Have you seen that e-surance commercial with the guy singing and playing guitar? Well, I've seen it one time too many, and I've decided I'm never EVER going to buy anything from that company, and here's why:
So, the commercial starts with the cartoon guy on a stage, and he starts singing. Next to him is that pink-haired cartoon lady playing the tambourine. In the middle of the commercial, the tambourine goes away for a period of time, and when it comes back, it comes back ON THE WRONG BEATS!!!
By wrong beats, I mean one and three, as opposed to two and four. A jazz drummer mixing up two and four with one and three is enough to turn John Coltrane into Barney the dinosaur. Two and four makes for an uptempo swing. One and three- a polka. Most people might not notice these things, but it drives me crazy.
I once saw a performance on TV of a Bernstein piece titled "Prelude, Fugue, and Rifts" played by some famous European orchestra and conducted by the great Simon Rattle. What I managed to catch while flipping through channels was the "Rifts" section, which was obviously a classical composer's attempt at writing a jazz piece for orchestra. I hated it.
Here's why: What was supposed to be a major orchestra's attempt at playing swing really just turned out to be a bunch of old stodgy Europeans playing triplet rhythms. So whats the difference?... Two and four. Not even Simon Rattle got it right.
Of course, I don't mean that jazz influences don't work in classical music. I think Gershwin was a genius in finding that sweet spot where they blend in just the right way.
I know that I tend to be opinionated on certain matters and that people often disagree with me. I don't like to flaunt my ideas, but I do find a source of pride in having opinions that differ from the mainstream.
For example- I hate Brahms. I don't like to listen to him, nor do I think he's the musical genius that most who study music will say he is. Yes, he has written things that are quite pretty- I would recommend the German Requiem. I just don't think that he has contributed anything groundbreaking; his symphonies are insufferable, and to top it off- his orchestration is appalling. Just listen to some of his contemporaries- like Tchaikovsky, whose music is better in every way. Tchaikovsky was dramatic and original. Brahms was just Beethoven all over again.
I understand that Mozart was a genius, but don't know why anyone would actually enjoy his music today. Mozart's music is leagues ahead of what came before him, but there is music that came after him that sounds so much better.
So, maybe you don't enjoy Stravinsky quite as much as I do. I know that the music I listen to isn't for everyone (maybe just the better ones).
But of course, I'm not the only snob out there when it comes to music. We all think that we could be judges on American Idol. We sit in front of our TV screens in pleasure, watching a group of monkeys perform and beg for the votes that we're not going to give them. We all have our favorites- we cheer them on until the show ends and we don't buy their albums.
But what I love most about music opinions is the fact that we're still allowed to have them and disagree. These days, you can still name off your favorite bands without the fear of someone snapping at your throat. They might disagree or call you a dork, but they still won't angrily recount your conversation to like-minded friends afterward.
But when it comes to politics....
I'm not sure what point I'm trying to make here.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Why I (Really) Like Physics (part III)
Energy is a physics concept that has been around forever. Energy conservation is firmly ingrained in the minds of theorists as the one law which has and will never be broken. This simple concept, however, leads to some pretty cool things to think about if you have the time.
Energy is one of those things you learned about if you took a high school or college physics course. You probably learned about it and found that it made many problems easier to solve, but didn't think much of it. Here's a summary of what your physics teacher mentioned:
When you make an object move by imparting a force onto it, you exert work while the object gains energy. We define the amount of energy the object has as the amount of work you had to exert to get it into the state it is in. For example, if you push a cart down the street, it begins to move and attains velocity. The motion of the cart is a form of energy called kinetic energy.
Another example- When you lift up a bowling ball, you are exerting a force on the ball to counteract the force of gravity. The energy gained by the ball is called gravitational potential energy. It is called 'potential' energy because it has the potential to become something else.
For example, if you were to drop that bowling ball, the ball's gravitational potential energy would be converted into kinetic energy, and it suddenly becomes very simple to calculate how fast the ball is traveling the instant before it hits you in the foot.
What we call "conservation of energy" is the thing that makes the concept of energy so useful. The really cool thing about it, however, is that the whole concept of energy really just came about as a mathematical trick- a mathematical trick that turned out to reveal something incredibly profound (another such example would be of entropy, which was used in thermodynamics as a math trick long before people realized it actually represented a physical quantity). Here's a little bit of background in classical mechanics:
In Newtonian mechanics, everything is derived from four assumptions: Newton's three laws of motion, and Newton's law of gravity. The three laws state that: (1) an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by a force, (2) force equals mass times acceleration, and (3) when one object exerts a force on another, the second object exerts an equal force on the first in the opposite direction. Newton's law of gravity just establishes the nature of gravitational forces between two massive objects. These four assumptions are a physicist's dream. They are simple and concise, yet describe a huge mess of observations- including Kepler's laws, which had previously gone unexplained for decades.
