]]>

It was an attempt at outlining the broad issues that arise when one tries to put Supersymmetry in Lattice. I have uploaded the presentation in the link above – Readers comments and criticisms are welcome.

]]>

]]>

]]>

NASA’s Spitzer Space Telescope has captured for the first time enough light from planets outside our solar system, known as exoplanets, to identify molecules in their atmospheres….

…

Spitzer, a space-based infrared telescope, obtained the detailed data, called spectra, for two different gas exoplanets. Called HD 209458b and HD 189733b, these so-called “hot Jupiters” are, like Jupiter, made of gas, but orbit much closer to their suns.The data indicate the two planets are drier and cloudier than predicted. Theorists thought hot Jupiters would have lots of water in their atmospheres, but surprisingly none was found around HD 209458b and HD 189733b. According to astronomers, the water might be present but buried under a thick blanket of high, waterless clouds.

Those clouds might be filled with dust. One of the planets, HD 209458b, showed hints of tiny sand grains, called silicates, in its atmosphere. This could mean the planet’s skies are filled with high, dusty clouds unlike anything seen around planets in our own solar system…

The ‘More Info’ page on the press release links to two papers “A Spectrum of an Extrasolar Planet”

by L. Jeremy Richardson et.al. and A Spitzer Spectrum of the Exoplanet HD 189733b by C. J. Grillmair et.al. apart from some podcasts.

And via BA Blog, we are reminded that “Twenty years ago, astronomers witnessed one of the brightest stellar explosions in more than 400 years. The titanic supernova, called SN 1987A, blazed with the power of 100 million suns for several months following its discovery on 23 Feb., 1987.” Of course, the article doesn’t quite spell it out that the neutrino detectors were telling us something interesting three hours before the explosion was seen ! (See this link too – via Backreaction blog .)

**‘Rings’ left by the Supernova Explosion **

]]>

For every continuous map there exists a pair of anitpodal points and in such that .

Specializing to the case , one might conclude that at any point of time there are two antipodal points on Earth’s surface (which is homeomorphic to ) having same, say, pressure and temperature (which together constitute of the theorem) .

Question: Isn’t it that the presence of polar caps (The Arctic and The Antarctica) where the day/night variation in temperature is quite low, may then be looked upon as a kind of `consequence’ of this theorem? (ofcourse the theorem doesn’t say where is located but at almost all other regions on Earth’s surface, the antipodal points are expected to have quite different temperatures due to day/night variation.)

ps1: One might worry about the validity of the assumption of continuity of and since there are wild local fluctuations; but I feel once you coarse-grain things out, this is a reasonable assumption.

ps2: For proof of the theorem, see http://www.mi.ras.ru/~scepin/elem-proof-reduct.pdf

]]>

The Basic syntax is $latex <LaTeX Equation> $. You can find a list of symbols here(pdf) . In particular, if you find the formulae are too small try $latex {\displaystyle <LaTeX Equation>}$ . It’s great !

**Update(18/02/07) :** See this FAQ for some more options.

Now, to illustrate LaTeX, I’ll take up a particular problem. Consider two equal masses falling towards each other, as shown below, starting from rest.

m—>—o—<—m

The question is this – *How much power does this system lose as the two masses fall towards each other ?*

Let be the distance from the centre of mass (which I’ve denoted by an ‘o’ above and I choose it to be the origin). Take the common axis to be z-axis.

Hence the position of two masses are respectively and

To the zeroth approximation, Newtonian mechanics tells you that

(We neglect the effect of gravitational wave on the masses)

The quadrupole moment of a mass distribution is defined by

Where the integral is done over the whole source( is the mass density of the source). It is basically *negative of the traceless part of the moment of inertia*.

The Einstein formula for the power emitted by the source (in the form of Gravitational waves) is

where the symbol denotes a sum over .

Assuming that the masses are small in size, the components of quadrupole moment in this case are

Now to calculate the third time derivative, we first use chain rule to get

We can now employ Newton’s Law to get

This leads to

All the other components are zero. Substituting this into the Einstein’s formula which I quoted above, the total power radiated comes out to be

which is terribly small in most cases.

]]>

After learning basic concepts of classical mechanics, a wierd question arises about mathematical approach to this field. The general approach goes like this differential manifold structure is associated with lagrangian and symplectic structure comes with hamiltonian. We tried to learn this, so i am attaching project report(more like a formula sheet) with topic “differential geometric treatment to hamiltonian mechanics”. Please go through this and post some views on this mathematical approach.

]]>

Most of it look quite well organized for independent reading.

]]>

The internet works so that we don’t have to! This week is the big annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Seattle, so expect to see a series of astro-news stories pop up all through the week. The first one concerns a new result from the Cosmological Evolution Survey (COSMOS) — they’ve used weak lensing to reconstruct a

three-dimensionalimage of where the dark matter is.

AAS Report #3: Things that go boom! (From Bad Astronomy Blog)

It’s a fact of life that some stars explode. Actually, it’s a good thing: when stars explode they create and scatter the heavy elements that create us. The iron in your blood and the calcium in your bones were created in a supernova! So it’s important to study these objects, so we can better understand our origins.

But it’s also fun! Stars explode! Bang! Cool!

Today there were three press releases about supernovae. All three were surprising to me, and pretty interesting.

1) Kepler’s Supernova was a Type IaOK, so that title doesn’t thrill you. But that simple statement is actually the answer to a long-standing mystery. Ready for this? OK, sit back…

**The AAS : a Nerd’s Eye View (from Galactic Interactions)**

I’m in Seattle at the moment. I flew in yesterday; it’s cold, windy, and rainy. In fact, the rain was looking kinda slushy last night. While my wife from Minnesota might scoff at my calling this cold (it was just below freezing), in Nashville it’s been March-like temperatures.

I’m here for the 209th meeting of the American Astronomical Society. I’m going to try an experiment. I’ve never done the “live blogging” thing before, and indeed it’s entirely possible that I’m not using the term properly. It is my intention to post several posts this week inspired by things I see at the AAS. I can’t tell you what they will be yet, because they haven’t happened…. I’m hoping mostly to focus on interesting science and such, but anything that inspires me to blather is fair game as far as I’m concerned….

**Come On In, the Methane’s Fine (from Uncertain Principles by Chad Orzel)**

The Times has an article announcing the discovery of methane lakes on Titan:

**CDF’s New Results : W Boson Mass and Top quark Mass (From Quantum Diaries)**

1)

And the W mass is …

2) Asummary Mw-Mt plot for Christmas 2006

3)More thoughts on the W mass

4)A new precise top mass measurement with jets

5)The new number

]]>