Semi-Daily Journal

A quick google search came up with this (via ):

Lipodystrophy
What Is It?

More than just a tongue-twisting word, the term "lipodystrophy" can be broken down to reveal exactly what it means. "Lipo" refers to fat and "dystrophy" refers to abnormal growth or change. Put it all together in plain English, and what you're left with is exactly what's being seen in a number of people living with HIV: abnormal fat changes.

In reality, lipodystrophy refers to a number of different problems. While researchers or health-care providers still have not yet officially defined lipodystrophy, it generally refers to any of the following:

A build up of fat: Some people see an increase in the amount of fat around their gut, and/or on the back of their neck & shoulders (sometimes referred to as a "Buffalo Hump"), and/or in their breasts. The medical term for this is lipohypertrophy (excessive fat growth). The gut fat has been given unscientific nicknames by its earliest sufferers, such as "Crixy Belly", or "Protease Paunch", since it first became prevalent in those taking Crixivan, one of the earliest and most commonly used protease inhibitors.

It is important to note that a build up of fat around the gut and waist isn't always lipodystrophy. Lipodystrophy usually makes the abdomen look bloated or descended and often feels hard. This is because the fat associated with lipodystrophy builds up deep within the body, around internal organs, causing the abdomen to look swollen. If the fat around your gut or waist feels doughy, fleshy, or soft – a good test is to see if you can "pinch an inch" around your waist – it's probably not lipodystrophy but instead typical weight gain that comes with getting older.

A loss of fat: Some people see the fat in their legs, arms, buttocks, or face diminish. This can cause veins to protrude in the arms and legs and sunken cheeks in the face. The medical term for this is lipoatrophy (decrease in fat tissue).
 
High levels of fats in the blood: Some people have an increased amount of fat, or lipids, in their blood. The two types of lipids that increase are triglycerides and cholesterol.
 
High levels of sugar in the blood: Some people have seen the amount of sugar, or glucose, in their blood increase. This may also be associated with an increase in the amount of insulin – a hormone produced by the pancreas to help control glucose levels – in the blood. This can lead to diabetes, a potentially dangerous problem that requires medical attention.

Sigh. EPR does not violate causality in any manner, shape, or form whatsoever. Period. The wavefunction is -not- a field. It is a representation of the state of the system. There is -no- a priori reason why the wavefunction should obey local causality. Your intuition about classical events simply doesn't apply to quantum mechanics. Rinse... Repeat...

Surely the many-worlds interpretation is also guaranteed to lead to insanity, in at least some of the worlds.

Surely the many-worlds interpretation is also guaranteed to lead to insanity, in at least some of the worlds.

The many-worlds interpretation would drive Occam insane.

Changes in fat distribution & metabolism are thought to be related to mitochondrial damage. The drugs act against HIV by interfering with viral DNA assembly; this also interferes with cellular DNA but to a lesser extent. But the mitochondria (bacteria-like organelles that produce energy within cells) manage their own DNA differently and are vulnerable to the drugs. This can indirectly produce a wide variety of side effects including damage to nerves, muscles, the liver and the pancreas, and increases in blood sugar and lactic acid, as well as peculiar behavior of fat cells.

This is *not* just a problem with protease inhibitors - NRTIs (nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors such as AZT and Zerit) were known to have mitochondrial toxicity before PIs, and they have very serious side effects.

http://www.prn.org/prn_nb_cntnt/vol5/num2/brinkman_frm.htm

Lipodystrophy seems to happen faster with PIs, possibly because PIs being non-water-soluble tend to accumulate more in fatty tissues. But the other side effects are so much more life-threatening that I doubt this is the WHO's main rationale.

This all sucks, but AIDS is worse.

Matt is absolutely correct that EPR does not violate causality. But if you read the text to the end you find that is just what Waldmann eventually concludes, although he adopts a strange way of expressing it.

Many worlds interpretations? Puh-leez.

Two words: Bohmian Mechanics.

Two more words: Clifford Algebras.

Put the two together, and it's smooth sailing.

How do Clifford Algebras help? How do you combine them with Bohmian mechanics? What about the need for a preferred frame in formulating the Bohmian laws of motion?

How do Clifford Algebras help? How do you combine them with Bohmian mechanics? What about the need for a preferred frame in formulating the Bohmian laws of motion?

Are Clifford Algebras the cousins of Sigma Algebras? Geez, I thought that stochastic dynamic programming was hard. My roommate's a physics grad student and he has even less of a life than I do. He's also really, really bright.

Thanks Brad. I am here because I could tell Brad linked to me from the spike in my blog's traffic. I was interested in whether it was for my mom's comment or EPR. I see Brad linked to both making this a very odd thread about buffalo humps on voyeristic electrons.

I guess lipodystrophy is chicken legs + buffalo hump. I can't check with the expert because mom is away on vacation.

ok guys tell me (rjw88@hotmail.com) what Bohmian mechanics and Clifford algebras are.

I think my EPR point was that if there are no limits on the preferences of electrons, then there is no way to distinguish quantum mechanics from a locally realistic model in which electrons conspire to convince us that there is no valid locally realistic representation of reality.

I personally think that this is silly. There is a difference between saying that measuring one thing disturbs another thing when you have a reasonable story why this happens. Saying that there is a locally realistic explanation of the EPR results is like saying there is a utility function such that observed behavior is rational.
That is, it is grasping at straws and wasting time.

Warning: don't let the difficulties in applying physics intuition from everyday life onto science influence your valuations of it. The nazis didn't like relativistic physic, which they thought was un-ayrian. Not really a stimulus for their nuke-program...

Consider: most students have a hard time even graping classic newtonian mechanics. Because: its crude basics concerns a frictionless world. We have almost no everyday experience or intuiton from a such.

>>I think my EPR point was that if there are no limits on the preferences of electrons, then there is no way to distinguish quantum mechanics from a locally realistic model in which electrons conspire to convince us that there is no valid locally realistic representation of reality.<<

Say, rather, that EPR teaches us that a "locally realistic" model of electrons requires the transmission--without any energy flow at all!--of information at a speed faster than light (in some reference frames) and/or backward in time (in other reference frames)...

You know Mats I think the case of relativity and the Nazis shows the power of truth (at least of true statements about the laws of physics). The nazis rejected relativity as a jew's theory. Then they changed their mind and had a nuclear energy program (which only made sense given e = mcsquared). I'd say this is not just the strongest existing proof of the power of truth but also the strongest imaginable.

Now on EPR, I don't really doubt that quantum mechanics is basically true. The unimaginable implications of quantum mechanics seem to be logical inconsistencies. However, they are also experimental results. I'd say it is way harder than Newtonian mechanics (or relativity). With time, one can grasp Newtonian mechanics so the way people have trouble with it seems very strange. I don't think that anyone really feels comfortable with wave particle duality, the Copenhagen interpretation, Shroedinger's cat and all that jazz. My impression is that physicists say "you can't think about those questions. They paralise your ability to work"-- Sheldon Glashow (I think).

My blog post was actually a bit pessimistic. I think that the proof that there is no locally realistic theory must reject auxiliary hypotheses along with the hypothesis of interest. No surprise really it is always that way.

By the way, the two posts to which Brad linked are related, because on EPR too I am conceding that my mom (majored in Philosophy) is right.

uh oh my comment submission failed. I am trying again. In one of the alternative universes, I will make multiple submissions. In that universe I apologise.

This is the alternative universe in which Brad's software behaves and I don't.

My claim that the EPR experiment does not refute all locally realistic theories does NOT require information transmission faster than the speed of light. I recall the real experiment as actually performed used photons not electrons. I concede that the measurement that one photon's North-South axis spin is clockwise could not cause the measurement of the other photons NE-SW spin to be clockwise unless information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light (hence not a LOCALLY realistic model).

However, what if setting up the equipment to look at the same or different axises makes the singlet state property hold or not ? The equipment was not set up the instant the measurement occured. If photons (or electrons) spy on the experimenters and not on the eventual measurements themselves, thy do not need to communicate information faster than the speed of light.

The real point is that dead solid proof never exists (not even this time). You always have to rule out stupid explanations (like mine) just because they are stupid not because there aren't dozens of stupid explanations which fit the facts.

Get a few things off my chest.

The desire for "locally realistic theories" is a prejudice based on macroscopic behaviour, that's all. The lack of an uncertainty-free interpretation of quantum mechanics is therefore not a problem with QM, but with our prejudices.

Bell's stuff, and other EPR-inspired theories, has been around for, what, 50 years? The EPR thought-experiment itself has been around for 75 or so. And while there is a steady trickle of papers on the subject, because it is inherently weird, there has been nothing that breaks the Copenhagen interpretation or that has led to anything like a real breakthrough.

So it's time to stop flogging the dead horse. It's weird, yes, but that's OK.