So, where in these assumptions does energy come in? The answer is it doesn't- at least not explicitly. There's a whole lot of talk about forces, but nothing about energy. Nothing that is, until someone comes along and shows that you can prove (from Newton's laws) that the total energy in a closed system is always constant (that is, so long as there's no friction). In Newtonian mechanics, the concept of energy is purely optional. In principle, you could use Newton's laws to solve for anything you'd like to without the word 'energy' so much as crossing your mind.
Now, lets return to the bowling ball example we went through before. You may have noticed that I intentionally only took the example through to the point right before the bowling ball lands. So let's ask the obvious question now- What happens to the bowling ball's energy after it lands? I think we're in agreement that the bowling ball stops after landing, so its kinetic energy is gone, and it no longer has the potential energy it has before you drop it. Conservation of energy isn't very useful if chunks of energy can suddenly disappear without explanation.
Well, that question was answered by James Joule, a physicist whose work is so essential that the standard unit of energy is named after him. What Joule did that was so important is he forced water through a perforated tube and observed that the temperature of the water increased. He also did a similar experiment by heating water with an electrical energy source. The conclusion that was reached from these experiments was the fact that heat, which was understood to be a substance that made the temperature of objects rise, was really just another form of energy.
So, the answer to our bowling ball crashing to the floor question is this: The bowling ball heats up the floor. Some of the energy also escapes in the form of sound waves, which eventually dissipate by heating up the walls and other objects they bump into. The important thing to notice is the fact that conservation of energy, which was originally our little mathematical trick, is still true in the face of forces that we didn't really consider in the first place.
These forces I'm referring to are called non-conservative forces and include things like friction and wind resistance. The thing that these forces share is that they all create heat. The reason they're called non-conservative is the fact that once energy is converted into heat, it becomes theoretically impossible to convert all of it back into some other form (this is where entropy comes in). This isn't to say that the energy is not conserved- it is only converted to a form that makes it irretrievable.
Now that we've cleared that up, lets look at the bowling ball example from the other way: Where did the energy that raised the bowling ball come from?
Well, the energy that powers your muscles is released in a chemical reaction that converts ATP into ADP. The energy that was used to create the ATP in the first place comes from chemical reactions that convert the food you eat into waste product. The energy stored in food, if you trace it back, originates from photons that travel from the sun and are absorbed in the leaves of plants. I'm sure you all are familiar with the Calorie and all of its stress-inducing properties. But did you know that the Calorie is really just another unit of energy? You could literally take the caloric content of a jelly donut and calculate how many bowling balls you could lift with the energy it provides.
Now, speaking of photons from the sun- the sun gets its energy from the fusion reaction in its core which continuously converts hydrogen into helium, releasing a lot of energy. This reaction has the effect of heating up the star to high temperatures and photons are emitted through blackbody radiation. Just about all sources of energy we use today originate from this blackbody radiation. The exception comes in if you happen to live in an area which is powered by a nuclear reactor. The energy in that case comes from a nuclear reaction involving radioactive isotopes you can find in the soil of your lawn (albeit in tiny quantities).
If you're being really thorough, you might remind yourself that all the energy that powers the sun, as well as your neighborhood nuclear reactor, was released to the universe in the big bang.
To this day, conservation of energy remains one of the few conservation laws that has not been violated, even in the face of other vast changes to physical law. Take, for example, Einstein's relativity. Changes were made to our understanding of energy that you'd never see coming. Formulas like those for kinetic energy had to be completely changed (the speed of light started showing up everywhere!). It turned out that mass was really another form of energy. Despite these changes (or because of them), the basic tenant that the energy of a system is constant remained intact. So many ideas that were firmly ingrained in our minds regarding things like mass, time, and space were thrown away while energy was one of the few that remained.
So, here's another example of something more modern that would seem very strange in Newton's days. A piece of gamma radiation (which is really just a high-energy photon), if it has enough energy, can interact with a nuclear electric field, disappear, and create an electron-positron pair. The electron goes off and does what an electron does, but the positron, which is basically a positively-charged electron, does something that is truly remarkable. The positron bounces around until it loses its kinetic energy, eventually getting trapped in the electric field of an electron. The two particles then annihilate each other, and in their place two gamma rays are emitted in opposite directions.
Care to guess what the energies of these two gamma rays are? Well, if you recall Einstein's mass-energy relation, E = mc^2, you can calculate the rest energy of both the positron and electron, and it happens to be 511 KeV. The energy of the two gamma rays are, not coincidentally, also 511 KeV. The two gamma rays carry off the energy that was released when the electron and positron disappeared.
The example above illustrates what the world of modern particle physics is like. Particles routinely appear and disappear and do other things you wouldn't imagine is possible. Imagine for a second what the world would be like if two baseballs could collide and both subsequently disappear in a huge flash of light. The laws that govern the things we normally see on a daily basis don't apply at the particle level, yet things still follow the basic tenant of conservation of energy, which we knew from Newton's days and didn't need to exist in the first place. Things didn't need to be that way.
