Podcasts about stanford linear accelerator center

For today's episode, host Josh Sidman is joined by Dr. Will Ruddick.Dr. Ruddick is a development economist specializing in currency innovation. Before shifting his focus to economics and development, he conducted graduate research in high-energy physics as a collaboration member at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. Since 2008, he has lived in East Africa, leading initiatives in environmental sustainability, food security, and economic development.His work centers on Community Inclusion Currencies (CICs) as a tool for poverty alleviation and sustainable development. Since 2010, he has pioneered CIC programs in Kenya, founding the Sarafu-Network and Bangla-Pesa, which provide alternative means of exchange to marginalized communities. He is also the founder of the Grassroots Economics Foundation, which supports local economies through innovative financial tools.Dr. Ruddick has worked with with organizations such as the World Food Program, the Red Cross, and the University of Cape Town's Environmental Economics Policy Research Unit. He is also an associate scholar with the University of Cumbria's Initiative for Leadership and Sustainability, where he contributes to research on alternative monetary systems and economic resilience. Dr. Ruddick earned his master's in high energy physics from the University of Colorado Boulder and his Ph.D. in Development Economics and International Development from the University of Cape Town.Together, we discussed Dr. Ruddick's introduction of alternative currencies to other countries, why he's hopeful about the elimination of USAID, and how his experience in Kenya shaped his future career.To check out more of our content, including our research and policy tools, visit our website: https://www.hgsss.org/

Dr. Pierre A. Fischer is a Technology Leader who serves as Product Line Lead - Data Storage Technologies at Roche ( https://www.roche.com/ ), where among his various responsibilities are leading their Open Source Database strategy, to increase productivity, reduce costs, and ultimately help the various teams Roche, improve drug discovery, development, clinical trial selection, helping to get the right drugs to the right patients faster, all in a highly sustainable manner.Dr. Fischer has a Ph.D. in Experimental Particle Physics, from Louis Pasteur University, France, and then spent time at CERN in their cooperant program, a civil service program of the French State Department, allowing Graduate Students to serve their country by working for various companies or research organizations.  He also undertook post-doctoral work at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.Dr. Fischer then spent over a decade in the software development business at KLA-Tencor, the semi-conductor giant, before moving to Roche in 2013 spending time in IT Architecture, Engineering & Operations Portfolio as well as Data Lifecycle Management and Elastic Compute.Support the show

This episode's guest is the American physicist Dr. William Colglazier. With an impressive resume, Colglazier's long career has taken him to the Secretary of State, where he provided scientific and technical expertise and advice in support of the development and implementation of U.S. foreign policy as a Science and Technology Adviser. Today, he is the Editor-in-Chief of Science & Diplomacy and Senior Scholar in the Center for Science Diplomacy at the American Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS).Colglazier got his Ph.D. in theoretical physics at the California Institute of Technology in 1971. He has since then worked at several prestigious institutes such as the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, the Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.  The years before his time at the Secretary of State, he oversaw studies in the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the National Research Council (NRC) to provide independent, objective scientific advice on domestic and international public policy issues.In this episode, Colglazier talks about his way into science and politics and his work to implement the Sustainable Development Goals through science, technology and innovation. He describes the current setbacks to science in public policies such as the Paris Agreement, Iran Nuclear Deal and the unpreparedness of the US in the recent pandemic.Global Arena Research Institute is an independent, non-partisan research organisation that combines the most advanced methods of AI-driven data, scientific and other artificial reasoning capabilities, elevating data science into completely new levels of opportunity. Our goal is to provide unprecedented insights into the nature, impact, and management of globalization in order to improve institutional and governmental as well as business, energy and other sectors' decision making. Our mission is to make the most of organically connecting AI-level reasoning capacities with the human-level critical reasoning capacities for the sake of a better future.

