illuminating science

I do enjoy debunking a good urban myth, and with my trusty Google skills I’ve saved many people from horrible fates, such as throwing out every plastic water bottle after they’ve used it because they decay into carciogenic products. (They don’t, by the way.)

And I thought I was onto a winner with this one - someone mentioned recently that eating poppy seed bagels might could cause to you to test positive for an opiate drug test. I was highly skeptical; even if it was vaguely true, you’d probably have to eat so many bagles as to have other problems beyond a drug test. Even if it made a great story for Seinfeld’s Elaine, who missed out on a major position because of a bagel obsession, it couldn’t possibly be true.

But it is! According to The Straight Dope, which are usually a reliable source, even eating two bagles could cause you to test positive on a urine test! This has probably changed by now, with enough false positives coming through that they’ve raised the bar - probably up to about 15 bagels or so. But nevertheless, I stand corrected, and offer an apology to my good buddy to whom I gave very skeptical looks. But better to be skeptical than gullible, right? To be clear, though, we’re not talking about actually getting high off the bagels - it’s just that some of the same chemicals that go into making opium are found in at least some poppy seeds - and in particular, the chemicals we test for!

In a similar vein, a friend recently rinsed her mouth with Listerine mouth wash before work, got stopped by police and tested positive for a blood alcohol reading above the legal limit! Fortunately, when she retested 10 minutes later, her breath had cleared and all was good. But who would have thought that having a couple of bagels for breakfast and cleaning your teeth afterwards could cause so much trouble?!

Alright ladies and gentlemen - the clock is ticking! I’ve just received official word that my application for an extension in my PhD has been accepted, and I now have until the 14th of September (2006!) to submit my thesis. This is good, as otherwise I would have had only 19 days…probably pushing it a little…

The story in Australia is that, provided you get a scholarship, you get funding for three years. After that, most people apply for a six month scholarship extension, and usually receive it. But that’s usually your last reprieve. Provided you submit within four years, the University gets big bucks when you graduate. After four years, I think they get nothing. So there’s very strong incentive to get you done in 3.5 years! In the U.S., it’s quite different - PhDs typically last 5+ years. Part of that is because they do coursework as part of their PhD - in Australia, we specialise in our undergraduate degrees a lot more than in the States, and so get to do more advanced subjects during our honours (4th) year, roughly equivalent to the courses Americans do at the start of their PhD.

Anyway, that means I officially have 6 months, 19 days to finish my PhD. I’ve almost finished my first chapter, and I think I’ve done a good job of being precise and comprehensive. I know that to some extent, “no-one ever reads your thesis”, but I do enjoy doing a good job writing up, particularly background stuff, and I’ll put some of it on the web, Wikipedia, etc, when I’m done - hopefully saving some future grad student some pain! And now, back to work!

So I was reading this old book of mathematical (and other) curiosities recently and I came across a method that Russians used to use to multiply two numbers. A little Googling reveals the technique to be Russian Peasant Multiplication. It allows to you multiply any two numbers with without knowing your times tables - all you need is to be able to do addition plus doubling and halving numbers.

Here’s how it works. Take your two numbers, e.g., 42 times 24. Double the first number and halve the second, at each step ignoring any remainder:

   42 x 24
   84 x 12
  168 x 6
  336 x 3
  672 x 1

Then, cross out the lines with an even number in the righthand (halving) column:

   42 x 24
   84 x 12
  168 x 6
  336 x 3
  672 x 1

Then, simply add up all the numbers remaining in the left-hand (doubling) column:

336 + 672 = 1008

A quick check on Google shows that’s the right answer!

The proof, which I worked out through a little scribbling on the fogged up glass of my shower before I went to bed last night, is a really elegant piece of mathematics involving binary numbers. I won’t post it here, in case anyone fancies having a go themselves - it’s not that hard, but it’s quite clever. That’s one thing I’ve always loved about mathematics - there are these incredibly beautiful results which just drop out, and the proofs are definite and precise and often, well, beautiful!

Now, I wonder how fast this procedure is compared to “conventional” multiplication? There’s probably some small gain for smaller numbers (someone suggested that peasants might have used stones to keep count of their smaller numbers) but I suspect once you’re into 3 or 4 digit numbers, you’d be better off with your timetables. I wonder if there’s some analysis of the number of steps in each case?

I’m a big sci-fi fan, at least of good sci-fi with a strong physics background. Today, in a discussion on The Dividing Line, we were talking about whether telling someone the truth is always the best option, or (sort of) more quantitatively “does the least harm”. This inspired me to do a little digging on Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics, and I found this fascinating piece from about 10 years ago on how relevant these laws are to modern robotics. For the record, the Three Laws are:

1. A robot may not harm a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence, as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Many of Asimov’s plotlines came out of exploiting apparent paradoxes and contradictions from within these Three Laws. For instance, if I were about to be killed by a maniac with an axe, a robot might shoot the maniac in the leg, even though it causes him harm, in the hopes of preventing greater harm to me. In Asimov’s world, the laws are hardwired in the robot’s brain and “positronic potentials” tip the balance towards one act or another according to those laws. Many times, faced with an impossible decision, the robot simply fries its circuitry. The article is a really interesting summary of some of the issues with the laws.

In the article, Roger Clark discusses how the Laws of Robotics have found their way into the thinking of many modern roboticists. He also suggests some interesting “meta” laws that might be needed to constrain the robot in our world, where we don’t have positronic brains available! And there’s a few interesting points on the human acceptence of robots, where he suggests that we need to educate people of the limitations of robots, and computers too, so that people don’t over identify with them. Although written in 1994, this is perhaps becoming increasingly relevant with robot dog pets becoming popular. And that makes for an interesting question - if a child becomes attached to and loves a robot dog, is that any worse than a real dog? Or a teddy bear? Asimov has a story where a young girl becomes attached to Robby the Robot, much to her parent’s dismay. In the end, she loves the robot as much as any pet, and they realise that Robby does have a place in the family.

The Quantum Pontiff has a cool post about humourous comments on journal papers, or more specifically on papers that are submitted to the arXiv, which is an online “pre-print” collection, where physicists can post their papers for general comments before they’re submitted to a “real” journal.

My favourite was:

quant-ph/0207142 [abs, ps, pdf, other] :
Title: Phase measurements with weak reference pulses
Authors: S.J. van Enk
Comments: 5 pages, 5 figures. I apologize for this boring paper
Journal-ref: Phys. Rev. A 66, 042308 (2002)

A couple of the comments you might only appreciate if you have a bit of physics background, but it’s always nice to see some humour in what can be a very dry and serious subject (publish or perish, you know!)

A little Googling showed that Uncertain Principles has a couple of great titles - the best is

What Does a Strongly Excited ‘t Hooft–Polyakov Magnetic Monopole Do?

from the journal “Elementary Particles and Fields”! Haven’t we all wondered that at some time in our lives?

I also turned up a link to a paper talking about style and author guidelines for journals, and features (somewhat paradoxically :)) the title “Catchy, clever titles are not acceptable: Style, APA, and qualitative reporting”. I can’t find any reference to this, but I can only assume that at one time journal guidelines explicitly prohibited being clever in your titles!

I guess there are pros and cons to having a clever title. On the one hand, it’s probably less useful in doing its purpose - quickly and concisely communicating the contents of the paper. On the other hand, it might inspire more people to read or remember your paper, and does establish you as someone with a bit of wit about you! David Mermin has a fascinating and highly entertaining piece about the role of humour and emotion not just in titles but in journal articles in general. It also includes a great story on his efforts to get the word “boojum” to be an internationall, scientifically accepted term!

Even if you can’t have funny titles, physicists, especially astronomers, do like to use clever acronyms or phrases. There’s WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles), MACHO (MAssive Compact Halo Objects) and the famous theorem “Black holes have no hair” (remind me to tell you a famous faux pas by a friend of mine involving that statement sometime) which means that they don’t remember anything of what they were made of. My favourite term, which I’m sure isn’t meant to be funny, is the skirmion. And no, I still don’t really understand it. You can see a picture, though.

Of course, the absolutely coolest stunt ever to be in a journal had nothing to do with titles - it was the author list in the Alpher-Bethe-Gamow paper. This paper, about the formation of elements in the universe, was written by Alpher and Gamow. But, noting their names’ similarity to the Greek alphabet, they added Hans Bethe as an author (without his knowledge, initially!) so their paper was effectively the “Alpha-Beta-Gamma” paper, and came to be known as the “alphabet paper”. You might be pleased to know, however, that Bethe did approve of his name going onto the paper, and did then contribute useful discussions!

Our secret project is up and running - and no longer secret! I would like to introduce my latest website, The Dividing Line. What’s it about? Well, Brett and I used to spend many an evening with friends discussing moral dilemmas, ethics (both in science, and beyond!) and tricky situations like “What would you do if…?” and so forth. We got to thinking that if we found these discussions interesting then others might too, and hence - The Dividing Line was born!

The idea is that each day we’ll present a different scenario or dilemma for you to consider. Everyone votes to say what they’d do, and optionally comments, and hopefully some interesting discussion ensues! Check back each day for a new question or two Finally, creating a username for yourself means that all your votes will be stored and editable, among other advantages. By no means necessary, but worth doing if you’re becoming a regular reader!

Love to hear if you have any suggestions, comments, improvements or feedback!

This is just a snippet of posts today. First up, a great discussion of the Physics Face from Uncertain Principles. This is the expression that people have when they ask “What do you study?” and you say “Physics!”. Chad Orzel’s story is probably familiar to every physicist:

…their mother asked me “What is it you’re reading that’s so engrossing?” I explained that it was a textbook for my class next term, and she asked what I teach.

When I said “Physics,” she made The Face. “Oh, I hated that when I took it in high school.”

It’s the must frustrating of all responses, although “Gee, you must be really smart.” comes pretty close, particularly paired with “I was hopeless at physics”. There’s a great story about physics vs astronomy that I blogged about a while ago, too.

There’s also the potentially quite exciting news that a drug which successful healed severed spinal cords in rats is going to human trials in the near future. Being realistic, I don’t think we can expect a miracle cure, but if we’re finally reaching human trial stages then we’re starting to make some progress.

And last but not least, my friend Brett and I have been working on a secret project which is due for release tomorrow! It’s a website, a little bit experimental and we hope very interesting for all who visit! It’s not directly about science, but there’ll be some overlap. Full details (and the link!) tomorrow!

This is unbelievably cool. I’ve always said that if I ever built a house it would have a secret passage, and this company, Hidden Passageway can do it for you! From “as little as $1500″ for a DIY kit (or $10,000+ for the full deal!), they can hook up a secret passage behind your bookcase, triggered by a book on French poetry, a rotating fireplace when you push a hidden button, and even (looking at their animations!) a slippery-slide type escape route under the seat of your couch to a hidden underground lair! No super villain should be without one!

That really is awesome…I do wonder how much business they get, though!

NASA has just unveiled its Centennial Challenges, prizes and grants which will be awarded for major advancements in space travel, particularly commercial applications. Heading the list, courtesy of New Scientist are:

The Fuel Depot Demonstration Challenge: NASA suggests a $5 million purse for a liquid hydrogen and oxygen storage tank that can transfer fuel to other vehicles in low Earth orbit

The Human Lunar All Terrain Vehicle Challenge: The winner must outperform other teams in the challenge by developing the most agile, convenient, safe and reliable lunar ATV for astronauts. The winners could pocket a cool $1 million

The Low-Cost Space Pressure Suit Challenge: Under the draft rules, $500,000 would be awarded for the production of a safe, effective and marketable space pressure suit for future commercial space vehicles

The Lunar Night Power Source Challenge: To scoop a $500,000 prize, a team must be the first to demonstrate a rechargeable power source that provides power over one lunar night (approximately 14 Earth days) while meeting size and heat requirements

The Micro Re-entry Vehicle Challenge: The vehicle must deliver at least six (of an original dozen) hens eggs unscathed from low Earth orbit back to a target area on Earth to collect $2 million

The Station-Keeping Solar Sail Challenge: A solar sail pushed through space by the force of the Sun’s photons to a target could earn $2. 5 million with an equal amount available for keeping a solar sail for 90 days at a fixed point in space.

I think the most interesting ones are the solar sail challenge (which is just a really cool application of technology) and the lunar power challenge. The latter is especially important because it requires storing (presumably efficiently) large amounts power over a 2 weeks, and then using it gradually, again over two weeks. One of our biggest problems with renewable energy sources is storing the power - batteries are horribly inefficient (like, 5% of power used to charge the battery actually gets out). For example, in hydroelectricity, the most efficient way of storing electricity is to pump water back up the hill, so it can generate more electricity on the way down again! An efficient battery could have tremendous potential far beyond the surface of the moon.

Oh, and the “Micro Re-energy Vehicle Challenge” is one of the cleverest marketing ploys ever! It’s a great, visible image that people can relate to, there’s lots of good headlines (”Eggciting research for Eggsplorers”) and it is also a project of great practical importance for delivery of payloads and even general vehicles. It reminds me a lot of competitions I’ve done where you have to build something out of straws and sticky tape which will help an egg survive a 10 metre fall! Same thing, just a little bit further and slightly better equipment, right?

