Sentences with phrase «as a physicist in»

As physicists in Europe prep for a major announcement about the long - sought Higgs particle, U.S. scientists are not going gentle into that good night.

He started his career at UC Berkeley and Berkeley Lab in the 1950s as a physicist in the Nobel Prize - winning particle physics group of Luis Alvarez.

Not exact matches

Physicists could look for evidence of other universes using tools designed to measure ripples in spacetime — also known as primordial gravitational waves — that would have been generated by the universe's initial expansion from the Big Bang.

Chief among them is Dr. Michel Laberge who, upon turning 40 in 2001, quit his job as a senior physicist and principal engineer at Creo Inc., a printing technology company.

An engineer might have an office as well as a laboratory, but the two rooms would be in different wings, forcing him to walk through the corridors, running into chemists and physicists along the way.

Legendary physicist Feynman won the Nobel Prize for his work in one of the subjects that's the most difficult for the human mind to grasp — quantum mechanics — yet his top advice for accelerating learning is actually to make whatever you're studying as dead simple as possible.

In 2014, in its first return to print, Newsweek ran a cover story trumpeting that it had identified Nakamoto as Dorian Nakamoto, a physicist in CaliforniIn 2014, in its first return to print, Newsweek ran a cover story trumpeting that it had identified Nakamoto as Dorian Nakamoto, a physicist in Californiin its first return to print, Newsweek ran a cover story trumpeting that it had identified Nakamoto as Dorian Nakamoto, a physicist in Californiin California.

British physicist Stephen Hawking stressed his warning: mankind may become obsolete as a result of advancements in artificial intelligence.

The firm is hiring cryptographers, mathematicians, physicists, and software developers for Ops Chain and the Blockchain Lab, which joins EY blockchain locations in London and Trivandrum, India, as part of the EY global research network.

Meanwhile, to Hawking's supporters who suggest that I am not owning up to his scientific «proofs,» I believe airwx has already said it best for me — he's a THEORETICAL physicist, and having read some of his work, I'm smart enough to know that much of what he says about God is an exercise in jumping to conclusions, even as sound as much of his scientific work is.

Peter Higgs, the physicist who first deduced and proposed the existence of the theoretical field now known as the Higgs boson, does not believe in God.

Or i could point out that the big bang is the biggest joke ever told... That even the top physicists can't figure out how their own theory could work, not to mention the fact that for it to work they would need for the Universe to break the fundamental laws we understand as true since the beginning i.e. (No matter in the Universe can be created nor destroyed, you can only change it's state (solid to liquid, liquid to gas etc.).

When physicists investigated the subatomic realm, however, they discovered that the principle of least action is just a limiting case of the much more subtle and sophisticated path integral principle, which is the basis of quantum mechanics, as Richard Feynman showed in the 1940s.

o «In the 1930s, theoretical physicists, most notably Albert Einstein, considered the possibility of a cyclic model for the universe as an (everlasting) alternative to the model of an expanding universe.

«Sir Isaac Newton PRS MP (25 December 1642 — 20 March 1727) was an English physicist and mathematician who is widely regarded as one of the most influential scientists of all time and as a key figure in the scientific revolution.

I have heard good physicists use 300,000 km / s as a good round figure in refering to the speed of light.

In short, Christians should not be indifferent to the imaginative vision of such theoretical physicists as David Bohm.

In itself this would have had minor philosophical consequences if the subatomic entities could be understood as smaller exemplars of the sorts of entities that physicists had been studying.

I think Paul Davies would fit in here as well and I think, but am not sure, that he is an atheist (and a physicist).

However, those of us concerned to find such relationships between distinct fields should heed the cautious word of Cambridge physicist Sir Brian Pippard when he says that each field thrives by virtue of its own methods and not by aping those of others: «The fabric of knowledge has not been woven as a seamless robe but pieced together like a patchwork quilt, and we are still in the position of being able to appreciate the design in individual pieces much more clearly than the way they are put together» (Pippard, 95 - 96).

They are much like the physicists of the past who refused to see life as the direction toward which physical, mechanical and chemical transformations were tending, or again like the biologists of old who refused to see in consciousness the direction that life was tending.

Nevertheless, most physicists remain hostile both to anthropic explanations and to the multiverse idea as untestable and therefore not belonging in science.

There is growing interest today among physicists in Whitehead's vision, and that implies, basically, in the Buddhist vision as well.

Physicists, contrasting this view with an anthropocentric worldview, express it in terms of the anthropic principle — the human is seen as a mode of being of the universe as well as a distinctive being in the universe.

In other words, there is a complete paradox if we attempt to look at the ordinary physicist's view of time as anything more than an abstraction.

If physicists come up with a mathematically consistent explanation for God and the model works for everything in physics, then that might be the right answer, but that God won't be the God in any of mankind's religions because all of those God's have been as disproven as gravity is proven.

