Sentences with phrase «by physicists of»

It also means that the graphite left behind by a pencil — stripped down to a layer one atom thick — can be used to prove the theories scrawled in pencil by physicists of old.

Originally started by physicists of various obscure stripes, job - rumor Web sites now cover more than a dozen disciplines from anthropology to zoology.

He mentions the use by physicists of the geometrical symmetries of nature to inform their understanding and reminds his audience that the separation of science and theology damages both.

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.

Meitner's work in elucidating the process of nuclear fission in 1938 is well accepted by her fellow physicists — but Otto Hahn, who won the 1944 Nobel Prize in Chemistry «for his discovery of the fission of heavy nuclei,» barely acknowledged her contribution.

This notion was studied extensively by Eliyahu Goldratt, an Israeli physicist turned management guru who defined the Theory of Constraints, which can be summed up by the ancient adage that no chain is stronger than its weakest link.

The «cosmic ray test» was developed by Silas Beane, a nuclear physicist at the University of Washington, and involves scientists building up a simulation of space using a lattice or grid.

But he nonetheless thinks he can outsmart a couple generations of physicists by developing a faster, cheaper, easier path to fusion energy on a shop floor in Burnaby with parts from Canadian Tire.

GROWTH AND INNOVATION: Lessons in Innovation Hosted by NBCUniversal Beth Comstock, Vice Chair, General Electric Regina Dugan, Vice President of Engineering, Advanced Technology and Projects, Google Renée James, President, Intel Christina Lomasney, Physicist, President and CEO, Modumetal (confirmed) Moderator Jennifer Reingold, Fortune

Chad, please get busy with the empirical evidence of any god's existence which is supported by a 2/3 majority of physicists (the dudes who best understand the rules governing our reality).

As far our atomic composition, we are made up of «stardust» from exploding supernovas (as noted by Lawrence Krauss, an American theoretical physicist, and Robert Kirshner, Harvard College Professor of Astronomy).

Superstring theory has a mathematical structure so sophisticated that, after a quarter of a century of study by hundreds of the world's most brilliant physicists and mathematicians, it is still not fully understood.

The equations of electromagnetism have a mathematical structure that is dictated by a set of so - called gauge symmetries, discovered by the mathematician and physicist Hermann Weyl almost a century ago.

-- Physicist Paul Davies, the winner of the 2001 Kelvin Medal issued by the Inst..

Suffice it to say that a clear understanding of what the physicists mean by the finitude of the world precludes any deduction from it of anything «beyond» the world.

There are a bunch of books by physicists like Hawking or Lawrence Krauss that explain this phenomena.

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).

I am also very open to learning from you of contemporary physicists in Japan who are engaged in reconstructing physics on the lines suggested by Buddhism.

Physicists would be rather bored with the game of just trying, for example, by direct manipulation of the needles, to make their meters read certain numbers.

One of Whitehead's goals in devising his theory of extension in Process and Reality was to provide a theoretical basis for the measurements made by physicists.

It annoys me too much to see another generation of physicist deterred by the dumb, messy patchwork called the Big Bang and other called the standard model of particle physics that hide the basic problems physics ought to deal with.

(this ad is supported by a believer who is not a religious «crazy», who does not go to church every Sunday, but also does not believe in «non-belief» and is also not a scientific physicist or whatever kind of scientist who dreams of mimicking creation of man someday).

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.

That this was not the feeling pervading the faculty is shown by a public statement of physicist Landon Garland, the chancellor under McTyeire:

This is a property introduced in the 20th century by the physicist David Bohm, which has the effect of making quantum mechanics deterministic while reproducing all of its predictions.

The importance of the medieval thinkers Buridan and Oresme for science had been rediscovered by the great twentieth - century French physicist Pierre Duhem, whose own work Jaki has done so much to restore to the prominence it deserves.

In contrast to your claims, many of the Bible's historic claims have been disproven by archaeologists, historians, astro - physicists, and geologists.

This article by Richard John Neuhaus, who passed away January 8, 2009, was published in the February 1999 issue of First Things, and is reprinted below in honor of the feast day of Mother Teresa.A couple of years ago physicist Alan Sokal published an article in Social Text arguing in the most abstruse postmodernistic jargon that gravity, among other things, is a social construct.

Hirsch, an authority on writing and a professor of English at the University of Virginia, assumes that responsibility himself, aided by his Virginia colleagues historian Joseph Kett and physicist James Trefil.

In the language of physics, the simplest «physical feelings» are units of energy transference; or, rather, the physicist's idea that energy is transmitted according to quantum conditions is an abstraction from the concrete facts of the universe, which are individual occasions of experience connected by their «physical feelings.»

C. F. von Weizsäcker (1912 --RRB-, an eminent physicist and philosopher, said in his Gifford Lectures; «the concept of exact mathematical laws of nature which was only dimly present in Greek thought gained far greater convincing power by means of the Christian concept of creation.

Whereas Wesley came to his theology chiefly out of his study of the Bible and his personal experience, Whitehead was a mathematical physicist trying to make coherent sense of deep perplexities created by new discoveries in the early part of this century.

British physicist P.C.W. Davies has concluded that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for the formation of stars, which are necessary for planets and thus life, is a one followed by at least a thousand billion billion zeros.

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.

The central question becomes the very character of the discipline itself: What modes of argumentation, which methods, what warrants, backings, evidence can count for or against a public statement by a physicist, a historian, a philosopher, a theologian?

But a fascinating paper by a pair of physicists makes me wonder if the existence — or rather the non-existence — of vampires can shed light on one of the popular arguments for the existence for God — the argument from fine - tuning.

The fact that modern science is nonetheless typically accused by Aristotelian / Thomistic metaphysicians of neglecting «formal cause» shows that they are working with adifferent notion of form than are contemporary physicists and mathematicians.

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.

Much work still needs to be done by physicists to determine the precise nature of the Higgs particle and its significance for our physical understanding of the material universe.

They can seperated from each other by literally light years of distance and STILL be able to effect each other immediately and physicists still can't figure it out yet.

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.

His solution to the problem came in response to a modified Whiteheadian theory of events proposed by physicist Henry Pierce Stapp in «Quantum Mechanics, Local Causality, and Process Philosophy» (PS 7 [1977]: 173 - 182).

During the late nineteenth century the Kant - Laplace hypothesis was severely criticized by the British physicist Clerk Maxwell, who argued that the forces of differential rotation between parts of the solar nebula would break up any such condensation as soon as it began to form.

A number of outstanding scientists, including the Russian physicist Kapitsa who was for years kept under house arrest by Stalin, have refused to work on anything connected with atomic weapons.

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.

In a sense, Christ provides the grand unifying theory long sought by physicists, since creation unfolds within the Word's dynamic and personal assumption of human nature, «the microcosmos».

Although Newton's worldview has been relativised by physicists, many exegetes in the wake of Bultmann insist on a closed world of uninterrupted causal series.

The Ionian physicists first employed the concept of matter in the 6th century B.C., in order to explain physical changes by invoking one or more kinds of universal underlying «stuff».

Einstein's view was the «common - sense» one, that an electron, for instance, has a definite position and spin, and that QM's inability to predict these values precisely is a weakness of QM rather than a description of reality (the Bohr view, held by most physicists).

I've long been fascinated by cosmology, although my deficiencies as a mathematician preclude my really following the arguments of astrophysicists, high - energy particle physicists, and others exploring the origins of the universe.