Circuit fault diagnosis

Our electronic circuit (and component) models (be they in the form of equivalent circuits, characteristic curves, etc.) are models of how correct circuits operate when assembled out of "on spec." component parts.  These models do not, in general, tell us much of what faulty components will do or how incorrectly wired circuits will behave.  Some simple fault models can be added to our circuit models ( see, for example, Simply Logical, by Peter Flach, Wiley and Sons, 1994, pgs 163-166 and Digital Systems, 5 th edition, R. J. Tocci, Prentice-Hall, 1991, pgs 130-139) But we typically can't anticipate all possible fault mechanisms.

Dualism

I do not agree with mind-body dualism.  Today the consensus view is that thought and mind is a combination of processes like memory, generalization, deduction, organization, induction, classification, feature detection, analogy, etc. performed by computational machinery.  But I believe that quantum mechanics is a plausible dualist theory of reality (R. Jones, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., vol. 56, No. 1, March 2011).  Alternatively, if other spaces exist (see my 1 Nov. 2012 blog), dualism might exist as forces (like gravity?) acting ("leaking") between two (or more) different spaces (universes).

Emergent phenomena again

"...we now know that the most interesting properties of cells are 'emergent' properties, resulting from elaborate networks of interactions between many different molecules..."  Bruce Alberts, Science, vol. 337, 28 Sept. 2012, pg 1583. (see my paper in the Kansas Science Teacher, vol. 10, pg 11, 1994)

Science Fairs or STEM Fairs

Perhaps we need "STEM Fairs."  When looking over "science" projects I look for measurements (and theories, and hypotheses, etc.).  But engineering projects are more about building things (things which perform particular tasks). Similarly "computer science" projects may be programs that perform various useful functions.  The judging criteria need to be expanded if "science" fairs are to include engineering, math, and technology as well as science.

Scientific pluralism and consistent quantum theory

P. C. Hohenberg says (Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 82, pg 2835, 2010) that "consistent quantum theory...is...based on...the simultaneous existence of multiple incompatible representations of reality...no single framework suffices to fully characterize a quantum system." "...there is not a unique exhaustive description of a physical system or process."  I advocate the same description for non quantum systems, "scientific pluralism." (see R. Jones, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., vol. 54, #1, March 17, 2009 and my blogs of Sept. 8, 2011 and Sept. 26, 2010)

Hohenberg goes on to state a "single-framework rule" that "Any prediction of the theory must be confined to a single framework and combining elements from different frameworks leads to quantum mechanically meaningless statements."  I would not say that of scientific pluralism in general since we might well sum over a whole set of models in order to obtain a prediction. (see the Bayesian argument in my blog of   Aug. 17, 2012) But perhaps Hohenberg is saying much the same thing when he says that "different frameworks capture different real aspects of a quantum system and a full description of that system requires the set of all frameworks."

A nervous system for mobile robots (embodied AI)

 

The NXT platform has a rather limited number of inputs and outputs but we have extended these somewhat by using multiple NXT bricks as well as input and output multiplexers. (not shown)

The NXT hardware can be assembled and modified in much the same way that we assemble and modify system software. A good reference is: From Bricks to Brains, M. Dawson, et al, AU Press, 2010 (also available free electronically on line). My software is, of course, built around Asa H 2.0

A new quantum theory?

After hearing John Ralston's talk at the Nov. 8-10, 2012 APS meeting, "Quantum mechanics without Planck's constant" I read his paper of the same name, arXiv:1203.5557. After hearing the talk my first question was, Is this correct?  My second question was, Is this just a change of variables, a kind of principal component analysis? (dimensional analysis?)
Even if no new physics comes from Ralston's reworking of quantum theory there might be important changes to our ontology (see my Feb. 26, 2012 blog).