* RSR's Light Speed Experiment Proposal: A 2019 article posted here at Real Science Radio (at rsr.org/stretch) proposed an experiment, Einstein, Lisle, and Hartnett notwithstanding, that just might enable the measurement of the one-way speed of light. Let's think through the following.* Billions of Frames Per Second Cameras: The field of physics almost with one voice has maintained for over a century that the one-way speed of light cannot be measured and therefore that it cannot be shown to be equal to its roundtrip speed. Do high speed cameras require a reassessment of that long-standing claim? Transmission of light filmed at CIT at 100 billion FPS.* A Fast Camera Proposal for a One-Way Measurement: RSR's asks whether 10-trillion FPS cameras (and Caltech's planned faster versions) might be used in a round-trip configuration to challenge the conventionality thesis and measure the one-way speed of light. Here's the concept for neutralizing that pesky 2-way speed of light problem... * Light Speed in a Vacuum: To state the problem more fully, it's the one-way speed of light in a vacuum that can't be measured. Scientists at Cambridge and Harvard have slowed light down to 38 mph by shooting a laser through extremely cold sodium atoms, so it's relatively easy to measure that one-way speed. But this RSR experiment, especially its second iteration, through water vapor, will measure a speed so very close to the speed through a vacuum that the difference cannot falsify the primary results, that is, that it is possible to measure light's one-way speed! After all, there is no known perfect vacuum, not at CERN and not even in space. So if anyone wants to quibble they might as well argue that physicists have never measured even the roundtrip speed of light. For interestingly, even interstellar space is estimated to contain anywhere from a million molecules per cubic centimeter down to a thousand atoms per cubic meter. If you'd like to help RSR, please consider Donating,Subscribing, or See our Research Wish List!* Vacuum Rabbit Trail: The European Organization for Nuclear Research has bragging rights for their massive super-rarified ultra high vacuum that they compare to the vacuum in space as far away from Earth as the moon. One RSR caveat on that though. It just so happens that the Earth's atmosphere extends beyond the Moon. So that environment isn't as void of particles as many may expect. And that atmospher extension is another young-earth argument because it is one of scores of transient conditions and events in the solar system that could not long persist. And while we're on this rabbit trail, the more than 100 annual meteor showers caused by Earth flying through known streams of cosmic debris is evidence, directly observed by millions of people, that Earth orbits in a dusty region of space, whereas evidence only known to those who study the solar system tells us that as the asteroid belt is approached the estimated number of micrometeroites per cubic kilometer decreases significantly. So something, recently, dirtied up Earth's environment.)* Light Speed in Milk and Stuff: RSR's proposed light speed experiment is performed first with the bottle filled with water and a splash of milk. The milk sufficiently increases the refractivity of the medium so that the laser's progress can be captured on video. The experiment is then repeated with the bottle empty except for some water vapor. The speed of light in a vacuum is: - 50% faster than in glass - 25% faster than in water, but only negligibly faster - three hundredths of 1% than in air. Of course the introduction of milk in the water, and even the water vapor alone, will reduce the speed of light through these mediums. But that reduction should be quantifiable and sufficiently minimal as to not prevent the one-way measurement of the speed of light (unless, as pointed out above, it is argued that the 2-way speed can never be measured). Grand Prize!* Photons Bouncing Off Photons: A laser pulse in a pure vacuum would only be detectable, it is believed, by a camera situated directly in the path of the beam. A camera aimed at the beam from off to its side would not detect the laser directly because there would be no matter to scatter the laser's photons such that some could be detected by that camera. If photons normally interacted with one another, a second beam of light could be emitted from a camera and bounce off the target beam to be videotaped, with the camera then recording the returning light signal. If that were possible, RSR argues that its light speed experiment configuration could still resolve the one-way speed question because the round trip of that second much shorter beam would be a negligible factor compared to the lengthier main axis of the laser beam's path. However, visible light photons rarely collide. There are known ways to cause them to collide and high energy photon-photon collisions do occur. Regardless of these particulars though, if this proposal gets to the attention of the scientists at CIT or CERN, perhaps they could arrange for this experiment to be conducted in an optimal configuration. * No Sneakin' Around: The experiment above, first proposed on Sept. 3, 2019, avoids the kind of systematic error that evolutionists make when they "sneak" intelligence into their "natural selection" computer simulations. For example, we would discredit the results if we snuck the round-trip speed of light into the synchronization of the cameras themselves and used that very synchronization in the experiment. To avoid this, the experiment design does not rely on the cameras being synchronized. (And in any configuration, other than perhaps in a photon-to-photon collision mode, the results do not depend upon roundtrip optics to and from any individual camera.) Instead, we position the three cameras close enough to the laser beam so that any roundtrip optics in any configuration is insignificant compared to the lengthier transit of the laser through the bottle. That is, evaluate the results through a range of values for the speed of light to the camera as though it were half c up to infinite. If none of those values changes the overall result of the experiment, we did not sneak in c (as Röemer reportedly did in 1676 when he first measured lightspeed). As a beam transits the bottle, it will produce photographable scatter from the refraction off of the various materials filling the bottle. If the beam's transit to the bottom of the bottle is instantaneous, and it's return trip is at half of today's assumed speed of light, then the cameras' registering of the scatter will show a different number of frames between the outgoing and returning beam as they would if the outgoing and returning beams travel at the same speed on both legs of their round trip. The differences are quantified below. However, if the beam's transit to the bottom of the bottle is not instantaneous (and of course the cameras' frame rates are fast enough to capture this), it seems that the leading edge of the beam (or pulse) would come into view of each camera from the right boundary of its field of vision and, frame-by-frame, pass to left boundary (with perhaps ten frames showing its progress across a single camera's field of view). If this happens, a single camera could accomplish the goal of the experiment, as it alone could demonstrate that the light did not travel instantaneously on its outgoing journey. In this case, we could calculate light's one-way speed based on the width of the single camera's field of vision, the cameras frame rate, and the number of frames it takes to record the beam's journey across that field. The three-camera configuration enables a different kind of measurement. The two additional cameras (above, numbered 2 and 3) along with a reflector at the bottom of the bottle might enable separate video recordings of both the outgoing and the return trips of the same beam. (If the single camera configuration provided any one-way speed measurement, this could also corroborate that result.) Regardless of whether the beam's one-way speeds are identical, camera #3 will be the first camera to record the beam's return trip. That last camera would then record fewer frames between the beam leaving its field of view and when it again reentered its field of view on its return trip. If sufficient frame rates enable this experiment to work, then the first camera, #1, will register the most frames separating it's initial recording and it's final recording of the laser's scatter. For example, consider if the camera operated at quadrillions of frames per second. Next, consider what could be learned if each camera captured on ten frames the refraction produced by the passing laser. Only to simplify this explanation of the experiment, assume that the cameras were positioned next to each other such that the beams entire journey would be captured on one or another camera. So when Camera 1 first registers the beam, we count 10 frames until the beam disappears. If the one-way speed of light is the same as its roundtrip speed, the camera will then have 40 empty frames until it begins to register the beam on it's return trip, and the data from that camera will end with its frames 51 to 60 showing the end of the laser's journey. In this circumstance, Camera #2 will not show 40 empty frames between its first and last registering of the scatter, but only 20 empty frames. Camera #3 will show no empty frames and the reflector, in this simplified explanation, would be positioned at the edge of that camera's field of view. If the one-way speed of light is not the same as its roundtrip speed, and its speed on its initial leg is instantaneous, it is presumed that all three cameras would still register the scatter produced, although they would all be registering that refraction at the same time. (This would be an indirect way to synchronize the cameras, after the fact in the analysis of the data they record. A difference this would make as compared to the above discussion is that the light scatter registered by each camera's field of view would not show it moving from right to left, but that scatter would appear instantaneously horizontally across the camera's display and disappear instantaneously, and not from right to left.) Also in this case of an instantaneous outgoing one-way trip, the number of frames results from Camera #3 will be identical to what it would be if the one-way speed of light were the same as its roundtrip speed. Camera 3 will show ten frames of the outgoing leg immediately followed by ten frames of the return leg (although, there very well may be a difference in how the instantaneous leg registers the refraction as compared to the non-instantaneous leg, as just described). So Camera #3 in this experiment would not be able to distinguish, based on numbers of frames, between varying one-way and roundtrip speeds of light. Consider though Camera #2. Camera #2 would have only ten empty frames between its registering the beam on its outgoing and return trips. That is because Camera #2 would register the laser instantaneously with Camera #1, and would only have to "wait" the equivalent of the ten frames it takes for the light reflected to cross Camera #3's field of view. So the data from Camera #2 will end with its frames 21 to 30 showing the end of the laser's journey from its perspective. Consider then Camera #1. In this circumstance, Camera 1 will show 20 empty frames between its first and last registering of the scatter. So compare the differences in the empty frames between registering the light's outgoing and return trips. If the outgoing trip is instantaneous, Camera #2 will have 10 empty frames and Camera #3 will have 20 empty frames. If the one-way speed of light is the same as its roundtrip speed, Camera #1 will have 40 empty frames and camera #2 will have 20 empty frames. The ratios in this configuration are the same. But by using differing configurations and by determing the actual number of frames it takes for the laser to traverse a single camera's field of view, the results could become definitive. While a seemingly wild idea, quantum physicists can believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast. So, many would not be shocked if light behaved in the extraordinary way that Dr. Jason Lisle and Dr. John Hartnett propose. Regardless though, RSR makes the following prediction (which is merely what most physicists would expect). If the beam leaves a record of its travels on each of the camers, then considering the time that would pass between the beam leaving and then reentering each camera's field of view. RSR predicts that we could calculate the increasing number of camera frames (time) that pass, as we move from the last, to the middle, to the first camera, between the leading edge of the beam leaving the field of the camera's view (as it heads toward the bottom of the bottle) and reappearing on its return trip. And of course, if the camera frame rates are not fast enough to distinguish between the outgoing and return trips of the beam, then just get a faster camera or a much taller bottle. Please send any comments to Bob@rsr.org. Thanks! * On the One-Way Speed of Light Claim from Einstein and Creationist PhDs Jason Lisle & John Hartnett: The world of physics insists that the speed of light is known only from round-trip measurements. The context of this observation speaks generally of light in a theoretical vacuum or in space (which is a near vacuum). Hundreds of laser beam flashes aimed at the Moon demonstrate one example of this kind of measurement. These lasers strike the Apollo 15 retro-reflector base plate and then bounce back as researchers measure the time of the round trip, about 2.51 seconds. (These experiments, by the way, indicate that the moon is recessing from the Earth at more than one inch per year.) Long before these actual experiments, in Einstein's 1905 paper on special relativity he presented a thought experiment in space. "Let a ray of light depart from A... let it be reflected at B... and reach A again..." A page earlier he had described not the measurement of light's one-way speed but about, "establishing by definition that the 'time' needed for the light to travel from A to B is equal to the 'time' it needs to travel from B to A." Establishing this by definition instead of by measurement is referred to as doing this by convention. Regarding this Einstein continued, "We assume that this definition of synchrony is free from contradiction..." And we "assume the quantity... c to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space." This Einstein synchronisation is sometimes abbreviated as ESC for the Einstein Synchrony Convention. * Starlight & Time, the Conventionality Thesis, and Anisotropic Synchrony Convention: Agreeing with Einstein, the consensus view in physics is that no one has ever measured the one-way c but presents that speed as a convention, that is, an assumption, or, as Einstein wrote, even just a definition, also called the conventional unidrectional speed. By this widespread reckoning, it would not violate any actual measurement to propose that the one-way speed of light toward an observer (say, on Earth) can be infinite as long as the light reflected back travels at half c for the other leg of its roundtrip, producing an average speed of 186,000 miles per second. Creationist astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle, as supported by RSR friend and cosmologist Dr. John Hartnett, has used this to address the starlight and time challenge by claiming that light instantly arrives at Earth after being emitted from even the most distant galaxies. If so, of course that great distance would thereby be irrelevant to light's travel time to Earth and also to the age of the creation. Photons are both relativistic and elementary quantum particles. Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum mechanics both make so many counterintuitive observations that many who study these fields, we submit, would not be shocked if light behaved in this way. Drs. Lisle and Hartnett, with many others, argue that such anisotropy cannot be experimentally disproved, that is, that light cannot be shown to not have this different property when measured in different directions. Effectively agreeing with this, Grünbaum in his second enlarged edition of Philosophical Problems of Space and Time points out that "a choice... which renders the transit times (velocities) of light in opposite directions unequal cannot possibly conflict with... our descriptive conventions" (p. 366, emphasis in the original). With this Karlov agrees, regarding "the constancy of the speed of light... but other choices... are physically just as permissible" (Australian Journal of Physics, 1970 Vol. 23, p. 244, emphasis added). Various philosophers of physics though, and others, have proposed theoretical ways to test the one-way speed of light. Routinely then, the physics community responds by claiming these proposals include faulty assumptions that "sneak in" the roundtrip speed of light (in much the same way that computational evolution simulators "sneak" intelligence into their algorithms). For example, reasoning can be shown to be circular if an experiment assumes the constancy of the speed of light which is the very thing that it is designed to demonstrate. So this conventional unidirectional speed means that the 300,000 kilometers per second claimed universal speed limit has never actually been experimentally verified and is only an industry-wide assumption made to simplify the math (and to please our sensibilities). Some creation physicists have begun to argue therefore that, as believed by mankind's early scientists (from Aristotle to Descartes and beyond), and compatible with Einstein's theory of special relativity, and arguably, with all measurements made to date, the one-way speed of light from even the furthest galaxies to the Earth could be infinite. Light at 100 billion FPSIf so, human beings would be seeing astronomical events unfold as they happen in a "real-time" universe and Adam would have seen the light from the stars made only two days before He was created, without any other supernatural or natural explanation needed. In 2010 Dr. Lisle proposed this Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC) to answer the young-earth creationist's starlight and time question. This argument includes the claim, as boldly stated by Dr. Hartnett in 2019, that "there can be no experiment that can refute the conventionality thesis", such that no one can even theoretically devise a way to demonstrate that the one-way speed of light equals the roundtrip speed. What follows are four proposed methods to demonstrate that the one-way speed of light approximately equals the roundtrip speed, the first three having already been performed, which we use to address the Einstein's Synchrony Convention. And the fourth experiment, not yet performed but here proposed, which addresses Lisle's ASC. * Did this 2019 Laboratory Video Measure the One-Way Speed of Light? Through water, light travels 25% slower than through a vacuum, at 225,000 kilometers per second rather than 300,000. At rsr.org/asc#camera (and just below) see a 2019 video made at CIT using a 100 billion frames per second (FPS) camera. At 4:33 (see the screenshots, just above) a laser beam is shot through a bottle of water with a bit of milk in it. The milk increases the amount of photon scatter produced by refraction to make the beam's progress easier to capture on video. (The milk of course would also further slow down the light.) Amazingly Caltech's two cameras, the fastest in the world, one with a maximum rate of 10 trillion frames per second, are able to capture light in progress in its one-way transit. The clip referenced was filmed using the slower of the two cameras and yet it captures the laser beam's one-way journey through the bottle! One of the philosophy of science books by award-winning physicist Max Jammer, who was personally acquainted with Einstein at Princeton, is directly on our topic, Concepts of Simultaneity: From antiquity to Einstein and beyond. Written thirteen years before the fast-camera light-in-the-bottle recording, Jammer concluded that the conventionality thesis remains an open question, and thus, whether the one-way speed of light can be measured may seem theoretically impossible, but it might just be that we haven't figured out how to do it. Chaotic CavityThus according to this Berlin-born Israeli physicist who became close to Einstein, as of 2006, no experiment had falsified a potentially infinite one-way speed of light. But Jammer, who passed away in 2010, never saw this 2019 Caltech bottle video. The astounding technical achievement of the CIT researchers has been popularized by YouTube's The Slo Mo Guys. (We've previously utilized two of their videos in our answer to creationist Michael Oard to explain why there is a linear crack, called the mid-oceanic ridge, that circles the Earth like the seam on a baseball.) The March 17, 2019 Slo Mo Guys' video is called Filming the Speed of Light at 10 Trillion FPS. The slower of CIT's two fastest cameras used to "film" the "bottle" segment of their video was operating at 100 billion FBS, that is, each frame equaled 10 picoseconds (ten trillionths of a second) and it took about 2,000 picoseconds (two billionths of a second) for the light to travel through the length of the bottle. On our Real Science Radio program my co-host Fred Williams and I briefly discussed this and argued that this video may have measured the one-way speed of light.  10 trillion FPSA second measurement appears at 5:40 into the same video. At the same 100 billion frames per second, the CIT technician recorded light bouncing around inside of a water-vapor filled mirrored device they call a chaotic cavity. (See image, left.) Light propagates in a vacuum only three hundredths of 1% faster than it travels through "air". (On average, about two percent of the molecules in Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, and "for applications with less than five digits of accuracy, the index of refraction of air is the same as that of vacuum...") So the light beam in this cavity traveling through nothing but air and water vapor must be traveling at very close to the speed of light in a vacuum. The videotaped light pulse bouncing around within this chamber demonstrates that it travels at no discernable difference in its speed in any direction, including when it bounces back and forth essentially in a "roundtrip" pattern. It certainly never appears to have moved at infinite speed by disappearing and instantly popping up across the chamber. Prof. emeritus Michael Tooley from the University of Colorado, argued in his 2000 Time, Tense, and Causation that the many attempts to measure the one-way speed of light had all failed. And of course that too was concluded before Caltech researchers made possible this 2019 Filming the Speed of Light video. (We would be remiss in not warning the public, and the professor himself regarding the horrific consequences in this life, and eternally, about his vile arguments in defense not only of killing unborn children but also in Tooley's denial even that newborn babies have a right to life.)  The third measurement appears at 10:50 into the video using Caltech's fastest camera. A researcher records at ten trillion frames per second a pulse of light traveling about ten millimeters through a milky vile. (See image, right.) See that segment of the video also at rsr.org/asc#camera (or just click play here): 

* RSR's Light Speed Experiment Proposal: A 2019 article posted here at Real Science Radio (at rsr.org/stretch) proposed an experiment, Einstein, Lisle, and Hartnett notwithstanding, that just might enable the measurement of the one-way speed of light. Let's think through the following.* Billions of Frames Per Second Cameras: The field of physics almost with one voice has maintained for over a century that the one-way speed of light cannot be measured and therefore that it cannot be shown to be equal to its roundtrip speed. Do high speed cameras require a reassessment of that long-standing claim? Transmission of light filmed at CIT at 100 billion FPS.* A Fast Camera Proposal for a One-Way Measurement: RSR's asks whether 10-trillion FPS cameras (and Caltech's planned faster versions) might be used in a round-trip configuration to challenge the conventionality thesis and measure the one-way speed of light. Here's the concept for neutralizing that pesky 2-way speed of light problem... * Light Speed in a Vacuum: To state the problem more fully, it's the one-way speed of light in a vacuum that can't be measured. Scientists at Cambridge and Harvard have slowed light down to 38 mph by shooting a laser through extremely cold sodium atoms, so it's relatively easy to measure that one-way speed. But this RSR experiment, especially its second iteration, through water vapor, will measure a speed so very close to the speed through a vacuum that the difference cannot falsify the primary results, that is, that it is possible to measure light's one-way speed! After all, there is no known perfect vacuum, not at CERN and not even in space. So if anyone wants to quibble they might as well argue that physicists have never measured even the roundtrip speed of light. For interestingly, even interstellar space is estimated to contain anywhere from a million molecules per cubic centimeter down to a thousand atoms per cubic meter. If you'd like to help RSR, please consider Donating,Subscribing, or See our Research Wish List!* Vacuum Rabbit Trail: The European Organization for Nuclear Research has bragging rights for their massive super-rarified ultra high vacuum that they compare to the vacuum in space as far away from Earth as the moon. One RSR caveat on that though. It just so happens that the Earth's atmosphere extends beyond the Moon. So that environment isn't as void of particles as many may expect. And that atmospher extension is another young-earth argument because it is one of scores of transient conditions and events in the solar system that could not long persist. And while we're on this rabbit trail, the more than 100 annual meteor showers caused by Earth flying through known streams of cosmic debris is evidence, directly observed by millions of people, that Earth orbits in a dusty region of space, whereas evidence only known to those who study the solar system tells us that as the asteroid belt is approached the estimated number of micrometeroites per cubic kilometer decreases significantly. So something, recently, dirtied up Earth's environment.)* Light Speed in Milk and Stuff: RSR's proposed light speed experiment is performed first with the bottle filled with water and a splash of milk. The milk sufficiently increases the refractivity of the medium so that the laser's progress can be captured on video. The experiment is then repeated with the bottle empty except for some water vapor. The speed of light in a vacuum is: - 50% faster than in glass - 25% faster than in water, but only negligibly faster - three hundredths of 1% than in air. Of course the introduction of milk in the water, and even the water vapor alone, will reduce the speed of light through these mediums. But that reduction should be quantifiable and sufficiently minimal as to not prevent the one-way measurement of the speed of light (unless, as pointed out above, it is argued that the 2-way speed can never be measured). Grand Prize!* Photons Bouncing Off Photons: A laser pulse in a pure vacuum would only be detectable, it is believed, by a camera situated directly in the path of the beam. A camera aimed at the beam from off to its side would not detect the laser directly because there would be no matter to scatter the laser's photons such that some could be detected by that camera. If photons normally interacted with one another, a second beam of light could be emitted from a camera and bounce off the target beam to be videotaped, with the camera then recording the returning light signal. If that were possible, RSR argues that its light speed experiment configuration could still resolve the one-way speed question because the round trip of that second much shorter beam would be a negligible factor compared to the lengthier main axis of the laser beam's path. However, visible light photons rarely collide. There are known ways to cause them to collide and high energy photon-photon collisions do occur. Regardless of these particulars though, if this proposal gets to the attention of the scientists at CIT or CERN, perhaps they could arrange for this experiment to be conducted in an optimal configuration. * No Sneakin' Around: The experiment above, first proposed on Sept. 3, 2019, avoids the kind of systematic error that evolutionists make when they "sneak" intelligence into their "natural selection" computer simulations. For example, we would discredit the results if we snuck the round-trip speed of light into the synchronization of the cameras themselves and used that very synchronization in the experiment. To avoid this, the experiment design does not rely on the cameras being synchronized. (And in any configuration, other than perhaps in a photon-to-photon collision mode, the results do not depend upon roundtrip optics to and from any individual camera.) Instead, we position the three cameras close enough to the laser beam so that any roundtrip optics in any configuration is insignificant compared to the lengthier transit of the laser through the bottle. That is, evaluate the results through a range of values for the speed of light to the camera as though it were half c up to infinite. If none of those values changes the overall result of the experiment, we did not sneak in c (as Röemer reportedly did in 1676 when he first measured lightspeed). As a beam transits the bottle, it will produce photographable scatter from the refraction off of the various materials filling the bottle. If the beam's transit to the bottom of the bottle is instantaneous, and it's return trip is at half of today's assumed speed of light, then the cameras' registering of the scatter will show a different number of frames between the outgoing and returning beam as they would if the outgoing and returning beams travel at the same speed on both legs of their round trip. The differences are quantified below. However, if the beam's transit to the bottom of the bottle is not instantaneous (and of course the cameras' frame rates are fast enough to capture this), it seems that the leading edge of the beam (or pulse) would come into view of each camera from the right boundary of its field of vision and, frame-by-frame, pass to left boundary (with perhaps ten frames showing its progress across a single camera's field of view). If this happens, a single camera could accomplish the goal of the experiment, as it alone could demonstrate that the light did not travel instantaneously on its outgoing journey. In this case, we could calculate light's one-way speed based on the width of the single camera's field of vision, the cameras frame rate, and the number of frames it takes to record the beam's journey across that field. The three-camera configuration enables a different kind of measurement. The two additional cameras (above, numbered 2 and 3) along with a reflector at the bottom of the bottle might enable separate video recordings of both the outgoing and the return trips of the same beam. (If the single camera configuration provided any one-way speed measurement, this could also corroborate that result.) Regardless of whether the beam's one-way speeds are identical, camera #3 will be the first camera to record the beam's return trip. That last camera would then record fewer frames between the beam leaving its field of view and when it again reentered its field of view on its return trip. If sufficient frame rates enable this experiment to work, then the first camera, #1, will register the most frames separating it's initial recording and it's final recording of the laser's scatter. For example, consider if the camera operated at quadrillions of frames per second. Next, consider what could be learned if each camera captured on ten frames the refraction produced by the passing laser. Only to simplify this explanation of the experiment, assume that the cameras were positioned next to each other such that the beams entire journey would be captured on one or another camera. So when Camera 1 first registers the beam, we count 10 frames until the beam disappears. If the one-way speed of light is the same as its roundtrip speed, the camera will then have 40 empty frames until it begins to register the beam on it's return trip, and the data from that camera will end with its frames 51 to 60 showing the end of the laser's journey. In this circumstance, Camera #2 will not show 40 empty frames between its first and last registering of the scatter, but only 20 empty frames. Camera #3 will show no empty frames and the reflector, in this simplified explanation, would be positioned at the edge of that camera's field of view. If the one-way speed of light is not the same as its roundtrip speed, and its speed on its initial leg is instantaneous, it is presumed that all three cameras would still register the scatter produced, although they would all be registering that refraction at the same time. (This would be an indirect way to synchronize the cameras, after the fact in the analysis of the data they record. A difference this would make as compared to the above discussion is that the light scatter registered by each camera's field of view would not show it moving from right to left, but that scatter would appear instantaneously horizontally across the camera's display and disappear instantaneously, and not from right to left.) Also in this case of an instantaneous outgoing one-way trip, the number of frames results from Camera #3 will be identical to what it would be if the one-way speed of light were the same as its roundtrip speed. Camera 3 will show ten frames of the outgoing leg immediately followed by ten frames of the return leg (although, there very well may be a difference in how the instantaneous leg registers the refraction as compared to the non-instantaneous leg, as just described). So Camera #3 in this experiment would not be able to distinguish, based on numbers of frames, between varying one-way and roundtrip speeds of light. Consider though Camera #2. Camera #2 would have only ten empty frames between its registering the beam on its outgoing and return trips. That is because Camera #2 would register the laser instantaneously with Camera #1, and would only have to "wait" the equivalent of the ten frames it takes for the light reflected to cross Camera #3's field of view. So the data from Camera #2 will end with its frames 21 to 30 showing the end of the laser's journey from its perspective. Consider then Camera #1. In this circumstance, Camera 1 will show 20 empty frames between its first and last registering of the scatter. So compare the differences in the empty frames between registering the light's outgoing and return trips. If the outgoing trip is instantaneous, Camera #2 will have 10 empty frames and Camera #3 will have 20 empty frames. If the one-way speed of light is the same as its roundtrip speed, Camera #1 will have 