Watson, Come Here. Neutrino.

First Digital Message Sent Using Neutrinos

MINERvA is one of world’s most sensitive neutrino detectors and yet, out of 10^13 neutrinos in each pulse, it detects only about 0.8 of them on average.

Nevertheless, that’s enough to send a message. The FermiLab team used a simple on-off protocol to represent the 0s and 1s of digital code and transmitted the word “neutrino”.

Not particularly practical, though the story notes there are potential applications, such as submarine communication. You would use neutrinos to reach regions inaccessible with EM radiation — you need a situation where you are leveraging the one advantage you have: penetrability.

Pulling Entangled Photons Out of a Hat

… or perhaps not.

Entanglement Is Not That Magic

That said, though, it’s fairly common to hear claims of the form “when two particles are entangled, anything you do to one of them changes the state of the other.” This is not strictly true, though, and it’s worth going through in detail, if only so I have something to point to the next time somebody starts using that line. This will necessarily involve some math, but I’ll try to keep it as simple as I can.

Still Better Than Shipwreck Cove on the Island of Shipwreck

A Random Walk through Oddly Named Physics Things

In spite (or perhaps because) of the overwhelming boringness of much technical jargon, scientists are drawn to whimsical or poetic names more than you might suspect. Here are some of my favorites.

In a 1969 paper entitled “Mixmaster Universe,” physicist Charles Misner set out his idea for a solution to the paradox. Although it sounds like a 1980′s proto-hip-hop group, the theory actually gets its name from a kitchen appliance, the Sunbeam Mixmaster.

The idea was that the early universe went through a phase of so-called chaotic evolution, which did for the cosmos what the Mixmaster does for cake batter, mixing its contents until they were smooth and even.

Ice Ice Baby

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

The thing just exploded very close to our zodiac! Or should I say imploded. And it spitted out big chunks of thousands year old ice to our heads… Crazy!

Vaguely reminiscent of Atlantis blowing up in The Spy Who Loved Me

Stop Deifying Peer Review

Stop deifying “peer review” of journal publications

I would like to add my two cents now – focusing on the exalted status some give to peer reviewed journal articles. I have three main concerns with this attitude which can be summarized as follows
1. Peer review is not magic
2. Peer review is not binary
3. Peer review is not static.

In general discussion, a peer-reviewed article is often a better citation than a mainstream/pop-sci article, but one has to acknowledge that peer-review simply means that some professionals have looked at it and found no (obvious) errors in the work. Mistakes can be made, things can be overlooked. Even without that, peer-review doesn’t mean the results are true. The full process of scientific inquiry means others have to replicate the work somehow, if it’s experiment, or test the work, if it’s theory. As the article says, this is a continual process, and as I’ve said before, every experiment is a test of the principles that underlie it.

There Could Be a Marshmallow in Your Future

Time and Marshmallows

Mischel followed up years later, looking into how the kids who participated in the study ultimately turned out. There was a remarkable amount of correlation with this simple test and success later in life — kids who were able to hold off at age 4 for the second marshmallow turned out years later to have higher SAT scores and generally seem more competent. The hypothetical explanation is that our personalities are strongly influenced by our attitude toward time — whether we are focused primarily on the past, the present, or the future.

I had run across the Zimbardo video before, and put it in a post, and in that context, it’s not surprising that future-oriented people would appreciate, and possibly have an extra affinity for, education. Or maybe it’s the other way around.

National Thermometer

I saw parts of National Treasure again recently; I’ve pointed out before that Riley should have used an IR laser to set of the heat sensor in the plan to steal the Declaration. One of the other things about that sequence that has nagged was how fast the thermometer shot up when he zapped it. I can buy that the sensor would trip, since there is a lot less thermal mass, but what about a glass thermometer? The issue is how much thermal mass there is — temperature will respond quickly if there is a small combination of specific heat capacity and mass. I decided to look into this and do a quick experiment.

I grabbed a thermocouple, which I thought would respond fairly quickly: you have a small bead of your dissimilar metals, with a volume of a few mm^3, and since the density of the materials is going to be a little less than 10 mg/mm^3, we’re talking about a few milligrams of material that has a specific heat capacity of around a Joule/gram-Kelvin, so a several Milliwatt laser should be able to raise the temperature in short order. It’s going to depend on how much of the light that hits gets absorbed vs reflected. I have a ~20mW green laser that also emits an unknown amount of IR (the 532 nm is frequency-doubled 1064 nm light, derived from an 808 nm pump, which imperfectly filtered. This can be a safety issue, as explained in this NIST pdf tech note). If we can get 10 mW onto a target with a heat capacity of 10 mJ/K and absorbing 10% of the light, that’s a Kelvin every 10 seconds, or a degree Fahrenheit every 5 seconds.

The response was impressive. In about 30 seconds the indicated temperature jumped almost 7ºF (I used ºF since that’s the scale on the thermometer), which is not as fast as it might have been, but the beam is larger than the target and is well in the ballpark of my prediction and more than enough for what was happening in the movie with a sensor that may have even less thermal mass.

The alcohol thermometer is much more massive. Even though you want to heat up the alcohol, the surrounding glass in contact with it has to heat up as well, so now we’re talking grams of material, so the heating may be slowed by a factor of 100-1000. I shined the laser on the bulb for a full minute and only saw a rise of between 0.5 and 1 ºF. However, confounding this is that the alcohol in my thermometer was without coloring, as opposed to the red I recall in the movie (it was a fairly old device, so maybe it was red at one time, but red dyes have a way of breaking down). Having dye in the alcohol would make it heat up faster. I’m not convinced that it would have risen as far or as fast as was in the movie, but it’s not entirely implausible either.

Dilbert is a Documentary

How to completely, utterly destroy an employee’s work life

Step 4: Kill the messengers. Finally, if you do get wind of problems in the trenches, deny, deny, deny. And if possible, strike back. Here’s a great example from our research. In an open Q&A with one company’s chief operating officer, an employee asked about the morale problem and got this answer: “There is no morale problem in this company. And, for anybody who thinks there is, we have a nice big bus waiting outside to take you wherever you want to look for work.”

You Keep Using That Word…

Ultra-efficient LED puts out more power than is pumped in

The LED produces 69 picowatts of light using 30 picowatts of power, giving it an efficiency of 230 percent. That means it operates above “unity efficiency” — putting it into a category normally occupied by perpetual motion machines.

As the article goes on to explain, the LED doesn’t actually violate conservation of energy, because the LED is tapping into the thermal energy present, as manifested in lattice vibrations i.e. there is a conversion of phonons to photons occurring, which means that the LED is acting as a heat engine (a term that’s not mentioned until the last paragraph). However, efficiency isn’t typically used in this context because it’s misleading; what you discuss is the coefficient of performance: how much energy do you move around vs how much energy you put in, because for a given energy input, you can deliver/remove many times that energy to/from your target. This is what heat pumps do and why they are used.

The neat thing here is that the rejected heat from the LED is light, which is pretty neat. At such low powers (tens of picoWatts) this is not yet a usable light source, so there is a question of whether it can scale, and as mentioned, there is the possibility of using this as a cooling component for small-scale devices.