The Lumpy Gravity of the Moon

Bizarre Lunar Orbits

“The Moon is extraordinarily lumpy, gravitationally speaking,” Konopliv continues. “I don’t mean mountains or physical topography. I mean in mass. What appear to be flat seas of lunar lava have huge positive gravitational anomalies—that is, their mass and thus their gravitational fields are significantly stronger than the rest of the lunar crust.” Known as mass concentrations or “mascons,” there are five big ones on the front side of the Moon facing Earth, all in lunar maria (Latin for “seas”) and visible in binoculars from Earth.

moon acceleration anomaly

Blue/violet is reduced acceleration, yellow/red is increased acceleration.

h/t to D H

Lab Tricks

No, not that kind of trick, you pervert*.

I was doing some homemade wiring, and whether it’s power or signal, you generally want to use twisted-pair (or triplet, or quad, etc.). It’s faster than running all of the single-wire, so there’s a labor-saving aspect to it, but there’s a data quality aspect to it as well.

Any time you have a pair of wires that completes a circuit, you have to worry about ground loops and other signal pickup. If the wires are separated, and the magnetic field that runs through them changes, Faraday’s law tells you that you’ll add some current or a potential difference to the loop. The bigger the loop, the more flux you’ll be capturing. If you write this onto the common ground for your experiment, you will be putting this signal onto all of your equipment. And this is not just the earth’s field — everything radiates. A loop is an antenna for picking up 50 or 60 Hz power and also any other frequency equipment you use in the lab. (Early on in my current job, in the dark days before I had a CD-burner, much less an iPod, I tried listening to the radio in the lab. At one point we added an Acousto-optic modulator and started driving it a smidge above 100 MHz, which was almost the same frequency as the local oldies station, and I couldn’t get that station anymore because of the interference). This will get written on to your signal lines, and will get picked up by power lines, which then writes it on to all of that precision equipment you soldered together, and forgot to add bypass capacitors everyplace you needed them) . Chasing down ground loops is a big pain, as is filtering out noise. Twisting the wires means that the net current flow of any power signal is zero, as current input is as close as it can be to the return path, so the far-field radiation — basically anything further away than the diameter of the wire bundle — is nonexistent. If it’s a data line, it doesn’t look like an antenna, except perhaps for extremely high frequencies — the area for magnetic flux is vanishingly small, so it has no opportunity to pick up a signal.

So you want twisted-pair, but the commercial pickings can be slim for the exact wire type you might want to use, and besides, you want to color-code what you’re doing. So here’s the trick: use a drill. Clamp on to the wires with the chuck, pull taught and squeeze the trigger. Wind up to a reasonable pitch and — I cannot emphasize this enough — release the chuck before lessening the linear tension on the wires. You’ve added a lot of “twist” to the wires, and they will untwist. If you release the linear tension first —trust me on this — it will jumble up like a telephone cord. (If you’re under 30 and don’t understand the phrase “telephone cord,” it’s the phone you’ve seen at your grandparents’ house, perhaps in the basement. The phone might even have a round disc on the front, with ten holes in it around the perimeter)

*my conclusion after perusing the somewhat disquieting search-engine stats. Suffice to say that using “animal robo-p*rn” in a title isn’t leading to searches that are attracting science-minded folk to the post.

On the Non-Omnipotence of Blogs

Some more great discussion over at Science after Sunclipse: What Science Blogs Can’t Do

My thesis is that it’s not yet possible to get a science education from reading science blogs, and a major reason for this is because bloggers don’t have the incentive to write the kinds of posts which are necessary. Furthermore, when we think in terms of incentive and motivation, the limitations upon the effects of online science writing become disquietingly clear. The problem, phrased without too much exaggeration, is that science blogs cannot teach science, nor can they change the world.

And one of these reasons is the level at which science blogs are written

Why is introductory material so poorly represented?

Well, what do we science bloggers write about, anyway? This is how I caricature what I see:

0. Fun posts about random non-science stuff — entertaining, humanizing, but not the subject I’m focusing on right now.

1. Reactions to creationists and other pseudo-scientists.

2. Reactions to stories in the mainstream media, often in the “My God, how did they screw up so badly” genre.

3. Reports on peer-reviewed research.

Pretty much spot-on. That’s what I tend to blog about — entertaining crap, science-y or not, take-downs of bad science and science reporting, and “real” science, whether these are posts of my own making or it’s me acting as curator to direct a reader elsewhere. But all of the science-y stuff assumes a background, at some level, in physics, without which you probably can’t appreciate what’s going on.

Blogs aren’t the only source of information, of course, but something that’s closely related, discussion forums, suffer a similar scarcity of this information, but it’s not a completely bare cupboard. The host of this blog is a science discussion forum, scienceforums.net (SFN), and there’s been a push for some discussions of basic topics, from the ground up, but I think paucity of these posts suffers from the same basic problems that Blake discusses. So yeah, I might be able to point out and perhaps explain some really neat things about physics, but it’s not going to make much sense unless you already know a little bit about the subject; you’re probably not going to learn F=ma here, and it’s questionable I could make that level of material accessible and sexy enough in this format.

Update: I’ve made another post on the topic

The Other Kind of Seven-Year Itch

THE ITCH by Atul Gawande from the New Yorker

Fascinating article, albeit with occasionally disturbing imagery, on itching and phantom pain.

Now various phenomena became clear. Itch, it turns out, is indeed inseparable from the desire to scratch. It can be triggered chemically (by the saliva injected when a mosquito bites, say) or mechanically (from the mosquito’s legs, even before it bites). The itch-scratch reflex activates higher levels of your brain than the spinal-cord-level reflex that makes you pull your hand away from a flame. Brain scans also show that scratching diminishes activity in brain areas associated with unpleasant sensations.
But some basic features of itch remained unexplained—features that make itch a uniquely revealing case study. On the one hand, our bodies are studded with receptors for itch, as they are with receptors for touch, pain, and other sensations; this provides an alarm system for harm and allows us to safely navigate the world. But why does a feather brushed across the skin sometimes itch and at other times tickle? (Tickling has a social component: you can make yourself itch, but only another person can tickle you.) And, even more puzzling, how is it that you can make yourself itchy just by thinking about it?

Photochrome


Photochrome
You give us those nice bright colors
You give us the greens of chemistry
Makes you think all the world’s a funky lab, oh yeah!

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

Zap the molecule with UV and it turns green. This is due (as I understand it) to the molecule changing to another state (isomer) — and not simply fluorescence — where it then has a different absorption spectrum, so in this example it looks green. When you remove the UV, it reverts to the original state and becomes clear again, and it’s doing this quite rapidly.

Gooooooaaaaaaaaaal!

via kottke

In celebration of Euro 2008, public prankster and more-than-fair soccer striker Rémi Gaillard made the following video of himself using the urban landscape as a soccer pitch. Gaillard scores goals into police vans, trash cans, open windows, etc. to the annoyance of his oblivious goalies.

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

I love the one where his first shot triggers the motion sensor and he “scores” on a rebound . . . at the police station.

It's a Quarter Past 'Dragon Eats the Sun'

Narrowing down some historical dates with astronomy

Look to the ancient skies…

Marcelo Magnasco and Constantino Baikouzis identified four astronomical events in the epic poem [The Odyssey] and calculated dates within 100 years of the fall of Troy that would fit in with the events described around Odysseus’s return home and the ensuing slaughter of men propositioning his wife. April 16, 1178 BCE was what they came up with

I hope that the language tutors prepositioning his wife were spared, but Homer was silent about that. Anyway, there’s also a correction to the dates for Caesar’s invasion of England, based on the tides.

And last week, Matt explained more over at Built on Facts

On June 15, 763 BC a total eclipse appeared in Assyria. Mentioned both in Assyrian records and (possibly) the Biblical book of Amos, it’s the oldest specific date of which I’m aware in ancient near eastern history. More spectacularly but later, an eclipse on May 28, 585 BC ended a battle between the Medes and the Lydians by terrifying the combatants into an immediate peace agreement. If you don’t count an eclipse by itself as being a historical event, I believe this is the single oldest event which can be pinned to a specific date.

Ghostly Visages

No, not of an alien at the window.

Here’s a little movie showing atoms being trapped and mistreated. What you’re seeing is a video of the monitor that’s hooked up to a little IR camera on the vacuum chamber. The really bright spot that’s squirming around a little are the atoms, or technically, the fluorescence from the atoms. There are probably more than a Sagan of them (i.e. biilliyuns) at about a milliKelvin or so in temperature (which is considered warm!) because it hasn’t been fine-tuned yet. The bluish circle is reflected light off of a flange, and there’s some other scattered light visible.

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

About 10 seconds in, the trap’s magnetic field is turned off, and the atoms squirt off to the side. A second or two later the field is turned on again, and the trap fills up. If the lasers were properly aligned and balanced, and the earth’s magnetic field were either shielded or zeroed out with trim coils, then what you would see is a nice uniform expansion into a much colder (microKelvin-ish) optical molasses, but the earth’s field is still present here, so that gives rise to an imbalanced residual force which is small compared to the trapping force, so you only really notice it when the trapping field is turned off. The molasses impedes the motion of the atoms, but doesn’t technically trap them, i.e. it doesn’t define a point where the atoms should be, so when only the lasers are there, the atoms would normally just drift through, very slowly. But here they’re being shoved a little bit.

The accelerations involved here are large — these atoms can scatter a million photons a second, give or take, depending on the exact laser frequency, so even though an individual scatter changes the atom’s speed by about 6 mm/sec, when you scatter them that rapidly you can get accelerations of hundreds of g’s. But in the situation here, where the atoms are almost at rest, that’s balanced by an equally large acceleration from an opposing laser.