As remarkable as the concept of energy is, one might find that it is also a necessary one. After all, the universe would not have any semblance of order unless there was something that was held constant. That 'something' was something we just happened to call "energy".
Energy is one of those things you learned about if you took a high school or college physics course. You probably learned about it and found that it made many problems easier to solve, but didn't think much of it. Here's a summary of what your physics teacher mentioned:
When you make an object move by imparting a force onto it, you exert work while the object gains energy. We define the amount of energy the object has as the amount of work you had to exert to get it into the state it is in. For example, if you push a cart down the street, it begins to move and attains velocity. The motion of the cart is a form of energy called kinetic energy.
Another example- When you lift up a bowling ball, you are exerting a force on the ball to counteract the force of gravity. The energy gained by the ball is called gravitational potential energy. It is called 'potential' energy because it has the potential to become something else.
For example, if you were to drop that bowling ball, the ball's gravitational potential energy would be converted into kinetic energy, and it suddenly becomes very simple to calculate how fast the ball is traveling the instant before it hits you in the foot.
What we call "conservation of energy" is the thing that makes the concept of energy so useful. The really cool thing about it, however, is that the whole concept of energy really just came about as a mathematical trick- a mathematical trick that turned out to reveal something incredibly profound (another such example would be of entropy, which was used in thermodynamics as a math trick long before people realized it actually represented a physical quantity). Here's a little bit of background in classical mechanics:
In Newtonian mechanics, everything is derived from four assumptions: Newton's three laws of motion, and Newton's law of gravity. The three laws state that: (1) an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by a force, (2) force equals mass times acceleration, and (3) when one object exerts a force on another, the second object exerts an equal force on the first in the opposite direction. Newton's law of gravity just establishes the nature of gravitational forces between two massive objects. These four assumptions are a physicist's dream. They are simple and concise, yet describe a huge mess of observations- including Kepler's laws, which had previously gone unexplained for decades.
So, where in these assumptions does energy come in? The answer is it doesn't- at least not explicitly. There's a whole lot of talk about forces, but nothing about energy. Nothing that is, until someone comes along and shows that you can prove (from Newton's laws) that the total energy in a closed system is always constant (that is, so long as there's no friction). In Newtonian mechanics, the concept of energy is purely optional. In principle, you could use Newton's laws to solve for anything you'd like to without the word 'energy' so much as crossing your mind.
Now, lets return to the bowling ball example we went through before. You may have noticed that I intentionally only took the example through to the point right before the bowling ball lands. So let's ask the obvious question now- What happens to the bowling ball's energy after it lands? I think we're in agreement that the bowling ball stops after landing, so its kinetic energy is gone, and it no longer has the potential energy it has before you drop it. Conservation of energy isn't very useful if chunks of energy can suddenly disappear without explanation.
Well, that question was answered by James Joule, a physicist whose work is so essential that the standard unit of energy is named after him. What Joule did that was so important is he forced water through a perforated tube and observed that the temperature of the water increased. He also did a similar experiment by heating water with an electrical energy source. The conclusion that was reached from these experiments was the fact that heat, which was understood to be a substance that made the temperature of objects rise, was really just another form of energy.
So, the answer to our bowling ball crashing to the floor question is this: The bowling ball heats up the floor. Some of the energy also escapes in the form of sound waves, which eventually dissipate by heating up the walls and other objects they bump into. The important thing to notice is the fact that conservation of energy, which was originally our little mathematical trick, is still true in the face of forces that we didn't really consider in the first place.
These forces I'm referring to are called non-conservative forces and include things like friction and wind resistance. The thing that these forces share is that they all create heat. The reason they're called non-conservative is the fact that once energy is converted into heat, it becomes theoretically impossible to convert all of it back into some other form (this is where entropy comes in). This isn't to say that the energy is not conserved- it is only converted to a form that makes it irretrievable.
Now that we've cleared that up, lets look at the bowling ball example from the other way: Where did the energy that raised the bowling ball come from?
Well, the energy that powers your muscles is released in a chemical reaction that converts ATP into ADP. The energy that was used to create the ATP in the first place comes from chemical reactions that convert the food you eat into waste product. The energy stored in food, if you trace it back, originates from photons that travel from the sun and are absorbed in the leaves of plants. I'm sure you all are familiar with the Calorie and all of its stress-inducing properties. But did you know that the Calorie is really just another unit of energy? You could literally take the caloric content of a jelly donut and calculate how many bowling balls you could lift with the energy it provides.