40 empty frames and camera #2 will have 20 empty frames. The ratios in this configuration are the same. But by using differing configurations and by determing the actual number of frames it takes for the laser to traverse a single camera's field of view, the results could become definitive. While a seemingly wild idea, quantum physicists can believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast. So, many would not be shocked if light behaved in the extraordinary way that Dr. Jason Lisle and Dr. John Hartnett propose. Regardless though, RSR makes the following prediction (which is merely what most physicists would expect). If the beam leaves a record of its travels on each of the camers, then considering the time that would pass between the beam leaving and then reentering each camera's field of view. RSR predicts that we could calculate the increasing number of camera frames (time) that pass, as we move from the last, to the middle, to the first camera, between the leading edge of the beam leaving the field of the camera's view (as it heads toward the bottom of the bottle) and reappearing on its return trip. And of course, if the camera frame rates are not fast enough to distinguish between the outgoing and return trips of the beam, then just get a faster camera or a much taller bottle. Please send any comments to Bob@rsr.org. Thanks! * On the One-Way Speed of Light Claim from Einstein and Creationist PhDs Jason Lisle & John Hartnett: The world of physics insists that the speed of light is known only from round-trip measurements. The context of this observation speaks generally of light in a theoretical vacuum or in space (which is a near vacuum). Hundreds of laser beam flashes aimed at the Moon demonstrate one example of this kind of measurement. These lasers strike the Apollo 15 retro-reflector base plate and then bounce back as researchers measure the time of the round trip, about 2.51 seconds. (These experiments, by the way, indicate that the moon is recessing from the Earth at more than one inch per year.) Long before these actual experiments, in Einstein's 1905 paper on special relativity he presented a thought experiment in space. "Let a ray of light depart from A... let it be reflected at B... and reach A again..." A page earlier he had described not the measurement of light's one-way speed but about, "establishing by definition that the 'time' needed for the light to travel from A to B is equal to the 'time' it needs to travel from B to A." Establishing this by definition instead of by measurement is referred to as doing this by convention. Regarding this Einstein continued, "We assume that this definition of synchrony is free from contradiction..." And we "assume the quantity... c to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space." This Einstein synchronisation is sometimes abbreviated as ESC for the Einstein Synchrony Convention. * Starlight & Time, the Conventionality Thesis, and Anisotropic Synchrony Convention: Agreeing with Einstein, the consensus view in physics is that no one has ever measured the one-way c but presents that speed as a convention, that is, an assumption, or, as Einstein wrote, even just a definition, also called the conventional unidrectional speed. By this widespread reckoning, it would not violate any actual measurement to propose that the one-way speed of light toward an observer (say, on Earth) can be infinite as long as the light reflected back travels at half c for the other leg of its roundtrip, producing an average speed of 186,000 miles per second. Creationist astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle, as supported by RSR friend and cosmologist Dr. John Hartnett, has used this to address the starlight and time challenge by claiming that light instantly arrives at Earth after being emitted from even the most distant galaxies. If so, of course that great distance would thereby be irrelevant to light's travel time to Earth and also to the age of the creation. Photons are both relativistic and elementary quantum particles. Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum mechanics both make so many counterintuitive observations that many who study these fields, we submit, would not be shocked if light behaved in this way. Drs. Lisle and Hartnett, with many others, argue that such anisotropy cannot be experimentally disproved, that is, that light cannot be shown to not have this different property when measured in different directions. Effectively agreeing with this, Grünbaum in his second enlarged edition of Philosophical Problems of Space and Time points out that "a choice... which renders the transit times (velocities) of light in opposite directions unequal cannot possibly conflict with... our descriptive conventions" (p. 366, emphasis in the original). With this Karlov agrees, regarding "the constancy of the speed of light... but other choices... are physically just as permissible" (Australian Journal of Physics, 1970 Vol. 23, p. 244, emphasis added). Various philosophers of physics though, and others, have proposed theoretical ways to test the one-way speed of light. Routinely then, the physics community responds by claiming these proposals include faulty assumptions that "sneak in" the roundtrip speed of light (in much the same way that computational evolution simulators "sneak" intelligence into their algorithms). For example, reasoning can be shown to be circular if an experiment assumes the constancy of the speed of light which is the very thing that it is designed to demonstrate. So this conventional unidirectional speed means that the 300,000 kilometers per second claimed universal speed limit has never actually been experimentally verified and is only an industry-wide assumption made to simplify the math (and to please our sensibilities). Some creation physicists have begun to argue therefore that, as believed by mankind's early scientists (from Aristotle to Descartes and beyond), and compatible with Einstein's theory of special relativity, and arguably, with all measurements made to date, the one-way speed of light from even the furthest galaxies to the Earth could be infinite. Light at 100 billion FPSIf so, human beings would be seeing astronomical events unfold as they happen in a "real-time" universe and Adam would have seen the light from the stars made only two days before He was created, without any other supernatural or natural explanation needed. In 2010 Dr. Lisle proposed this Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC) to answer the young-earth creationist's starlight and time question. This argument includes the claim, as boldly stated by Dr. Hartnett in 2019, that "there can be no experiment that can refute the conventionality thesis", such that no one can even theoretically devise a way to demonstrate that the one-way speed of light equals the roundtrip speed. What follows are four proposed methods to demonstrate that the one-way speed of light approximately equals the roundtrip speed, the first three having already been performed, which we use to address the Einstein's Synchrony Convention. And the fourth experiment, not yet performed but here proposed, which addresses Lisle's ASC. * Did this 2019 Laboratory Video Measure the One-Way Speed of Light? Through water, light travels 25% slower than through a vacuum, at 225,000 kilometers per second rather than 300,000. At rsr.org/asc#camera (and just below) see a 2019 video made at CIT using a 100 billion frames per second (FPS) camera. At 4:33 (see the screenshots, just above) a laser beam is shot through a bottle of water with a bit of milk in it. The milk increases the amount of photon scatter produced by refraction to make the beam's progress easier to capture on video. (The milk of course would also further slow down the light.) Amazingly Caltech's two cameras, the fastest in the world, one with a maximum rate of 10 trillion frames per second, are able to capture light in progress in its one-way transit. The clip referenced was filmed using the slower of the two cameras and yet it captures the laser beam's one-way journey through the bottle! One of the philosophy of science books by award-winning physicist Max Jammer, who was personally acquainted with Einstein at Princeton, is directly on our topic, Concepts of Simultaneity: From antiquity to Einstein and beyond. Written thirteen years before the fast-camera light-in-the-bottle recording, Jammer concluded that the conventionality thesis remains an open question, and thus, whether the one-way speed of light can be measured may seem theoretically impossible, but it might just be that we haven't figured out how to do it. Chaotic CavityThus according to this Berlin-born Israeli physicist who became close to Einstein, as of 2006, no experiment had falsified a potentially infinite one-way speed of light. But Jammer, who passed away in 2010, never saw this 2019 Caltech bottle video. The astounding technical achievement of the CIT researchers has been popularized by YouTube's The Slo Mo Guys. (We've previously utilized two of their videos in our answer to creationist Michael Oard to explain why there is a linear crack, called the mid-oceanic ridge, that circles the Earth like the seam on a baseball.) The March 17, 2019 Slo Mo Guys' video is called Filming the Speed of Light at 10 Trillion FPS. The slower of CIT's two fastest cameras used to "film" the "bottle" segment of their video was operating at 100 billion FBS, that is, each frame equaled 10 picoseconds (ten trillionths of a second) and it took about 2,000 picoseconds (two billionths of a second) for the light to travel through the length of the bottle. On our Real Science Radio program my co-host Fred Williams and I briefly discussed this and argued that this video may have measured the one-way speed of light.  10 trillion FPSA second measurement appears at 5:40 into the same video. At the same 100 billion frames per second, the CIT technician recorded light bouncing around inside of a water-vapor filled mirrored device they call a chaotic cavity. (See image, left.) Light propagates in a vacuum only three hundredths of 1% faster than it travels through "air". (On average, about two percent of the molecules in Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, and "for applications with less than five digits of accuracy, the index of refraction of air is the same as that of vacuum...") So the light beam in this cavity traveling through nothing but air and water vapor must be traveling at very close to the speed of light in a vacuum. The videotaped light pulse bouncing around within this chamber demonstrates that it travels at no discernable difference in its speed in any direction, including when it bounces back and forth essentially in a "roundtrip" pattern. It certainly never appears to have moved at infinite speed by disappearing and instantly popping up across the chamber. Prof. emeritus Michael Tooley from the University of Colorado, argued in his 2000 Time, Tense, and Causation that the many attempts to measure the one-way speed of light had all failed. And of course that too was concluded before Caltech researchers made possible this 2019 Filming the Speed of Light video. (We would be remiss in not warning the public, and the professor himself regarding the horrific consequences in this life, and eternally, about his vile arguments in defense not only of killing unborn children but also in Tooley's denial even that newborn babies have a right to life.)  The third measurement appears at 10:50 into the video using Caltech's fastest camera. A researcher records at ten trillion frames per second a pulse of light traveling about ten millimeters through a milky vile. (See image, right.) See that segment of the video also at rsr.org/asc#camera (or just click play here): 

