I think to non-scientists, or at least people who don't work with log scales, the use of linear scales makes the graph easier to understand. While I wouldn't expect to see this in Nature, this article reads like it is intended for a general audience.
Easier to misunderstand, yes. If the motivation is to simplify, they should plot 2 graphs, with a second graph being log plot or a zoom on the low scale part to show its not linear
A linear scale for that graph is completely appropriate: it’s showing how one data series has flattened out and the other continues to grow at an increasing rate. I would also argue that since one of those data series is clearly not exponential (it’s more of a sideways S-shape) it would be harder to interpret what that series actually looked like on a log scale.
If you choose to plot things on a logarithmic scale, you open a whole can of worms with expecting your target audience to be educated numerically and understand the implications of a line on a log-scale (which looks far less dire than an exponential on a linear scale).
Because you need to get the attention of (1) the man in the street, and (2) politicians. And if the politicians aren't taking notice, they will get a quick wake-up call from their electorate.
Australian news outlet uses a log plot. It certainly has a benefit, as you can clearly compare different countries. Is your growth rate more like Italy's, or more like Japan's? We, in Australia, certainly need to do better.
If you understand exponentials log plots are the way to go. But most people need a lesson in what they mean before nature gives them a catastrophic one.
However:
`Germany’s Health Ministry confirmed a report in newspaper Welt am Sonntag, which said President Donald Trump had offered funds to lure the company CureVac to the United States.
Contacted by Reuters, a spokeswoman for the German Health Ministry said: “We confirm the report in the Welt am Sonntag.”`
That is a different thing then what was alleged in this article (that the Americans were trying to produce a vaccine only for the US).
By the way, the trick with anonymous sources is to always see who is actually quoted in the article, and assume that the anonymous source is what the real source wants to say, but doesn't obviously want to say it. In this case:
Karl Lauterbach, a professor of health economics and epidemiology who is also a senior lawmaker with the Social Democrats, junior partners in Chancellor Angela Merkel’s coalition, tweeted in reaction to the Welt am Sonntag report:
“The exclusive sale of a possible vaccine to the USA must be prevented by all means. Capitalism has limits.”
The article says: `Welt am Sonntag quoted an unidentified German government source as saying Trump was trying to secure the scientists’ work exclusively, and would do anything to get a vaccine for the United States, “but only for the United States.”`
as well as `Contacted by Reuters, a spokeswoman for the German Health Ministry said: “We confirm the report in the Welt am Sonntag.”`
So the question is: What does `only for the United States` mean exactly?
You mean the report by "Welt am Sonntag"? They say `Der Grund: US-Präsident Donald Trump versucht offenbar [...] das Medikament exklusiv für sein Land zu sichern. Das erfuhr WELT AM SONNTAG aus deutschen Regierungskreisen.`
Translated: US president Donald Trump tried to safeguard the medication exclusively for his country. WELT AM SONNTAG got this information from government sources.
As someone who was born and raised in America, the idea of a making a vaccine exclusive to the U.S. is morally repugnant, disgusting and outrageous. I hope that this doesn't come to be in this way. Any vaccine developed for COVID-19 should be free and shared with everyone regardless of income or geographical location. That is the only sane and compassionate thing to do. I hope more details emerge about this.
The Guardian (British): "This is the case for Moderna and another Boston company, CureVac, both of which are building Covid-19 vaccines out of messenger RNA."
So now it's a Boston company? According to Wikipedia the one in Boston is just a subsidiary.
The only thing which makes me not switch from VSCode to Vim is the debugger (specifically Node.js). I haven't found anything in Vim to make debugging pleasent. I hope there will be an easy to use Debug Adapter Protocol frontend impementation for Vim.
But isn't that exactly what was done, e.g. in supersymmetry? The Standard Model could not explain dark matter etc., so physicists tried to come up with a new theory potentially explaining it. Yes it's based on math, on beautiful math, but isn't it always the case in physics? How did Newton create his laws? By using math. How did Einstein create his theories? By using math. It's math, math, math. So create your math theories, explain nature and then use Occam's razor to find the simplest. Maybe I'm just getting this all wrong but I don't get her point.