Now, speaking of photons from the sun- the sun gets its energy from the fusion reaction in its core which continuously converts hydrogen into helium, releasing a lot of energy. This reaction has the effect of heating up the star to high temperatures and photons are emitted through blackbody radiation. Just about all sources of energy we use today originate from this blackbody radiation. The exception comes in if you happen to live in an area which is powered by a nuclear reactor. The energy in that case comes from a nuclear reaction involving radioactive isotopes you can find in the soil of your lawn (albeit in tiny quantities).
If you're being really thorough, you might remind yourself that all the energy that powers the sun, as well as your neighborhood nuclear reactor, was released to the universe in the big bang.
To this day, conservation of energy remains one of the few conservation laws that has not been violated, even in the face of other vast changes to physical law. Take, for example, Einstein's relativity. Changes were made to our understanding of energy that you'd never see coming. Formulas like those for kinetic energy had to be completely changed (the speed of light started showing up everywhere!). It turned out that mass was really another form of energy. Despite these changes (or because of them), the basic tenant that the energy of a system is constant remained intact. So many ideas that were firmly ingrained in our minds regarding things like mass, time, and space were thrown away while energy was one of the few that remained.
So, here's another example of something more modern that would seem very strange in Newton's days. A piece of gamma radiation (which is really just a high-energy photon), if it has enough energy, can interact with a nuclear electric field, disappear, and create an electron-positron pair. The electron goes off and does what an electron does, but the positron, which is basically a positively-charged electron, does something that is truly remarkable. The positron bounces around until it loses its kinetic energy, eventually getting trapped in the electric field of an electron. The two particles then annihilate each other, and in their place two gamma rays are emitted in opposite directions.
Care to guess what the energies of these two gamma rays are? Well, if you recall Einstein's mass-energy relation, E = mc^2, you can calculate the rest energy of both the positron and electron, and it happens to be 511 KeV. The energy of the two gamma rays are, not coincidentally, also 511 KeV. The two gamma rays carry off the energy that was released when the electron and positron disappeared.
The example above illustrates what the world of modern particle physics is like. Particles routinely appear and disappear and do other things you wouldn't imagine is possible. Imagine for a second what the world would be like if two baseballs could collide and both subsequently disappear in a huge flash of light. The laws that govern the things we normally see on a daily basis don't apply at the particle level, yet things still follow the basic tenant of conservation of energy, which we knew from Newton's days and didn't need to exist in the first place. Things didn't need to be that way.
As remarkable as the concept of energy is, one might find that it is also a necessary one. After all, the universe would not have any semblance of order unless there was something that was held constant. That 'something' was something we just happened to call "energy".
Monday, April 6, 2009
Why I (Actually) Like Physics (part II)
Physics is so friggin' awesome- especially when it gives you an opportunity to go off and play in Santa Barbara for a few years and (hopefully) wait out the recession.
Physics also gives rise to sites like this:
Only physics would give people the opportunity to watch a giant blimp-like object get wheeled through a small town in Germany.
By the way, the blimp-like object in question is a major piece of the KATRIN experiment, which I will probably be a part of come this fall. The purpose of the experiment is to measure the mass of the neutrino.
The neutrino, for those of you who don't know, is an elementary particle that still remains a mystery to physicists in many ways. The fact that we still don't have a clue as to its mass at this point is evidence enough for this claim. The reason we know so little about this particle is that it only interacts via the weak force- or in other words, it hardly interacts with anything. Because a particle has to interact with something before it is detected, this makes the goal of actually detecting these things incredibly hard. There are many experiments today that tackle this immense challenge, but there's something cool about KATRIN that I'd like to mention.
You see, KATRIN will attempt to measure the mass of the neutrino, without actually detecting them!
All the experiment is really going to do is measure the energy spectrum of tritium beta decay electrons. You see, when tritium decays, it produces three products: a Helium-3 nucleus, an electron, and a neutrino. The total energy released in the decay is constant and known, and must be distributed among the three products. As we know from Einstein's mass-energy equivalence, part of this energy must be spent in the creation of the neutrino itself, which makes the distribution of electron energies dependent upon the neutrino's mass.
Of course, the experiment itself isn't THAT simple. Obtaining an energy resolution good enough for the mass range we're probing is no small task, and there is a lot of work being done to make sure all the little things are taken care of.
There's also the possibility that the experiment will produce nothing at all...
But all in all, you must agree that the whole picture is nothing but pure awesome.
Physics also gives rise to sites like this:
Only physics would give people the opportunity to watch a giant blimp-like object get wheeled through a small town in Germany.
By the way, the blimp-like object in question is a major piece of the KATRIN experiment, which I will probably be a part of come this fall. The purpose of the experiment is to measure the mass of the neutrino.
The neutrino, for those of you who don't know, is an elementary particle that still remains a mystery to physicists in many ways. The fact that we still don't have a clue as to its mass at this point is evidence enough for this claim. The reason we know so little about this particle is that it only interacts via the weak force- or in other words, it hardly interacts with anything. Because a particle has to interact with something before it is detected, this makes the goal of actually detecting these things incredibly hard. There are many experiments today that tackle this immense challenge, but there's something cool about KATRIN that I'd like to mention.