Astronomers today understand that the universe is full of a mysterious substance they call “dark matter” (because it doesn't give off any light or other radiation we can detect.)  Dr. Tom Shutt (of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center) discusses the motivation behind the multi-decade, world-wide effort to test the idea that dark matter is in the form of particles as small as a neutrino but as heavy as an atom.  He describes the experiment he is involved with, that uses 7 tons of liquefied Xenon to measure how these particles interact with normal matter.

Robots are revolutionizing every industry and today’s guest shares how his company is ensuring co-bots are keeping people safe while completing important tasks.  Chris Ziomek and the team at Build With Robots are making a difference and leveraging the support of the community to make great things happen! Show Notes Watch episode here Chris Ziomek is a tech entrepreneur who has over 30 years of experience in high-tech industries.  Chris presently leads Build With Robots, an automation business developing the next generation of robotic tools.  Chris also serves as an adviser and investor in many New Mexico-based startups.  His prior professional experience includes: Senior Vice President and General Manager at Teradyne, Founder and President of ZTEC Instruments, microwave engineer at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, and section leader at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.  Chris holds BS and MS degrees in electrical engineering and is a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Mexico. Build with Robots Breezy One Job Training Incentive Program (New Mexico Economic Development Department) FUSE Makerspace   Be Greater Than Average Gift of Learning Be Greater Than Average Courses Be Greater Than Average Family Fun! Be Greater Than Average A Semester of STEM Activities E-Book Battling Bots League (Partnership between Be Greater Than Average and Electric Playhouse)   Contact: Chris Ziomek (505) 224-3955 chris.ziomek@buildwithrobots.com Facebook Linkedin Twitter

