Dragon Food

Eclipse webcast live 10:30 – 11:30 UT 8/1/2008

On August 1, 2008, a total solar eclipse will occur as the new moon moves directly between the sun and the earth. The moon’s umbral shadow will fall on parts of Canada, Greenland, the Arctic Ocean, Russia, Mongolia, and China. The Exploratorium’s eclipse expedition team (our fifth!) will Webcast the eclipse live from the remote Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region in northwestern China near the Mongolian border

Sorry for the late notice. Someday, technology will allow us to predict these more than a day in advance.

Is it Like Getting a "D" in Physics?

Finishing last in the Tour-de-France isn’t easy.

Mr. Vansevenant, who after Stage 18 sits in 150th place, some 3 hours and 45 minutes behind Mr. Sastre, is indeed the worst-placed rider in the Tour de France. But, in turn, he has outlasted those who abandoned the Tour through illness, injury or simple exhaustion; those who were eliminated for failing to finish within each day’s time limit and are forced to withdraw; and those who were banned or withdrew for doping-related causes. From year to year, about 20% of the riders drop out. In other words, you can’t simply coast to last place; you have to work for it.

Science is Inductive: Film at 11

Dealing with Uncertainty at Backreaction, in the context of “science is never 100% certain” and how this plays out with public perception.

There are times when this seems to be a no-win scenario: if you fail to address the uncertainty and have to make any changes to your conclusions, you lose credibility, but if you point out the uncertainty, someone will run with it, exaggerating it. One need go no further than discussions of global warming to see this in action.

One of my least favorite phrases in this area of discussion is “for all we know.” Statements that sound like “For all we know, the phenomenon could be caused by blargh” should be taken with a huge grain of salt, because one of the things science does is to widen the scope of what “all we know” entails, and correspondingly narrow the possible undiscovered explanations for the phenomenon. We rule things out, and attempt to do so in a quantifiable way — we limit the uncertainty. If you are doing an experiment and see something unusual in your data, you start systematically testing to see what could possibly be causing it. So if someone were to claim, “For all we know, that glitch is caused by a spurious magnetic field,” you can respond with “No, we tested the effect of a magnetic field, and eliminated that as a cause.” You do this all the time in setting up an experiment, and you continue to do it when running the experiment — doing everything you can to confirm that the correlation you see is actually causal. But I don’t think that this gets portrayed very well. There’s always someone out there trying to leverage science not being 100% certain, and instead portray uncertainty as being 0% certain, which is far from the truth.

Bee notes that

As I have previously said (eg in my post Fact or Fiction?) uncertainties are part of science. Especially if reports are about very recent research, uncertainties can be high.

And I recall that Feynman touches on this in Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!. Someone drew a conclusion based on the last data point in some experiment, and he realized that the last data point isn’t so trustworthy — if you weren’t pushing the limit of the apparatus, you’d have obtained more data, so this is certainly a valid point. And here one starts fighting the tendencies of the media, because if the result isn’t novel, it isn’t newsworthy. What ends up happening is that that the least reliable results, the ones most likely to be mistaken, are often the ones making the headlines. The study that challenges a long line of other research (which, being “as expected,” was ignored) gets notice, even though one expects, statistically, the occasional contradictory study. Such is the essence of random noise. This is made worse by the journalistic desire to show both sides of a story, even if there really aren’t two sides, as they have massively different amount of evidentiary support. This, too, misleads the general public about what is know, what is unknown and what level of confidence exists in science.

King of the Local Maximum

Our command picnic was Wednesday, and our volleyball team whipped the young whippersnapper summer interns to win the crown (something like 15-5 and 15-5, with traditional scoring). We had three of four people from the research group and one of the guys from the instrument shop to replace our missing player, and picked up a free-agent (and it turned out she was a ringer).

We won the tournament three years ago, carried by one very good player making up for the rest of us, following the strategy of just getting the ball over the net and letting the other team make the mistakes, and at this level of play, that was a pretty good strategy. That time we were aided by a quirk of the schedule that gave us a bye and our finals opponents (seabees) had to play three matches in a row. (we kept muttering “water’s for wimps!” in the short interlude before the final match, and kept reminding them that we were just a bunch of geeks) (We didn’t enter a team the last two years — our good player was injured and then absent, so we opted out)

This time the aid was having several good potential opposing players on vacation or opting for disc golf, and our free-agent addition having a nasty overhand serve that’s just too much for some of the players at the picnic level of play. There was some mumbling from one or two of our opponents about being on sand affecting their play. Sadly, my game is not noticeably impacted by the surface; I think I contributed more to scoring than to losing points. We showed that youth and enthusiasm is no match for age and treachery. Ha!

Blame it on Eddy

“Eddies,” said Ford, “in the space-time continuum.”
“Ah,” nodded Arthur, “is he. Is he.”

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

Everyday Electromagnetism

This time, though, Eddies in the penny. And he enforces Lenz’s law.

You can see a similar effect if you drop a magnet down a copper pipe, because the eddy currents will flow, and the induced field is such that it opposes the acceleration, so you get braking.

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

If you want to be more practical, instead of moving the magnet you could move the copper around, cyclically, and tap into the current that would flow. Just a thought.

Music Confessional

Several weeks back, I was lamenting bad advertising music. There seem to be lots of companies who have the ad-music decisions being made by a 45-55 year-old who chooses a favorite tune from their youth but didn’t have great taste in music, (or a 20-something staffer who can Google on what was high on the charts when the ad exec was in his or her 20s.) A recent incarnation was the Honda ad to the tune of ELO’s “Hold on Tight.” Contrast that with Apple ads often using something very recent (“Shut Up and Let Me Go” by The Ting Tings was running at that time)

I don’t think they quite understand the backlash of choosing the wrong tune. Is your automobile target audience really that old? To me, it’s one of those songs that I liked back in the day, but that was partly because if you hear something over ad over again, you begin to like it, or at least tolerate it. But 25+ years later, I’m content to hear it every couple of months, but if I’m bombarded with it all over again I’m really going to start to loathe it, and whatever product is being associated with it.

That discussion morphed from songs you only need to hear every so often, to songs you never need to hear again, which provoked the response, “Muskrat Love” by the Captain and Tennille. So I got to thinking, what bad songs do I listen to that I would be reluctant to admit to having on a playlist on my iPod or computer?

Lo and behold, I find myself beaten to the punch. And I find it funny that the first two songs on Janet’s list are two to which I listen, and were not available on iTunes for some time — I kept checking for them, and they are on my workout rotation.

The trashiest (IMO) stuff on my five-star playlist is the bubble-gum-type music from the 60s.
“Little Bit of Soul” by Music Explosion
“Jelly Jungle (of Orange Marmalade)” by the Lemon Pipers
“Dizzy” and “Sweet Pea” by Tommy Roe
“I Saw Linda Yesterday” Dickey Lee

All get significant playing time.


“Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha – THRUST!”

Jennifer whips out her $1.25 quarter-staff pen and writes tit for tat, an excellent twist to the physical theories as women

Electrodynamics is your first real boyfriend, and all your friends swear he’s quite the catch: well-educated, ambitious, clean-cut, amusing, great chemistry, plus you love his mom. Alas, he is Mr. Traditional Family Values, and you are still going through your experimental “finding yourself” phase — frankly, you’re just not ready to settle down. Sure, opposites attract and make the sparks fly, but there has to be some complementary areas, too. You think he cares too much about what other people think. Your electro-shock blue Mohawk and multiple body piercings pretty much take you out of the running for Long-Term Potential, given his conservatism and career ambitions. When your differences become too great, you chalk it up to life lessons learned and move on to greener pastures.

I suspected that Thermodynamics is the guy you’re never really into, that helps you move into a new apartment/dorm, even while you’re dating Electrodynamics or Special Relativity, but by the time Quantum comes along, he realizes it’s hopeless. In later years, he becomes statistical mechanics, and you confirm you were right to have never gotten seriously involved.

More Intellectualism

Some good followup to the whole why-are-math-and-science-such-small-portions-on-the-plate-of-intellectualism and all of the tangents (too math-y? juxtaposed topics, perhaps?)

Fear and loathing in the academy and Assorted hypotheses on the science-humanities divide at Adventures in Ethics and Science. A lot to chew on (or gum, if you are so inclined)

The best reason to learn something is that learning it is a fun thing to do with your brain. Learning math and science can make your brain just as happy as learning humanities and arts, so who wouldn’t want to be an intellectual omnivore?