You see, KATRIN will attempt to measure the mass of the neutrino, without actually detecting them!
All the experiment is really going to do is measure the energy spectrum of tritium beta decay electrons. You see, when tritium decays, it produces three products: a Helium-3 nucleus, an electron, and a neutrino. The total energy released in the decay is constant and known, and must be distributed among the three products. As we know from Einstein's mass-energy equivalence, part of this energy must be spent in the creation of the neutrino itself, which makes the distribution of electron energies dependent upon the neutrino's mass.
Of course, the experiment itself isn't THAT simple. Obtaining an energy resolution good enough for the mass range we're probing is no small task, and there is a lot of work being done to make sure all the little things are taken care of.
There's also the possibility that the experiment will produce nothing at all...
But all in all, you must agree that the whole picture is nothing but pure awesome.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Risk/Reward
Much has been said of the mistakes that teenagers make. The prevailing idea is that teenagers generally don't think about the consequences of their actions before doing something stupid that gets them in trouble. Studies, however, have shown that not only are teenagers aware of the risks behind their actions, they actually spend a considerable amount of time weighing the risks vs. perceived rewards before finally making their (bad) decision. Here's an example of what might go through their heads:
Action: Going to a party, getting drunk, and driving home afterward.
Risk: Might be grounded/get arrested/kill somebody.
Reward: Social acceptance/pretty popular girl might actually talk to me.
Verdict: Party on!!!
I've observed that this sort of risky behavior may start much earlier than the teenage years. Here's an example from my observations of the three-year old twin boys I talked about in my last post:
During a holiday gathering, these twin boys found themselves standing around a bowl of peanuts and decided to have an extended snack before dinner was served. Not wanting the boys to spoil their appetites, several adults told them to stop eating, yet they still continued, saying, "but I have to eat it!". To get them to stop, their great-grandfather decided to make up a story. He told them that if they ate any more, the big scary dog who was staring in from beyond the sliding glass door would charge in and eat them up.
There was no doubt that the boys believed everything that was said to them. You could see fear in their faces every time they tentatively turned their heads to glance at the dog, assuring themselves that the glass door was securely fastened before turning back around and grabbing more peanuts to put in their mouths. So here's what probably went through their heads:
Action: Eating peanuts.
Risk: Dog might eat me.
Reward: I'd get to eat more peanuts.
Verdict: Eat more peanuts.
Perhaps this sort of risky behavior has a purpose. After all, early man would have had a hard time evolving without taking a few risks. Here's another example:
Action: Forsaking life in a tree and stepping around on the ground.
Risk: Bear might eat me.
Reward: I'd finally get to see what's beyond that bush over there.
Verdict: Walking on four legs is SO last millennium!
Of course, risky behavior will ruin us every now and then. Here's what probably went through the mind of more than one AIG employee:
Action: High-risk credit swap.
Risk: Might default- company loses millions/people lose jobs/economy pulled into downward spiral.
Reward: Company stock goes up by a cent/big bonus.
Verdict: What could possibly go wrong? The government will bail us out if this backfires, anyway.
Action: Going to a party, getting drunk, and driving home afterward.
Risk: Might be grounded/get arrested/kill somebody.
Reward: Social acceptance/pretty popular girl might actually talk to me.
Verdict: Party on!!!
I've observed that this sort of risky behavior may start much earlier than the teenage years. Here's an example from my observations of the three-year old twin boys I talked about in my last post:
During a holiday gathering, these twin boys found themselves standing around a bowl of peanuts and decided to have an extended snack before dinner was served. Not wanting the boys to spoil their appetites, several adults told them to stop eating, yet they still continued, saying, "but I have to eat it!". To get them to stop, their great-grandfather decided to make up a story. He told them that if they ate any more, the big scary dog who was staring in from beyond the sliding glass door would charge in and eat them up.
There was no doubt that the boys believed everything that was said to them. You could see fear in their faces every time they tentatively turned their heads to glance at the dog, assuring themselves that the glass door was securely fastened before turning back around and grabbing more peanuts to put in their mouths. So here's what probably went through their heads:
Action: Eating peanuts.
Risk: Dog might eat me.
Reward: I'd get to eat more peanuts.
Verdict: Eat more peanuts.
Perhaps this sort of risky behavior has a purpose. After all, early man would have had a hard time evolving without taking a few risks. Here's another example:
Action: Forsaking life in a tree and stepping around on the ground.
Risk: Bear might eat me.
Reward: I'd finally get to see what's beyond that bush over there.
Verdict: Walking on four legs is SO last millennium!
Of course, risky behavior will ruin us every now and then. Here's what probably went through the mind of more than one AIG employee:
Action: High-risk credit swap.
Risk: Might default- company loses millions/people lose jobs/economy pulled into downward spiral.
Reward: Company stock goes up by a cent/big bonus.
Verdict: What could possibly go wrong? The government will bail us out if this backfires, anyway.
Kids
Ever since I found out that I'm getting one of my own, I've started to look at those little poop-making troublemakers in a different way. Lately, I've had a few opportunities to observe a pair of 3-year old twin boys. Here are some observations:
1. Kids' personalities really come through early. I didn't expect to see much difference in behavior in these twin boys. Although not identical, they've been subjected to the same developmental conditions since birth, yet they couldn't be farther apart in personality. One is precocious, constantly in search of praise and recognition, and already has a grasp over certain social faux-pas. He watches people with a silent intensity, fascinated by the behaviors and mannerisms of adults, though he clearly still does not understand everything that goes on around him. The other twin gets distracted easily- not by the behavior of people, but by the constant source of puzzles that surround him. He seems to have an instinctual need to put things together in a coherent fashion. He is indifferent to praise and is unembarrassed, though still doesn't like being scolded.
2. I'm not sure whether to call it cute or scary when a 3-year old points a toy gun at you and says: "BANG! Now you're dead!" Admittedly, it does sound much cuter in Chinese than I imagine it would in English.
3. Kids learn everything they know from those around them. This fact should be obvious, but becomes excessively clear when you observe their social interactions- especially when they're upset with people. For example, these twins like to use the same threats that they hear from their parents on a regular basis, such as:
"If you don't stop, we're going to the hospital to get a shot!"
"Keep doing that, and I'm going back to China!"
Those sentences don't sound very threatening from a toddler.
4. Kids believe everything they're told, but are still rebellious. I'll say more on this in my next post.
1. Kids' personalities really come through early. I didn't expect to see much difference in behavior in these twin boys. Although not identical, they've been subjected to the same developmental conditions since birth, yet they couldn't be farther apart in personality. One is precocious, constantly in search of praise and recognition, and already has a grasp over certain social faux-pas. He watches people with a silent intensity, fascinated by the behaviors and mannerisms of adults, though he clearly still does not understand everything that goes on around him. The other twin gets distracted easily- not by the behavior of people, but by the constant source of puzzles that surround him. He seems to have an instinctual need to put things together in a coherent fashion. He is indifferent to praise and is unembarrassed, though still doesn't like being scolded.
2. I'm not sure whether to call it cute or scary when a 3-year old points a toy gun at you and says: "BANG! Now you're dead!" Admittedly, it does sound much cuter in Chinese than I imagine it would in English.
3. Kids learn everything they know from those around them. This fact should be obvious, but becomes excessively clear when you observe their social interactions- especially when they're upset with people. For example, these twins like to use the same threats that they hear from their parents on a regular basis, such as:
"If you don't stop, we're going to the hospital to get a shot!"
"Keep doing that, and I'm going back to China!"
Those sentences don't sound very threatening from a toddler.
4. Kids believe everything they're told, but are still rebellious. I'll say more on this in my next post.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
I'm a geek
Yes, I am a geek. I'm sure you all knew this fact- especially if you've read some of my earlier posts. I'm aware that the fact that I study physics (and enjoy it) is enough to include me in that category.
Let me share with you the moment that I realized that I was a true geek. I suppose I knew it long before, but this is the first time that the fact really hit home.
The moment came when I was watching the movie Spiderman II. If you're familiar with the story, you know that Spiderman's alter ego, Peter Parker, is also a geek. Now you see, in a movie it's not enough to tell the viewers that Spiderman is a nerd, you have to show it. And what better way to show that the story's superhero is just a supernerd is there than to show him in a lecture hall, completely infatuated with the strange symbols written on the board by an old balding nerd of a professor.
If you saw the movie, this short scene probably made you think, "wow, that guy is a geek!" However, the thought that popped into MY head was, "Hey! We just covered that material last week in Quantum Mechanics!"
Wow! I'm just as nerdy as Spiderman!!!
Now all I need is a radioactive spider....
Of course, not all depictions of geeks in motion pictures are quite as flattering as Spiderman. I must say, however, that I still enjoy watching them- but not for the reasons you might enjoy them.
Let me give another example to illustrate. This one comes from the movie Transformers. I've never actually seen the movie, but a friend told me about this scene and it had me practically rolling on the floor with laughter. The scene goes something like this:
Two nerdy scientists are in a lab, and one turns to the other and says, in a British accent: "Why don't you STOP thinking about Fourier transforms and START thinking about Quantum Mechanics?!"
Now, you might not think that this sentence is particularly funny, but my friend and I both did, and for the same reason. You see, whoever wrote this stupid dialogue obviously has no idea what the terms 'Fourier transform' and 'Quantum Mechanics' even mean. If you are intimately familiar with these two terms, you would know that no scientist sitting in a lab would ever utter that sentence.