Robots are revolutionizing every industry and today’s guest shares how his company is ensuring co-bots are keeping people safe while completing important tasks.  Chris Ziomek and the team at Build With Robots are making a difference and leveraging the support of the community to make great things happen! Show Notes Watch episode here Chris Ziomek is a tech entrepreneur who has over 30 years of experience in high-tech industries.  Chris presently leads Build With Robots, an automation business developing the next generation of robotic tools.  Chris also serves as an adviser and investor in many New Mexico-based startups.  His prior professional experience includes: Senior Vice President and General Manager at Teradyne, Founder and President of ZTEC Instruments, microwave engineer at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, and section leader at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.  Chris holds BS and MS degrees in electrical engineering and is a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Mexico. Build with Robots Breezy One Job Training Incentive Program (New Mexico Economic Development Department) FUSE Makerspace   Be Greater Than Average Gift of Learning Be Greater Than Average Courses Be Greater Than Average Family Fun! Be Greater Than Average A Semester of STEM Activities E-Book Battling Bots League (Partnership between Be Greater Than Average and Electric Playhouse)   Contact: Chris Ziomek (505) 224-3955 chris.ziomek@buildwithrobots.com Facebook Linkedin Twitter

Aleksandar Kuzmanovic achieved great success in both the academic, and commercial world. He is a graduate of ETF Belgrade where he received both a Bachelor’s and Master’s degree. He later went on to complete his PhD at Rice University. He began his career in Serbia as a System Engineer at Algotech Srbija and later a Research Scientist at IMP-Telecommunications. He then travelled to California where he was a Visiting Researcher at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and Advisor at Narus Inc. He was Co-Founder and Chief Scientist at Nanjee Inc.. Today he is both a Professor of Computer Science at Northwestern University and Founder of bloXroute Labs, a Blockchain Distribution Network (BDN) that is solving the largest problems that blockchains face today. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/sazmining/support

Fritjof Capra is a world-renowned physicist, systems theorist, educator, activist, and best-selling author. He received his Ph.D. in theoretical physics from the University of Vienna in 1966 and spent 20 years doing research in theoretical high-energy physics in many respected universities including at the University of Paris, the University of California at Santa Cruz, the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Imperial College London and the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory at the University of California. His many books include The Tao of Physics, The Turning Point, The Web of Life and The Hidden Connections, amongst others. His most recent book, co-authored with Pier Luigi Luisi is The Systems View of Life. Fritjof is also renowned for his work in the ecology movement and is a founding director of the Berkeley-based Center for Ecoliteracy, a Fellow of Schumacher College in the UK and is a council member of the Earth Charter Initiative. In today’s conversation we discuss the systems view of life and the living mirror theory as a solution to the hard problem of consciousness.

Jean is HDR's Sustainable Principal for the firm globally. She is based in San Francisco, California with 30+ years of experience in interior design, departmental planning and sustainable design. Ms. Hansen is responsible for advancing HDR's sustainability initiatives in project and research work for healthcare, commercial and institutional environments. She served on Kaiser Permanente's High Performance Building Committee to develop national sustainable design standards, led a team in the development of a USGBC Volume Build Pilot Program for Wells Fargo Bank in 39 states and was a green consultant with the University of New Mexico's new Children's Hospital and Critical Care Pavilion. She led sustainable research in the textile industry for Kaiser Permanente and co-authored a white paper on the research, titled, Future of Fabric: Healthcare. She was a core committee member in the development of the USGBC's LEED Healthcare rating system and more recently is a pilot committee member in the development of the HealthProduct Declaration (HPD). She is past president of IIDA (International Interior Design Association) for the Northern California Chapter, IIDA Fellow and past board member and secretary of the USGBC Northern California Chapter. Jean is working on or has worked on over forty LEED projects, developed sustainable guidelines and led sustainable research for healthcare organizations and manufacturers, provided sustainable training for a variety of clients, including the U.S. Army and in-house staff; she has inspired many to pursue LEED Accreditation, and integrated sustainability into multi-million dollar projects. Her clients have ranged from Federal agencies such as the U.S. Army, the Department of Veteran Affairs, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and NOAA, to universities such as the University of California system, Stanford, and numerous healthcare organizations and furniture manufacturers.   Show Highlights  Jean shares her expertise on how to design healthy buildings with emphasis on product specs and protocols that won't harm humans or the environment.  How to guide corporations to answer the question “Where should we put our energy and our money first?” Green Guide for Health Care and LEED Healthcare. Jean's work with numerous organizations to create sustainable products and a questionnaire for product transparency. Valuable tips on building awareness on safe product materials and warnings. Knowing the difference between manufacturers vs distributors when selecting materials and products. Protocol for selecting healthy materials for facilities. Jean talks about another lens that really needs to be added to sustainability to take it to another level. “It's not too late for anyone to consider learning and adopting sustainability for whatever type of work you're doing because luckily the green building movement or the sustainability movement in general needs people with any and all skills. I say that with all truthfulness and sincerity, and there's always a way to combine sustainability to any and all phases of our work. Your voice is incredibly important and we can only be stronger when we're stronger together.” - Jean Hansen   Jean Hansen Transcript   Jean Hansen's Show Resource and Information Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming by Paul Hawken:  The Hidden Life of Trees by Peter Wohlleben What the Robin Knows by Jon Young Bluebird, Bluebird by Attica Locke  LinkedIn Twitter HDR Architecture Connect with Charlie Cichetti and GBES Charlie on LinkedIn Green Building Educational Services GBES on Twitter Connect on LinkedIn Like on Facebook Google+ GBES Pinterest Pins GBES on Instagram   GBES is excited our membership community is growing. Consider joining our membership community as members are given access to some of the guests on the podcasts that you can ask project questions. If you are preparing for an exam, there will be more assurance that you will pass your next exam, you will be given cliff notes if you are a member, and so much more. Go to www.gbes.com/join to learn more about the 4 different levels of access to this one-of-a-kind career-advancing green building community! If you truly enjoyed the show, don't forget to leave a positive rating and review on iTunes.  We have prepared more episodes for the upcoming weeks, so come by again next week! Thank you for tuning in to the Green Building Matters Podcast!   Copyright © 2020 GBES