Have a good weekend all.

I know I said no more serious posting, but, just quickly, the Australian Senate voted to strip the Health Minister of his power to control the abortion drug that I discussed yesterday. It was a conscience vote, meaning that the senators were allowed to vote based on personal opinions, not party policy (in Australia, most Senators are expected to follow the party’s decision; failure to do so (”crossing the floor”) generally doesn’t put your leader in a good mood. (It’s actually an interesting decision as to whether this is a good or bad thing - should politicians, representing all of their electorate, be allowed their own personal opinion? But I promised no more heavy posts for a while….)

The bill still has to be passed through the House of Representatives, which may be tougher, particularly since the Prime Minister (John Howard, again anti-abortion) has indicated he is against it. Still, it was a solid majority (45-28), and hopefully sends a strong message.

There’s been a story brewing for a while now, about a politcal appointee at NASA, George Deutsch, who worked in the press room and “assisted” with the flow of scientific information to the public. First, he was implicated in trying to censor climate scientist Jim Hansen’s efforts to communicate the dangers of global warming. Then, and here we are at sciene and religion again, he ordered all NASA websites that mentioned the “Big Bang” to be changed to say “Big Bang Theory”. Yes, despite being almost universally accepted by physicists (with minor adjustments, such as the “inflationary model”, but it’s the same basic idea) the Big Bang is a theory, so perhaps you could argue that he is a scientific pedantist. Unfortunately, he seals his fate with these choice words:

It is not NASA’s place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator… This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most.

I’m almost apoplectic when I read that, and I can’t bear to comment. I think I’ve made my position known.

Anyway, the final upshot is that it turns out, thanks to some brilliant reporting from an environmental policy blogger, that Deutsch never received his University degree - but still put it on his resume! In light of this scandal, he finally resigned - and not a moment too soon.

Anyway, I think that’s enough of the gloom and doom posts for a while - I’m going to try and write about something lighter for a while now!

So, I thought I’d tackle a somewhat controversial issue that’s been going on for a while in Australia, and that’s abortion and the legality of a particular drug called RU486. I wanted to summarise the current state of affairs, and make some comments from a scientist’s point of view. Before I start, however, I should make something clear: contained herein are my personal views as well as the facts, and I am strongly pro-choice (notice that I’m not pro-abortion, I’m pro-choice - there’s a difference). Some of my views are perhaps rather controversial, and a little harsh on religion. I understand that some people may disagree with me, and I’d welcome calm and well thought out comments and discussion. If, however, you get worked up, don’t be surprised if I censor these comments. It’s a bit of a long post, so click “More…” to read on.

(more…)

It’s been a while since I’ve updated my links, so here’s a few blogs or sites that are worth checking out:

• Mixed States is an aggregation blog which collects a number of physicists’ blogs (including, ahem, yours truly’s…) A good place to pick up some interesting posts and other blogs to read
• A quick update, Sean Carroll has moved his blog from Preposterous Universe to Cosmic Variance, with several other bloggers. An excellent source of physics and insight into the academic’s world!
• Peter Rohde is another PhD student at UQ, and has very interesting, well written posts on physics and more! He even has a fantastic Get Smart game
• Finally, Science Blogs is another group of blogs containing a number of excellent bloggers - well worth browsing through!

Go forth and read! (But, of course, come back… )

Since it’s Friday, I’m again posting about something that, while isn’t really to do with physics, nonetheless appeals to my physicist brain. It’s a collection of parodies called The Unnatural Enquirer, and while some of them are a little weird, some of them are downright brilliant.

My absolute favourite is MacGyver’s recipe for Chocolate Chip Cookies. (I have to assume that everyone knows who MacGyver is. On the vague off chance not, though, MacGyver was a government agent (sort of spy ) who always got out of trouble by using simple items in unusual ways (e.g., using blocks of ice to support a stack of saucepans, to create a time delayed distraction). Watching old episodes, some of it is a little hokey and the science not entirely accurate, but I loved it at the time and it still has a lot of appeal. If you’ve never seen it, you can (from the U.S., anyway) buy some episodes through Google video, or at least check out the MacGyver opening credits and some brief clips.)

Anyway, the upshot is that he often when on some pretty wild adventures, all around the globe, getting out of them in quite remarkable ways, and the cookie recipe captures this rather well!