This sort of dialogue is the kind that I hear all the time in movies and on tv. It's the kind of dialogue that just screams, "this is the smartest sounding sentence that the writer could come up with".
It just goes to show that while you're making fun of nerds for their lack of athletic ability and social grace, they're probably making fun of you for being an idiot.
Let me share with you the moment that I realized that I was a true geek. I suppose I knew it long before, but this is the first time that the fact really hit home.
The moment came when I was watching the movie Spiderman II. If you're familiar with the story, you know that Spiderman's alter ego, Peter Parker, is also a geek. Now you see, in a movie it's not enough to tell the viewers that Spiderman is a nerd, you have to show it. And what better way to show that the story's superhero is just a supernerd is there than to show him in a lecture hall, completely infatuated with the strange symbols written on the board by an old balding nerd of a professor.
If you saw the movie, this short scene probably made you think, "wow, that guy is a geek!" However, the thought that popped into MY head was, "Hey! We just covered that material last week in Quantum Mechanics!"
Wow! I'm just as nerdy as Spiderman!!!
Now all I need is a radioactive spider....
Of course, not all depictions of geeks in motion pictures are quite as flattering as Spiderman. I must say, however, that I still enjoy watching them- but not for the reasons you might enjoy them.
Let me give another example to illustrate. This one comes from the movie Transformers. I've never actually seen the movie, but a friend told me about this scene and it had me practically rolling on the floor with laughter. The scene goes something like this:
Two nerdy scientists are in a lab, and one turns to the other and says, in a British accent: "Why don't you STOP thinking about Fourier transforms and START thinking about Quantum Mechanics?!"
Now, you might not think that this sentence is particularly funny, but my friend and I both did, and for the same reason. You see, whoever wrote this stupid dialogue obviously has no idea what the terms 'Fourier transform' and 'Quantum Mechanics' even mean. If you are intimately familiar with these two terms, you would know that no scientist sitting in a lab would ever utter that sentence.
This sort of dialogue is the kind that I hear all the time in movies and on tv. It's the kind of dialogue that just screams, "this is the smartest sounding sentence that the writer could come up with".
It just goes to show that while you're making fun of nerds for their lack of athletic ability and social grace, they're probably making fun of you for being an idiot.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
"Political Economics"
There is something in the study of economics that's been bothering me for a bit. Now, I don't claim to really know ANYTHING when it comes to economics, nor have I stepped foot in an economics class or opened an economics textbook since high school. Nevertheless, the subject of today's economy has been too pervasive in the media to ignore, and I've been bothered by a few things I've found troubling- not relating to the economy itself, but by how people deal with it.
Now, let me explain something I've learned about physics research. Physicists always know what to expect from an experiment. That isn't to say that they always know the outcome, since that would make the experiment useless. Physicists use the accepted laws of physics to predict the outcome, and when the outcome does not agree with the laws, they know that something is wrong with the theory. Predicting outcomes is no easy task in today's large-scale experiments, but the standards are just as high. Doing so usually requires the use of sophisticated modeling algorithms and lots of computing power.
Let me give you an example: One professor I talked to at Berkeley gave me a sneak peak at some of the software that was developed for one of the projects in development at the LHC called ATLAS. The ATLAS detector is about the size of a mansion, and the laws that govern the interactions between particles are in no way simple. Nevertheless, software that incorporates all these parameters have been developed since long before the actual detector began construction. Through the computer simulations given from this program, my professor was able to show me exactly what we would see from the detectors, with charts, graphs, and everything you might expect from a large scale experiment. She even showed me the bump on a particular graph that would prove the existence of the Higgs boson. These graphs and charts were made a long time ago, and yet to this day they haven't even started colliding particles at the LHC.
No matter how much a certain experiment costs- from a few thousand to several billion- researchers are held to the same rigorous standards. They must show exactly why the experiment will work, and exactly what the experiment will establish (or no funding!).
Now, to see why I'm a little peeved, let me ask this question: What did Obama do to show that his $3/4 trillion stimulus package would work? All I've heard is a few political sound bites- from both sides of the aisle.
I'm not saying I'm against the package. I'd say I'm cautiously optimistic about it (I voted for Obama, after all). I, however, am concerned with the fact that I've never seen a shred of evidence relating to economic policies. I've heard arguments, but evidence is apparently hard to come by.
I'm aware that economics are quite a bit different from physics. It's definitely harder (maybe impossible) to simulate an economy inside a computer; the variables are uncountable, and people as a whole are unpredictable- even in a statistical sense (that's probably what separates us from animals).
However, economics is a real area of study. People get PhDs in the subject. Papers are published on a regular basis. A Nobel Prize is awarded in economics EVERY YEAR for crying out loud!!! I can't imagine that there isn't a shred of evidence out there that supports the conclusions they make. Why don't they let us see it?