Not really. Supersymmetry doesn't provide a theoretical explanation for any physical observations we can't explain with current models. Instead, it arises from a desire to... "beautify" the math of the Standard Model. (My first instinct is to write "simplify", but I'm not sure it's an actual simplification.
One of the things that Sabine has pointed out with respect to supersymmetry is that, for the last two particle accelerators, physicists have been arguing that they'll be able to find the supersymmetric particles to expand the model. And when they've failed to find any evidence for such particles, they've twice said "okay, it's not fatal to our theory, but we'll find them in the next one for sure." Every potentially predictive phenomenon arising from supersymmetry has failed to be found, and the response has been to merely twist the knobs so that these phenomena will happen just out of reach of current technology.
The real risk here is that we are so wedded to particular ideas that we refuse to give up on them, even when they have given us absolutely nothing in terms of extra (validated) predictive value, no matter how much we try to squeeze it out of them.
Quantum mechanics is an example. We know how to use QM. It is an amazing theory. But physicists aren't probing QM anymore. Well most aren't. It does such a good job spitting out answers, we don't ask why. There is a lot to be explored there but academia tells people to avoid it. They say don't look at the man behind the curtain. QM is equations that gives good answers but we don't really know why.
Something Deeply Hidden is a good book on the subject(as a non physicist).
Of course I am just a layman who likes to read books about these subjects but I honestly don't know shit. Just what I read.
Physicists are probing the heck out of every theory. However, QM has proven to be _extremely_ reliable, even some 'Gedankenexperimente' by Einstein trying to make it look wrong turned out to be true ('geisterhafte Spukwirkung').
>> There is a lot to be explored there but academia tells people to avoid it.
I don't think so. I mean just look at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) which probes fundamental forces which are... guess what... based on quantum field theory which itself is based on quantum mechanics.
By probing, I mean looking beyond predictions, the underlying nature of it. The equations of QM give us great results but it is very much an oracle type situation. We ask a question and we get a good answer. But why? Theoretical physicists are told not to look behind the equations and figure more out. Why is it this way?
Let me be frank I am getting way outside my true understanding and parotting what I have read. But if QM the way it is because it fits the many worlds theory? Are we missing another piece to explain it? If you take the simplest version of QM that can solve the problems, you are stuck with many worlds.
These are important areas that colliders aren't going to answer but physicists push new physicists to avoid.
There are other theories but require dressing up the base QM math to eliminate many worlds.
I'm sure physicists already put a lot of effort in trying to derive Schrödinger's equation, the basis of QM, out of a simpler theory. It's not easy and would for sure deserve a nobel price. There is no consortium hindering anyone from persuing this.
I received hundred of downvotes just asking questions here (like "Why we have right hand rule for current? What must be changed in properties of Nature to make it left hand rule?").
It's sad that I need to use throwaway accounts to talk about physics.
Try not to be discouraged, it's okay to talk about physics. But try to use the right language for it - mathematics. In online forums, physical ideas or questions are often described in words, which is subject to so much imagination that it can be considered philosophy, but not physics. It's almost pointless to talk without mathematical support. Words are words and have no special meaning. In the example above: A better question would be: Why is classical electrodynamics described by Maxwell's equations? Is there a more fundamental theory behind it? Reason: The 'right-hand rule' is not a rule, not a theorem. It can be derived.
So what need to be changed in properties of Nature to switch EM with Right Hand Rule into EM with Left Hand Rule? Can you explain this using a formula?
Where we can expect to see EM with LHR? Can we see it in our Laniakea? Or at opposite side of Shapley Attractor - Dipole Repeller? Or at perpendicular one? Do we have void between RHR and LHR? Can we cross it?
What is nature of EM? Is it because of nonlinear trajectory of motion of our galaxy from Dipole Repeller to Shapley Attractor? Or it because of non-linear motion of our galaxy within Laniakea? Or something else?
