Episode 51: Tabled Tops with Noah Zimmerman

Mr. Noah Zimmerman joins us to talk about nuclear

this is a visual metaphor for how Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Works... apparently.

this is a visual metaphor for how Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Works… apparently.

magnetic resonance. you know MRIs? “Magnetic resonance Imaging” is what it stands for, “Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging” is what it actually stands for. Essentially, magnets are used to make the nuclei in your atoms stand up and dance.

This is actually one of my favourite episodes to date! We actually manage to explain how NMR works!!

THIS IS SO MUCH FUN!

Physicists: Abby Shockley, Fiona Burnell

Intro Music: Ted Leo and the Pharmacists 

Exit Music: John Vanderslice 

Transcript: Ep_51_Tabled_Tops

p.s.

Me and Ryan Haupt and Kelly Weinersmith are gonna make a live podcast at the nerd nite block party. In San Fransisco , october 24. 

630 PM, Piston & Chain, 1285 Folsom St (at 9th St.)

 

click the following link to read the transcription of this episode: Episode51

3 thoughts on “Episode 51: Tabled Tops with Noah Zimmerman

  1. Great episode! One thing that bothered me though. It has been roundly proven that gyroscopic forces do not contribute in a meaningful way to bicycle balance.
    Richard E. Klein, Ph. D. has spent decades researching the physics behind bikes and has built working “zero gyroscopic” bikes.
    http://www.rainbowtrainers.com/?page_id=7

  2. Thanks for the show. I am glad you are having fun making the podcast. It was fun listening. I knew what NMR was, but had never gotten why the strong magnetic field was useful until I listened to the podcast. Have a good day.

  3. Thanks for another great episode.

    Anyway, here’s an idea: I’ve been reading a bit about alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics and it seems that the De Broglie–Bohm theory (“pilot-wave theory”) seems to be a possibly valid and deterministic alternative to the orthodox view. Among else, I have read this piece on it:
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/quant-ph/0412119v2.pdf
    Of course, as a philosopher who has only basic knowledge of quantum mechanics and physics in general, I’m almost certain (heh) I did not really understand most of the arguments in this article. I’d love to hear a discussion on this topic or on different interpretations of quantum mechanics and their merits.
    Cheers!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *