Socks are Fermions

I have come to the conclusion that socks are fermions, and that this explains much of the behavior of disappearing socks. (There may be other factors at play, of course) Clearly they are not bosons; you cannot make two socks occupy the same space: Put two socks on the same foot and they wll be layered, and there is a finite number you can fit into a washing machine or a dryer. Socks worn in the normal fashion are distinguishable by being on the left or right foot (or hand, in the case of the sock puppet effect; I won’t be discussing the very interesting Lamb-Chop-shift one can observe). The individual socks in a pair, however, are indistinguishable and they must have an antisymmetric wave function and thus obey Fermi-Dirac statistics and follow the Pauli exclusion principle.

Put two socks comprising a pair into the wash and occasionally only one will be there at the end of the cycle. Why? Two socks can clearly exist in a system, thus there must be at least two sock states. Let’s assume two, making them sock spin one-half states, and call these “sock up” and “sock down” (and not confuse this with the sock-it-to-me state, the investigation of which was popular in the late 60s)

The socks are in the dryer system and one of them is sock-up with the other being sock-down, in perfect accordance with the Pauli exclusion principle. However, occasionally there will be an interaction with the dryer (I call this the argyle sock-flip interaction, which should be mediated by the Lint boson) which is very strong; the socks cannot remain confined to the dryer, and one sock is expelled by the degenerate Fermi sock pressure. This is seen more at high temperatures where the thermodynamic pressure is also high, and where the containment of the dryer is insufficient. This can also happen with socks in a hamper or clothes pile, but since there is no true confinement, one might just see that the socks have migrated elsewhere in the room, or be on the lip of the hamper (or floor next to it); this is enough to break any possible degeneracy in the sock states.

This expulsion can be by tunneling, in which case the sock may be found nearby; often covered in residual lint from the interaction. It is also possible that the sock is simply disintegrated; sockiness may not be a strictly conserved quantity, or there may be a sock one-half particle (the socktrino) that is ejected while the rest of the sock is carried off as Lintons, some of which may be captured in the lint tray. High energy Lintons would escape and disintegrate into Dustyons in the surrounding region. Clearly there is some more theoretical and experimental work to be done here to confirm the existence of the socktrino; some holes in the theory must be darned and most facilities are not up to the task of detecting this signal amidst the large background lint and dust signals.

More complicated behaviors exist as well, in the guise of condensed-sockmatter physics. What if one were to place more than two identical socks into the wash? This is clearly an important avenue of investigation; procuring multiple pairs of identical socks allows one to combat the prevalence of sock loss and the resulting uselessness of the remaining sock. There is also the advantage in the pairing of the socks afterward, because, interestingly, free socks tend to repel in the clean-clothes pile of multiple paris of different sock patterns, and considerable work must be done to decrease their entropy. (There is some very interesting behavior to investigate here, as well, but sock-sorting dynamics is beyond the scope of this discussion). With multiple pairs of identical socks in the dryer, a band structure is now formed to lift the degeneracy of the individual socks, reducing the strength of the argyle sock-flip by the apathy factor (measured in Mehs), which scales with the number of socks, which makes the loss of any one sock less important. Whether this scaling is linear is as yet undetermined.

Clearly this is a very rich field of further inquiry for the budding scientist hoping to get his or her work published in the esteemed Journal of Irreproducible Results. There is the very exciting prospect of investigating a four-sock interaction to see if one can make two socks disappear, and see if there is a sharp division between the individual quantum and the condensed-sockmatter reactions. If adequate funding could be procured, one might also envision the construction of a sockcellerator, to look at higher-energy sock interactions to investigate the vector and scalar nature of the lint boson and to pursue the detection of evidence for the socktrino.

Getting to the Root of the … Solution

The Root Bridges of Cherrapungee

The root bridges, some of which are over a hundred feet long, take ten to fifteen years to become fully functional, but they’re extraordinarily strong – strong enough that some of them can support the weight of fifty or more people at a time. In fact, because they are alive and still growing, the bridges actually gain strength over time – and some of the ancient root bridges used daily by the people of the villages around Cherrapunjee may be well over five hundred years old.

Picky, Picky, Picky

Schneier on Security: Lockpicking and the Internet

Earlier this year, Schlage launched a series of locks that can be opened either by a key, a four-digit code, or the Internet. That’s right: The lock is online. You can send the lock SMS messages or talk to it via a Website, and the lock can send you messages when someone opens it — or even when someone tries to open it and fails.

Sounds nifty, but putting a lock on the Internet opens up a whole new set of problems, none of which we fully understand. Even worse: Security is only as strong as the weakest link. Schlage’s system combines the inherent “pickability” of a physical lock, the new vulnerabilities of electronic keypads, and the hacking risk of online. For most applications, that’s simply too much risk.

Here's to You, Mrs. Robinson

Deet, de de de deet deet, de de deet deet de de deet.

The DEET alarmism story you didn’t see in the newspaper

[F]or people who use DEET in the recommended manner, there are simply no problems, and the new study does nothing to change that, Lorin said. Indeed, after a review of published and unpublished literature of DEET’s toxicity in 2003, the American Academy of Pediatrician raised the recommended level of DEET concentration in repellents used on children to 30 percent from 10 percent, and lowered the minimum age for use from 2 year to 2 months.

In other words, the body of scientific literature suggested DEET was considerably safer than previously believed.

On side note, I had a tough time finding anything with 25% DEET in it last summer; most of the “family” sprays were 7%. I happened across some of the tougher stuff this spring and snapped up two bottles. And I hardly ever hallucinate.

A Vegetable is only Deception

The Fruit Is A Lie

A fruit — a ‘true fruit’ — is one where all tissues are derived from the plant ovary and this alone. This includes peas. Whereas strawberries, for example, also include some of the flesh from the peg that holds the ovary, disqualifying them from fruit status. The apple gets its carpels involved as well as the ovary, leading to a kinky pome. ‘True berries’ are also ‘true fruits’, but not the other way round. Grapes, currants (red and black), elder- and gooseberries are all proper upstanding berries which will not deceive you or smuggle themselves into your house in pies before stealing your silver while you sleep.

So why call it a fruit when it isn’t? To most of us, knowing the particulars isn’t all that important in the grand scheme of things, though this sort of knowledge is possibly useful for the aspiring lawyer-type child, looking for a loophole to not eat their tomatoes and bell peppers after being admonished to eat their vegetables. We’re after the first-order approximation here, not the more detailed solution. I don’t particularly care if it’s not really a fruit, but it’s actually a fruit wrapped inside a mystery, with little enigmas on the outside — I want to throw it into a category and forget it. Is it a fruit or a vegetable? “False dichotomy” is not an acceptable answer for a non-biologist (or even for a pedant who’s off-duty)

The Vast Wasteland, Even Bigger

My TV died last night, right in the middle of The Daily Show (the 8:00 repeat). One minute Jon Stewart was there, the next, he wasn’t. I’m not lamenting the loss of the TV all that much — it was a mediocre set I got 5 years ago (I had to check my receipts; it seemed more recent, but it was June of ’04) when my last set died.

The one thing I have demanded in each TV is that it be bigger than the previous one. The 26″ set I got after I graduated college gave way to a 29″ set purchased in Canada during my years of hiding, to this recently-deceased 32″ set, a cheap transitional CRT TV I got because I could not afford an HD set; plasmas were too expensive and über-large LCDs were in their infancy. Now, I am ready to take the 40″ HD plunge. Right in time for football season.