How Do You Solve a Problem Like Two Marias?

If you work in a big enough place, or even a small one for long enough, you’ll eventually run into the problem of two or more workers with the same first name. What do you do to bring the Pauli exclusion principle into play — a way to distinguish them so they don’t occupy the same state? Assuming, of course, you aren’t Australian philosophers, in which case “Bruce” works for everyone.

I’ve seen a case within a fairly small group that had four guys with the same first name. That was solved because, like many names, you can use versions of them, e.g. John vs Johnny, one of the guys was often called by his last name, and for the last one we used his initials (though I’m told people in the same/adjacent offices just called him “Mike”). And obviously nicknames are an option. In one dorm, back when I was in school, there was Big G and Little G. The Kids in the Hall had Cathy with a C and Kathy with a K. I once heard a colleague refer to the newest addition as “New Carla,” but is one brave enough to call the other one “Old Carla?” (What if Carla isn’t old? What if she is?). Ownership is another option — same name but different divisions has led to conversations such as, “Brent said he needed it. No, not our Brent, their Brent.”

Any other inventive ways of delineating office identities?

Dogma as Far as the Eye Can See

Greg Laden on the Pioneer Anomaly

I’ll be interested to see a more detailed analysis. I can easily imagine how nonuniform heat flow and different emissivities could lead to asymmetric radiation patterns, and that would cause a small force on the craft.

[N]owhere in this story do you hear people denigrating, belittling, or even expelling scientists who are suggesting that a change in the dogma may be afoot. Einstein’s gravitational theory is dogma in physics, and physicists are always questioning it. Darwinian evolution is dogma in biology and biologists are always questioning it. This crap about how we expel people who don’t blindly accept the dogma is, well, crap.

OK, so there really isn’t any dogma, I was just kidding. Though I’d have put “dogma” in quotes, and say something like “Einstein’s gravitational theory is “dogma” in physics, and yet physicists are always questioning it.” and similar for the sentence that follows. All that it takes to see that science isn’t dogma is to open your eyes and look at the data and evidence.

But we are high priests of science. That much I know.

Popespotting

The Pope did his tour through town today, right past work (which he had to, since he’s staying across the street) so I joined the other poperazzi to get a look and a picture or two. Right as the motorcade swings into view, crazylady in front of me unfurls a big flag and starts waving it, intermittently blocking my view (That’s her arm on the left; I’ve cropped the flag out) so I didn’t see him at perigee.

pope.jpg

That’s freshly-paved road, there (local road improvements correlate strongly with important visits and presidential funerals). Traffic is partially blocked on Mass Ave, affecting things, and prospects are even better for tomorrow, since the three presidential candidates are supposed to meet with the British Prime Minister at the British embassy, which is also our neighbor. (our version of “Who are the people in your neighborhood” is longer on ambassadors and attachés than bakers and teachers)

Looking for Math in all the Wrong Places

I ran a cross some comments over at A Quantum Diaries Survivor, in a book review, that raised my eyebrows (note that I haven’t read the book being reviewed and I’m not specifically commenting on the author in question):

However, after a first quick look, I was left wondering about the soundness of my pre-judgement. For one thing, the book contained no formulas at all. I mean none, not even a few. This did not quite fit the crackpot idea I had put together.

Which runs counter to my experience on science discussion-boards (SFN and others). Many crackpots, in my experience, want nothing to do with math. They run away as fast as they can from any suggestion that they quantify things. The ones that do show math, generally, either can’t do it, and fall prey to the simple mistakes that you find in 1+1=1 “proofs,” or their work is a mishmash of numerology.

Space is Full of Crap

Space is Full of Crap. Literally.

The European Space Agency has just released images showing all the satellites and human-made debris now orbiting space as a result of 51 years of launching stuff since Sputnik. That’s about 6,000 satellites up there—of which only 800 remain operational—plus thousands of other objects from launches and accidents. According to their mindblowing simulations things are getting a lot worse:

About 50 percent of all trackable objects are due to in-orbit explosion events (about 200) or collision events (less than 10).