Para los dos fisicos guapos en mi vida… (que entienden espanol). Que les disfrutes! Aunque solo uno lean mi blog….
A New Year’s gift for all the nerds out there.
Some brain teasers from 2 Reasons Physics Doesn’t Work in the Real World via Mental Floss magazine blog.
You might think physicists have it all figured out. But the fact is, some of the best theories just don’t work anywhere but on the blackboard.

1. Science Friction: F = ma (Force = Mass x Acceleration)
Sure, this fundamental equation of physics is simple to memorize, but it’s virtually useless in real life. In fact, engineers almost never use it. The reason? Friction—that awful complication that keeps physics demonstrations from working. So, how do you calculate friction? If you ask an engineer, he’ll give you an empirical co-efficient that he measured from previous experiments.
But the truth of it is that physics is useless for most everyday phenomena.
That’s why physicists like to confine their research to atoms, nuclei, and space. In these realms, friction is either absent or it behaves according to simple rules. Anything that doesn’t obey simple rules in physics is labeled “engineering,” “chemistry,” or something else.
2. Light Concerns
The speed of light is about 186,284 miles per second. But when light goes through air or glass, it slows down. Einstein assumed when he made his theory of general relativity that everyone would know he was referring to the speed of light in a vacuum. Because light is thought to have no mass, it’ll always move at this fundamental speed. The concern here, though, is that if we discover someday that light has a very small but non-zero rest mass, then even light would never travel at the speed of light. Who knows? If that happens, we might have to rename the fundamental speed the Einstein velocity.


2 comments
Comments feed for this article
4 January 08, Friday at 12:07
Carlos
Que ilusion!
Soy yo uno de los fisicos guapos?
Anyway… the phrase I loved the most (for being quite true) is:
Anything that doesn’t obey simple rules in physics is labeled “engineering,” “chemistry,” or something else.
And the friction example reminds me of one of my first year’s lab practices:
I had to demonstrate the conservation of momentum measuring speeds of two toy trains equipped with springs that I loaded with different masses and I studied their velocities before and after making them collide…
Of course, friction made the experiment impossible, but the stupid PhD in charge of the lab wanted us to show that the momentum was indeed being conserved!!
So I did something that marked my preferences in physics from them on: I trashed the lab notes with the speed data and wrote a Monte-Carlo program in my CASIO pocket calculator (thats a Nerd!!) that gave me plausible values with simulated “experimental uncertainties” and I used those values instead of the real data…
Yes, it was cheating, but if the system is stupid (in this case, the PhD student evaluating us), I find that it is justified to go around it
And hey! I learned not only about conservation of moment and friction but also about the power of Monte-Carlo methods!!
5 January 08, Saturday at 23:06
vidalocura
Considering el sample de los fisicos normales… no es nada dificil ser un fisico guapo…
OK, I had to ask P what a monte carlo program is!
BTW, the library has a Wii (Pt Melbourne) and PS3 (St Kilda) with free bookings. We had fun with the Wii the other day (it was too hot at home so we hid in the cool comfort of the library).