创业公司 Zoox 被亚马逊 12 亿美元收购，让亚马逊正式加入了无人驾驶领域的竞争；物流领域无人驾驶的创业公司图森 Tusimple 也刚启动了全球首个无人驾驶货运网络，物流领域的无人驾驶似乎在疫情后被加速了。 在硅谷早知道上一季的节目 (https://guiguzaozhidao.fireside.fm/66)中，我们和齐蕾一起梳理过整个自动驾驶行业的发展面貌。 Zoox 是一家什么样的公司？这个赛道上硅谷投资人还在关注什么？一年之后的今天，自动驾驶领域又有什么新变化？ 本期节目我们又一次请来了齐蕾，她是 Alliance Ventures (https://allianceventure.com/) 的全球投资主管。Alliance Ventures 是一家由雷诺、三菱、尼桑三家车企发起的基金，于2018年设立，资金管理规模达十亿美元。 如果你对汽车相关的创业领域感兴趣，也欢迎给齐蕾写信来探讨更多的问题 ，她的邮箱是：Lei.Qi@alliance-rnm.com 另外，硅谷早知道第四季已上线，需要大家在喜马拉雅、苹果 Podcasts 等各大平台上重新订阅收听。 本节目文字版本请搜索公众号「声动活泼」查看。也请通过打赏 (http://shengfm.cn/donation)来支持我们的节目。 【主播】 丁教 ，声动活泼联合创始人 【嘉宾】 齐蕾，Alliance Ventures (https://allianceventure.com/) 全球投资主管 【主要话题】 [01:17] Tusimple 启动的全球首个无人驾驶货运网络意味着什么 [06:37] Zoox是一家什么样的公司，他之前的融资情况 [17:55] 亚马逊的自动驾驶战略 [21:01] 和一年前比，现在的自动驾驶领域/企业有什么变化 [27:57] 自动驾驶的未来 [29:38] 嘉宾关注的其他汽车投资领域 【相关概念】 * Argo ，一家美国的无人驾驶公司，由大众和福特汽车公司投资 * Waymo，一家研发自动驾驶汽车的公司，为Alphabet公司（Google母公司）旗下的子公司 * Aurora，美国自动驾驶公司Aurora获得了5.3亿美元B轮融资 * 文远知行，一家无人车科技公司，由原百度高管创办，旨在打造面向中国市场的L4级别全自动无人驾驶 * Drive.ai ，一家美国的自动驾驶公司 ，被苹果公司收购 * Momenta ， 一家中国的自动驾驶公司 * SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory，原名斯坦福直线加速器中心（Stanford Linear Accelerator Center），是美国能源部所属的国家实验室，主要研究方向有运用电子束进行基本粒子物理的实验及理论研究、原子物理、固态物理、使用同步辐射光源的化学、生物以及医学研究。 【延伸阅读】 * 硅谷早知道S3E13：创业公司死去，亚马逊却要进场，这个烧钱猛烈的行业现今版图如何？ (https://guiguzaozhidao.fireside.fm/66) * 硅谷早知道S3E30：滴滴出行将新增无人车选项，无人车光明在即还是深陷泥淖 (https://guiguzaozhidao.fireside.fm/s3e30) 【音乐】 * ATM (Instrumental Version)-Pabi Sonko * Counting the Days-Cody High 【关于我们】 网站：shengfm.cn 新浪微博：声动活泼 邮件：admin@sheng.fm 支持我们：www.shengfm.cn/donation Special Guest: 齐蕾.

How do we understand the things we cannot see – the tiniest building blocks that make up our physical world? And then how do we teach about them? On this episode, Dr. Patrick Spero talks with leading particle physicist Dr. Helen Quinn. They discuss the theory and research behind particle physics and how such complex science can and should be taught in K-12 curricula.Dr. Helen Quinn is Professor Emerita and Former Chair of the Department of Particle Physics and Astrophysics at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. In theoretical physics, she has made contributions to how we understand the interactions between particles and what this can teach us about matter and antimatter. After Dr. Quinn retired from Stanford, she translated her scientific expertise into leading a National Research Council study that produced a new framework for K-12 Science education.Clip on the National Accelerator Courtesy SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. 

Humans System & Tech Are At Odds. The Common Stack Improves Your Human Experience... And It's Actually Working! Griff Green & Jeff Emmett & Will Ruddick Realigning incentives around public goods https://commonsstack.org/ 1:40 Commons Stack & Blockchain Communities 10:30 Most successful boots on the ground project in the world? 24:25 Why This Is So Revolutionary 28:15 What"s A Token Bonding Curve? A Flaw In Fintech Markets 37:54 Going To Jail For Creating Responsible Money 44:00 What Is The Real Value Of Money? 50:00 Is Africa Leapfrogging The World In Money Sophistication? 1:00:12 Scaling Currencies: Simulations & Engineering Modeling 1:05:18 How Is Red Cross Supporting Community Currencies? 1:06:31 Printing New Money In Foreign Countries 1:13:01 Impact Stories, Real Uses & What's Changing? 1:16:51 48 New Currencies In Africa 1:21:08 Predictions & Challenges Of Going Global 1:24:44 Human Cells, Natural Systems, & Money 1:29:42 SEEDS On Telos & How It Fits With Common Stack "Will Ruddick is a development economist focusing on currency innovation. After completing graduate school researching high energy physics as a collaboration member at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, he found his analysis skills and passion drawn to alternative economics and development. Since 2008 Will has lived in East Africa and managed several successful development programs in the environment, food security and economic development. Griff Green: "I'm a digital currency "expert", evangelist and public speaker, holding a master's degree on the topic. I am well connected and well liked in the Ethereum ecosystem. I founded Giveth to build software to support decentralized communities' growth and development especially centered around non-profit causes. I founded the Commons Stack to take Giveth to the next level, creating micro-economies to support the voluntary funding of public goods. Jeff Emmett: "All Things Decent/ralised. Researching the biggest ideas that will move the needle on meaningful human progress. #CommonsStack, #OpenData, #UBI, #RadicalMarkets and #Mindfulness are some faves." --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/the-eos-podcast/support

www.BeyondMoney.net www.BeyondMoneyPodcast.com beyondmoneypodcast@gmail.com Episode 03: Will Ruddick    Will Ruddick is a development economist focusing on currency innovation. After completing graduate school researching high energy physics as a collaboration member at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, he found his analysis skills and passion drawn to alternative economics and development. Since 2008 Will has lived in East Africa and managed several successful development programs in environment, food security and economic development. He is dedicated to connecting communities to their own abundance, and is an advocate for, and designer of currencies for poverty eradication and sustainable development. Mr. Ruddick has pioneered Community Currency Programs in Kenya since 2010 and is the founder of the award winning Bangla-Pesa program. He consults on Community Currencies worldwide and while researching with the University of Cape Town's Environmental Economics Policy Research Unit. Mr. Ruddick is also an associate scholar with the University of Cumbria's Institute for Leadership and Sustainability. His specialties are program development, research, data analysis, agent based modeling, computer simulation, monitoring and evaluation, complementary currencies, informal settlements, environmental programs, cooperatives. In this episode, Will talks to us about his work over the past eleven years, organizing micro-entrepreneurs in poor areas of Kenya. Central to his work has been the creation of community currencies that have enabled a greater amount of trading and utilization of capacity in those communities. Recently, Will and his associates have been implementing digital forms of those currencies, and networking communities together in a wide area exchange system. Grassroots Economics, https://www.grassrootseconomics.org “Through community currencies people have a way to exchange goods and services and incubate new businesses, without relying on scarce national currency and volatile markets.” Documentary on Will Ruddick and Kenyan Community Currencies, https://youtu.be/ojFPrVvpraU How to Give People the Same Power As Banks, https://youtu.be/PfEW2atiB4s Unblock HongKong - Interview with Will Ruddick - Director at BANCOR, https://youtu.be/OagQNEecZhA M-Pesa, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Pesa   This interview with Will Ruddick was conducted 2019 April 30.