The reason why, I think, is that the people who talk to us about the economy aren't economists- They're politicians. The burden of proof no longer exists when good salesmanship will achieve the same end.
This, coincidentaly, is the other thing I don't like about economics: It's impossible to separate it from the politics that drive it. I can't help but draw a parallel between today's economic theories and the phrase "Christian science". No scientific theory is viable if it is influenced by ideas taken from religious beliefs. In the same way, I won't believe in an economic theory if its purpose is to back up someone's politics.
In other words, I won't believe anyone when they say that tax cuts are the key to fixing the economy. It could be true, but I can't shake the feeling that the theory behind it was just drummed up to get a few more votes. I'm sure there are a lot of smart people with PhDs that can show me exactly why tax cuts will fix the economy, but then again, there are probably smart people with PhDs that will show me exactly why they won't.
And here's another thing: If Nobel prizes are awarded in economics every year, why is it that I haven't heard any new economic ideas in the last decade? I'd use a longer time frame, but I don't think I was politically aware enough more than ten years ago to formulate a comparison.
Maybe my views on economics are merely a result of my ignorance. I'm sure there are those who can prove all of the statements in this post wrong, but you know what? I'd rather hear it from Washington. Then maybe I'd think that those losers actually know something.
Now, let me explain something I've learned about physics research. Physicists always know what to expect from an experiment. That isn't to say that they always know the outcome, since that would make the experiment useless. Physicists use the accepted laws of physics to predict the outcome, and when the outcome does not agree with the laws, they know that something is wrong with the theory. Predicting outcomes is no easy task in today's large-scale experiments, but the standards are just as high. Doing so usually requires the use of sophisticated modeling algorithms and lots of computing power.
Let me give you an example: One professor I talked to at Berkeley gave me a sneak peak at some of the software that was developed for one of the projects in development at the LHC called ATLAS. The ATLAS detector is about the size of a mansion, and the laws that govern the interactions between particles are in no way simple. Nevertheless, software that incorporates all these parameters have been developed since long before the actual detector began construction. Through the computer simulations given from this program, my professor was able to show me exactly what we would see from the detectors, with charts, graphs, and everything you might expect from a large scale experiment. She even showed me the bump on a particular graph that would prove the existence of the Higgs boson. These graphs and charts were made a long time ago, and yet to this day they haven't even started colliding particles at the LHC.
No matter how much a certain experiment costs- from a few thousand to several billion- researchers are held to the same rigorous standards. They must show exactly why the experiment will work, and exactly what the experiment will establish (or no funding!).
Now, to see why I'm a little peeved, let me ask this question: What did Obama do to show that his $3/4 trillion stimulus package would work? All I've heard is a few political sound bites- from both sides of the aisle.
I'm not saying I'm against the package. I'd say I'm cautiously optimistic about it (I voted for Obama, after all). I, however, am concerned with the fact that I've never seen a shred of evidence relating to economic policies. I've heard arguments, but evidence is apparently hard to come by.
I'm aware that economics are quite a bit different from physics. It's definitely harder (maybe impossible) to simulate an economy inside a computer; the variables are uncountable, and people as a whole are unpredictable- even in a statistical sense (that's probably what separates us from animals).
However, economics is a real area of study. People get PhDs in the subject. Papers are published on a regular basis. A Nobel Prize is awarded in economics EVERY YEAR for crying out loud!!! I can't imagine that there isn't a shred of evidence out there that supports the conclusions they make. Why don't they let us see it?
The reason why, I think, is that the people who talk to us about the economy aren't economists- They're politicians. The burden of proof no longer exists when good salesmanship will achieve the same end.
This, coincidentaly, is the other thing I don't like about economics: It's impossible to separate it from the politics that drive it. I can't help but draw a parallel between today's economic theories and the phrase "Christian science". No scientific theory is viable if it is influenced by ideas taken from religious beliefs. In the same way, I won't believe in an economic theory if its purpose is to back up someone's politics.
In other words, I won't believe anyone when they say that tax cuts are the key to fixing the economy. It could be true, but I can't shake the feeling that the theory behind it was just drummed up to get a few more votes. I'm sure there are a lot of smart people with PhDs that can show me exactly why tax cuts will fix the economy, but then again, there are probably smart people with PhDs that will show me exactly why they won't.
And here's another thing: If Nobel prizes are awarded in economics every year, why is it that I haven't heard any new economic ideas in the last decade? I'd use a longer time frame, but I don't think I was politically aware enough more than ten years ago to formulate a comparison.
Maybe my views on economics are merely a result of my ignorance. I'm sure there are those who can prove all of the statements in this post wrong, but you know what? I'd rather hear it from Washington. Then maybe I'd think that those losers actually know something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)