Moreover if it did (assuming this to be possible in the framework of an overall Whiteheadian scheme), then it would itself be forcefully repudiated — and not simply by physicists, for the material world of common sense as well as of physics would be drastically impugned.

Whitehead, another mathematician - physicist - philosopher, had a similar view Thus our theological scheme is no longer as seriously at odds with science or the philosophy of science as it was in the days of classical or Newtonian physics.

All the better that I felt similarly about another task which I was given (again without asking), in the same year (1925 - 26) to help A. N. Whitehead grade papers, hence listen to him lecture, and read what he wrote as a philosopher, rather than just a logician, mathematician, and physicist.

But apparently when Carter was working in a nuclear submarine, some nuclear physicists pronounced it as «nuculear» along with him.

The foundations for real numbers, which physicists as well as mathematicians must have in order to do their work, were insecure under the thesis of Principia Mathematica.

The physicist today understands the whole world as made up of entities that can affect his senses only in very indirect ways.

The author brings to this inquiry training and experience as a physicist, as well as study in theology.

The general implications of which I am thinking are, so far as I can see, independent of the divergences between the versions of «Relativity» advocated by individual physicists; their value as I think, is that they enable us to formulate the problem to which Bergson has the eminent merit of making the first approach in a clear and definite way, and to escape what I should call the impossible dualism to which Bergson's own proposed solution commits him.

In consequence, with such models as their objective, physicists frequently formulate the content of quantum mechanics in the language of classically conceived particles and waves, because of certain analogies between the formal structures of classical and quantum mechanics... Accordingly, although a satisfactory uniformly complete interpretation of quantum mechanics based on a single model can not be given, the theory can be satisfactorily interpreted for each concrete experimental situation to which the theory is appliedIn consequence, with such models as their objective, physicists frequently formulate the content of quantum mechanics in the language of classically conceived particles and waves, because of certain analogies between the formal structures of classical and quantum mechanics... Accordingly, although a satisfactory uniformly complete interpretation of quantum mechanics based on a single model can not be given, the theory can be satisfactorily interpreted for each concrete experimental situation to which the theory is appliedin the language of classically conceived particles and waves, because of certain analogies between the formal structures of classical and quantum mechanics... Accordingly, although a satisfactory uniformly complete interpretation of quantum mechanics based on a single model can not be given, the theory can be satisfactorily interpreted for each concrete experimental situation to which the theory is applied.2

The extreme cases of unambiguous wave and particle behaviour occur in mutually exclusive laboratory situations.7 As one physicist puts it, you may have to use a wave model on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and a particle model on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays.

Named after the British physicist, Peter Higgs, in the 1960s, it remains a «missing link,» as yet undetected in experiments and yet crucial to much of the current theoretical understanding of the fundamental properties of matter on the quantum scale.

As his mind turned increasingly to philosophy, the physicist in him sought to understand the whole of reality and not only man, whilst the aesthete in him interpreted all reality by extrapolation from human experience, thus finding aesthetic value in all actuality.

In Aristotelian / Thomistic philosophy, the ideas of formal causation and substantial form have a teleological thrust that is largely missing from the physicist's conception of form, which corresponds more to Lonergan's broader idea of form as «intelligible structure».

«I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail,» the physicist said in an interview published Sunday in Britain's Guardian newspaper.

I want to know if they think physicist Paul Davie is right about the obvious creation of universe governing physical laws, if Einstein was right in a God presence and what they think about quantum mechanics that goes back to von Neumann, where one is led by its logic (as Wigner and Peierls were) to the conclusion that not everything is just matter in motion.

This idea is defended in our volume by A.C. Ewing, by Keith Ward (writing as Oxford's Regius Professor of Divinity), and by the physicist - turned - theologian John Polkinghorne.

«Since the existence of the Higgs boson particle was first predicted almost half a century ago, thousands of physicists have spent many millions of pounds in an attempt to pin it down, as yet to no avail.

Being a physicist as well as a student of theology, the author has avoided the claim that there is only one way in which the life of the scientist can be a proper life.

Physicists and some process thinkers, such as the physicist and process theologian Ian G. Barbour, are cautious about making the long jump from indeterminacy in sub-atomic particles to human freedom and purpose,

In dialogue with physicists such as David Bohm and Ilya Prigogine, process thought maintains that its view of time is more adequate, does not violate the fundamental tenets of physics, and upholds the concept and experience of freedom.

A permanent state has been reached in which no macroscopically observable events occur, a state which the physicist speaks of as thermodynamical equilibrium or «maximum entropy.»

This puts the problem of the boundary conditions, which have to be maintained all the time in both simple and complex examples of biological mechanisms, as it appeared to one of the most able physicists of his time who had given particular thought to these problems.

He now makes sensational public statements in an attempt to cover up the fact that his career as a Physicist has basically been a failure, by the measure of other Physicists.

Your post saying «As a physicist, I am sure you understand that any discovery made in your field must be tested and verified through the evaluation of evidencial support?»