Paul is an internationally experienced HR executive and talent leader who forges strong links between long and short-term business objectives and human resource planning and outcomes. Paul has worked as an SPP of leadership development in the entertainment industry. He has built leadership teams, led HR departments through major changes, built innovative executive development programs in multiple organisations, and a host of other things across HR. Most recently, Paul was the CHRO of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and is currently an independent consultant, coach, and speaker

Paul is an internationally experienced HR executive and talent leader who forges strong links between long and short-term business objectives and human resource planning and outcomes. Paul has worked as an SPP of leadership development in the entertainment industry. He has built leadership teams, led HR departments through major changes, built innovative executive development programs in multiple organisations, and a host of other things across HR. Most recently, Paul was the CHRO of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and is currently an independent consultant, coach, and speaker

This is a fun episode. We talk science, scripture, Jesus, and Paul. Also, there's a new book coming out that you want to know about: Dictionary of Christianity and Science: The Definitive Reference for the Intersection of Christian Faith and Contemporary Science. Here's a bit more information about Dr. Michael Strauss:  Dr. Mike Strauss is a David Ross Boyd Professor of Physics at the University of Oklahoma. He conducts research in high-energy collider physics, currently with data from the ATLAS detector at CERN laboratory in Geneva, Switzerland where he studies the fundamental particles and forces that make up the universe. He received his Bachelor of Science degree in physical science from Biola University and his Ph.D. in experimental elementary particle physics from the University of California in Los Angeles. His previous research was done at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. Dr. Strauss has spoken about the intersection of science and Christianity at universities, schools and churches throughout the world. He has the ability to explain complex topics in easily understandable language and to offer life applications based on scientific and Biblical ideas. He is one of the general editors of the Dictionary of Christianity and Science, published by Zondervan. Two Birthday Gifts to Give Us 1) If you would be so kind to hop on iTunes (or your feed of choice) and leave The Paulcast a review there, that would be amazing. The more reviews we can get will lead to greater visibility in iTunes. And I (Kurt) LOVE reading your comments!  2) Also, please consider hitting up The Paulcast Patreon online tip-jar (think Kickstarter for ongoing content creators). For $3 per month, or more, you can make a direct impact on this show. Financial partners like you really do make this all possible! Through Patreon, you make a tangible difference in this show's sustainability and quality! http://patreon.com/kurtwillems Episode Sponsors This episode is sponsored by Fresno Pacific Biblical Seminary. They are excited to announce the launch of the new Master of Arts in Ministry, Leadership and Culture. This online program, designed for practicing pastors and ministry entrepreneurs, will help you understand and integrate sub-cultures, theology, and leadership into practice. Guest faculty like Bruxy Cavey, Greg Boyd and Brian Zahnd model practical integration of Anabaptist theology and 21st century kingdom work. Learn more at fpu.edu/paulcast.  *Show sponsors do not endorse every word or idea discussed on The Paulcast.

John Hagelin, Ph.D., is a world-renowned quantum physicist, educator, author, and leading proponent of peace. Dr. Hagelin has conducted pioneering research at CERN (the European Center for Particle Physics) and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. He is responsible for the … Continue reading →

PANEL: The Three Simultaneously True Levels of Nondual Reality; Don't Mistake Understanding for Realization, Don't Mistake Realization for Liberation. Most humans view their situation in a conventional, non-mystical way, treating whatever happens as concretely real, and to be judged as "good" and "bad," etc. By contrast, a growing number of non-dual teachers and students espouse the view that whatever happens is "the perfect manifestation of Divine Will," or that "nothing is really happening or ever happened." Yet our situation is not so one-dimensional as these positions would hold, and an expansive, truly liberated way of talking about Reality will involve more dimensions. A three-fold model of nondual Reality will be discussed which many have found quite helpful in accounting for all levels of our experience. Reports of spiritual awakenings, once rare, have become commonplace. Modern seekers often find an intuitive understanding of the ultimate non-dual reality or the illusory nature of the world to be so liberating that they conclude they have reached the goal, and that seeking should be renounced. Ancient traditions caution that such an understanding may be merely a preliminary stage of development. Moreover, an experiential realization, beyond the merely conceptual, may feel so complete that one might conclude that "This is it". Some insist that once the non-dual nature of the Self is realized, one has arrived, and it is meaningless to speak of further degrees of growth or levels of realization. Others hold that Self-realization is an important milestone, but that spiritual development never ends. Can we reconcile the injunction to live in the present moment with the understanding that there is much development yet to undergo? Are there criteria by which Enlightenment can be measured or certified? John Hagelin, Ph.D., is a world-renowned quantum physicist, educator, public policy expert, and leading proponent of peace. Dr. Hagelin received his A.B. summa cum laude from Dartmouth College and his M.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard University and conducted pioneering research at CERN (the European Center for Particle Physics) and SLAC (the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center). His scientific contributions in the fields of electroweak unification, grand unification, super-symmetry, and cosmology include some of the most cited references in the physical sciences. He is also responsible for the development of a highly successful Grand Unified Field Theory based on the Superstring. But Dr. Hagelin is unique among scientists in being the first to apply this most advanced knowledge for the practical benefit of humankind. He has pioneered the use of Unified Field-based technologies proven to reduce crime, violence, terrorism, and war and to promote peace throughout society—technologies derived from the ancient Vedic science of consciousness. hagelin.org Maharishi International University David Lynch Foundation BatGap interview with Dr. Hagelin Igor Kufayev Website: igorkufayev.com Wikipedia page Other BatGap events with Igor Kufayev: Igor Kufayev with David Loy Igor Kufayev with Jac O’Keeffe, and Francis Bennett Igor Kufayev, in Panel Discussion on Kashmir Shaivism Mark McCooey is a businessman and has been a teacher of Transcendental Meditation for over 30 years. He and his family live in Vancouver, Canada. Recorded at the Science and Nonduality Conference, 10/28/2012, San Rafael, California. Video and audio below. Audio also available as a Podcast.

  Dr. Robert Piccioni has a B.S. in physics from Caltech and a Ph.D. in high energy physics from Stanford University. He was a faculty member at Harvard University and did research at both the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and the Fermi National Accelerator Lab. He is a public speaker, educator and expert on cosmology and Einstein's theories. Physicists have been searching for the God Particle, (Higgs Boson), for over 40 years. They even persuaded governments to spend over $10 billion building a huge atom smasher, ( Large Hadron Collider), near Geneva, Switzerland, to find the Higgs Boson. Robert will explain to us what the Higgs Boson is. We will also talk about Robert's book Can Life Really be an Accident? Read more about Robert at his website: http://www.guidetothecosmos.com

QUEST journeys back to find out how physicists on the UC Berkeley campus in the 1930s, and at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in the 1970s, created "atom smashers" that led to key discoveries about the tiny constituents of the atom and paved the way for the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland.

QUEST journeys back to find out how physicists on the UC Berkeley campus in the 1930s, and at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in the 1970s, created "atom smashers" that led to key discoveries about the tiny constituents of the atom and paved the way for the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland.

Joseph Perl, Ph.D., of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, discusses the Geant4 Simulation Toolkit, specifically focusing on the particle therapy applications that it has. (April 18, 2008)

Fundamental particle physics is replete with novel theories that are merely academic until experimentally verified by high energy particle colliders. On this program, Prof. Michael Peskin from the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center discussed these experimental techniques.