's quantum-woo name.
The simple answer is, they don't.

Einstein was right that event horizons cannot form. Before an event horizon can form, an infinite amount of time will pass for all of the universe. There hasn't been time, yet, for any event horizons to form. In 100 trillion years there still won't have been enough time.

The measureable distance from any point in space to any event horizon is infinite. Not even light can travel from any point in space to an event horizon in finite time.
That's not allowed.
You wrote: "There is one simple explanation and that is that observation alters the observer, not the observed."

In my opinion, it should be reciprocal, if you change one side, the other side should change too. So both the observer and the observed are entangled and both mutually change.

Yes, every quantum of information acquired by the observer has a corresponding bit of complementary information outside of the observer. What I meant to refer to was that there is an assumption in contemporary physics that the act of observing an event alters the event. This interpretation requires that the effect of the observation pass backward in time and cross space to alter that event. Every event would entail reversed time and non-locality.

A simpler explanation is that the act of observation alters the state of the observer and that the state of the observer constrains what it's possible for the observer to subsequently observe.

And how is it explaining the Bell inequality? You invoke a kind of superposed unobservable states which in some ways interact with the observables. How is it different from the manyworlds interpretation apart from your mechanism? Invoking parallel universes is a dead end for sure. You can explain everything without really explaining anything.

It explains Bell's Inequality by eliminating any need for local hidden variables. As Bell shows, the multiplicity of states of unobserved systems is real.
It eliminates non-locality because the consequences of the entanglement are explained, using Schrödinger's filter, in purely local terms. The observation alters the observer so that any incompatible observations would put the observer into an "unobservable" state.

Instead of presuming QM describes allowed states for "the universe" this model allows for the simpler interpretation of precisely the same observations by presuming QM describes allowed states for the observer.

The contemporary "universe" model is a dead end and has obviously been unworkable ever since QM was shown to be correct regarding entanglement. QM has no workable (self-consistent accounting for spacetime) physical interpretation (e.g. vacuum catastrophe) and it's many decades since we should have advanced it beyond the archaic universe model.

You repeatedly claim that Many Worlds is a dead end but you present no arguments or evidence. It's not really important to me because I don't see any need for the redundancy inherent in MW. But, you're wrong if you think it doesn't satisfactorily account for observations.
So what's the "scam" again? Confused.
If the sales-spiel on a product unnecessarily includes quantum-mechanics terms, then they are trying to obfuscate matters. Either because the product/service they are selling doesn't work at all , or it's a bog-standard product which they are charging a premium-price for.

So then is the implication that the findings/claims made in this abstract are false as a result?
Giving instructions on how to MacGyver an explosive-device is a no-no here.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums