Monthly Archives: August 2008

The Future Has Arrived

Posted on by

News from Uncertain Principles. Futurebaby is now in the past tense, and is now Steelykid.

Belated congratulations to Chad and Kate, the proud parents. I’m expecting big things for my Silver Warriors (I’m class of 1980), from whatever sports teams she’s on in 15 years.

(Of course this loses meaning if it was a c-section, but what the heck)

If anybody needs a dose of cute, there are baby pics

Meet SteelyKid, Babies Are Bosons, FutureBaby Betting Pool Winner

(I was visiting family this past week, and all of my small cousins were pretty much terrified of me. I was crushed. No turning kids upside-down or tickling, or if things are going well, both at once. And certainly no splunks — our term for blowing a raspberry on the belly.)

Chuckles From Above

Posted on by

Catching up with my blog reading. Via Physics and Physicists, an ArXiv paper by L. B. Okun, The Einstein Formula: E0=mc^2 “Isn’t the Lord Laughing?” detailing some history of “relativistic mass” and the confusion surrounding the term.

The article traces the way Einstein formulated the relation between energy and mass in his work from 1905 to 1955. Einstein emphasized quite often that the mass m of a body is equivalent to its rest energy E0. At the same time he frequently resorted to the less clear-cut statement of equivalence of energy and mass. As a result, Einstein’s formula E0 = mc2 still remains much less known than its popular form, E = mc2, in which E is the total energy equal to the sum of the rest energy and the kinetic energy of a freely moving body. One of the consequences of this is the widespread fallacy that the mass of a body increases when its velocity increases and even that this is an experimental fact.

[…]

Why is it that the weed of velocity-dependent mass is so resistant? First and foremost, because it does not lead to immediate mistakes as far as arithmetic or algebra are concerned. One can introduce additional ‘quasi-physical variables’ into any selfconsistent theory by multiplying true physical quantities by arbitrary powers of the speed of light. The most striking example of such a ‘quasi-quantity’ is the so-called ‘relativistic mass.’ If calculations are done carefully enough, their results should be the same as in the original theory. In a higher sense, however, after the introduction of such ‘quasi-quantities,’ the theory is mutilated because its symmetry properties are violated. (For example, the relativistic mass is only one component of a 4-vector, while the other three components are not even mentioned.)

That's Gonna Leave a Mark

Posted on by

I was once asked, by someone outside of academia, about academic (dis)honesty, and concurred that accusing a researcher of this kind of misconduct is about as serious as you can get. Using data or results without attribution (plagiarism) or worse, outright fabrication of data, are things the scientific community should not (and generally does not) tolerate. Part of the feedback loop keeping things on the straight-and-narrow should be vested self-interest. I can’t imagine researchers wanting to collaborate with one who has plagiarized, and it’s more difficult to do research alone. One who fabricates data is almost certain to be found out, unless it’s in an area of research so obscure that there is no follow-up. (But then that means the research has little value — it’s like counterfeiting a dollar-bill. Why bother?)

I’ve never observed any of this, though I’ve been around long enough to see the type of worker who likes to take credit for others’ work in endeavors outside of research. Fortunately, these cases are peripheral to my own career — I’ve mostly worked with people who were quite insistent on making sure that the credit for work was properly attributed. That’s something that boosts your own credibility, of course, because your audience will believe you when you give an account of your own contribution to the work.

There’s now a study that followed up on some cases on scientific misconduct, and an article summarizing it. Does fraud mean career death?

“People who were found guilty of plagiarism [as opposed to expressly fabricating or falsifying data] get less severe of a punishment, so they were more likely to continue to publish,” Redman noted. Ten of the 28 scientists whose employment information they were able to trace continued to hold academic appointments after the ORI ruling. Originally, 23 out of those 28 had worked in academia.

However, Merz and Redman’s data, as well as interviews they conducted with the seven researchers who agreed to speak with them, indicate that recovering from the misconduct ruling was extremely difficult. Unsurprisingly, the group’s average publication rate was significantly lower after the ruling, dropping from 2.1 to 1.0 publications per year. Twelve of the scientists ceased to publish completely. In interviews with Merz and Redman, researchers described extensive personal and financial hardships due to the ruling.

The Other Manhole Cover

Posted on by

Drilling Square Holes at Linearly Independent. All about the Reuleaux triangle and rotations thereof.

[I]t has the same maximum width regardless of how it is rotated. this property was thought to be only possessed by circles once and yet here’s a simple and apt counter example.

Constant width shapes can make great manhole covers, as no orientation of the cover will let it fall through the manhole. A few years ago Microsoft interviewers asked job applicants why manhole covers were round and this was thought to be one of the best answers.
Another more important property of constant width shapes is that they can rotate inside parallel lines.

Let Me In

Posted on by

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

If you stress glass in that way, it does tend to make it more susceptible to breaking.

Your Horoscope

Posted on by

ARES — Perseverance is your word today. You will not become frustrated at your continued inability to separate quarks from each other.

TAURUS — You will suspect that the force pushing you away from the center of a circle is in fact a figment of your imagination, and would not be there if you were to analyze your motion in an inertial reference frame.

GEMINI — Don’t let your curiosity get the better of you. Checking which path the particles are taking will destroy the interference pattern of that double-slit experiment, and you will be found out.

CANCER — The positions of the stars and planets will have no effect on your daily existence.

LEO — All around you, elementary particles and antiparticles will pop into existence and then wink out, but you will remain calm and blissfully unaware of them.

VIRGO — Weigh your choices carefully: your decision to flap your arms or not will affect the weather far away. Breaking that high-level encryption will be easier once you finish that quantum computer you’ve been working on.

LIBRA — Despite your best efforts, you will increase entropy when converting thermal energy to mechanical work. You will strive to conserve energy, and succeed.

SCORPIO — You are a cold-blooded mass-murderer and “Dirty Harry” Callahan will make sure you get what’s coming to you. The number “five” figures prominently in your day.

SAGITTARIUS — You will be unable to simultaneously determine the position and momentum of any objects today, nor place two fermions in the same quantum state. Not a good time to start a new relationship with another spin 1/2 particle.

CAPRICORN — Ennui sets in: you continue to be affected by the same physics, unchanged, no matter which inertial reference frame you find yourself in.

AQUARIUS — Despite your best attempt to be in two places at once, quantum superposition eludes your grasp, partly because the creep in accounting keeps trying to “measure” you.

PISCES — You notice that your buoyancy is equal to the weight of water that you displace. Resist the urge to announce this fact overzealously.