Other fun articles include the Visible Barbie Project a clever twist on the Visible Human Project, where cadavers were cut into 1mm thick slices, and imaged to create a complete 3d image of the human anatomy. And I also liked his clever observations on how bloody annoying some website designs really are - do some webdesigners not ever sit down and try and access their own websites? Let alone the people they build it for?

Anyway, that’s it for today. One final piece of news is that I’ve received a lead role in a production of The Pirates of Penzance, a ripper of a musical, as the Sergeant of Police. I’m absolutely thrilled, and though we’ve only had one rehearsal so far, it’s already sounding good! We’re performing in May, and I’ll post details of performances closer to the date, on the offchance that any Brisbane people care to come and watch! All the same, it’s probably better not to tell my supervisor about these extra committments when I’m getting close to finishing my PhD! I’ve cut back significantly on dancing, and have taken a break from my choir, however, so on the whole I have much more free time - all the best to write you with, my thesis!

So George Bush, the much loved or much maligned President of the U.S., gave his State of the Union address last night, where he outlined some of his goals as president. (I admit that I don’t really understand American politics, or the actual significance of “State of the Union” etc, but I don’t think that’s a key point here

Of greatest interest to scientists were his comments about energy and about biotechnology. Firstly (and thanks to Slashdot for these links) he asks the American public to run in fear from mad scientists attempting to tamper with God’s Creations ™:

A hopeful society has institutions of science and medicine that do not cut ethical corners, and that recognize the matchless value of every life. Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research - human cloning in all its forms … creating or implanting embryos for experiments … creating human-animal hybrids … and buying, selling, or patenting human embryos. Human life is a gift from our Creator - and that gift should never be discarded, devalued, or put up for sale.

A biologist from Uni. of Minnesota has some good points about why creating a human-animal hybrid (technically known as a “chimera”) is actually very valuable research - by inserting human genes into a mouse, for example, we can explore human genetic defects such as Down’s Syndrome. And yes, perhaps creating evil pig-men isn’t the smartest idea, but most scientists don’t really go in for that (unless you’re in the movies, but I’m saving that particular rant for later in the week…). Perhaps less clear cut would be (assuming this were possible) genetically modifying pigs so as to produce human hearts suitable for transplant.

The same goes for human cloning or embryonic stem cell research - I think it’s silly to discard these sort of things out of hand. Put it to an unbiased ethics committee, like we do with all other research, and let each be decided in its merits.

On the other hand, Bush made some rather surprsing comments about renewable energy. He commented again on America’s “addiction” on oil, and emphasised that it was important to look for other alternatives. Instead of suggesting they drill the Artice wildlife reserves, he pledged an extra 20% funding for renewable energy research, particularly for ethanol. The goal, he says, is to make ethanol a viable fuel source within 6 years, and to replace 75 percent of oil imports from the Middle East with alternative sources. Of course, this is slightly misleading: he’s not replacing 75% of all oil consumption - just 75% of imports. There’s clearly a strong political motivation for this move, but that doesn’t diminish its importance, and nor is he looking for quick fix solutions, like drilling for more oil. He also pledged to double the funding to fundamental physical sciences, and proposed new plans for science education (which have been met dubiously by some, but which sound positive on the whole to me).

In balance, I have to say that I’m quite impressed by his proposals. While it’s unfortunate that his strong religious beliefs are dominating his views on medical research, he is suggesting positive steps towards renewable energy, which implicitly implies cleaner energy - a key point given the global warming crisis. Of course, to some extent I’ll believe it when I see it, but fingers crossed the U.S. will make some positive advancements which will benefit everyone.

There’s a humourous article in this month’s symmetry magazine on Graduate School Gourmet. Basically, the running joke is that PhD students (”grad students” in the U.S.) are typically poor, stressed and spend a lot of time in the lab. (Whether you find it a funny running joke depends a lot on how long ago you finished your PhD…) These, then, are the quick, cheap and easy recipes that now-successful particle physicists used to get them through University.

Seriously though, being a PhD student in Australia must be a lot better than overseas. I have pretty much enough money to do all the (realistic) things that I want to do (although I admit that I’m pretty easy to please!) - a highlight of which is cooking and eating good food (did anyone say pancakes?), and I cook most evenings, with typically 3-4 new, untried meals a week. (Of course, most evenings I’m swing dancing, singing, or whatever - so that typically means getting home at 5:30, cooking immediately, eating at 6:00, and leaving at 6:30! But hey, who’d want a simple life?) So I’ve never really experienced the late nights in the lab/at the computer, nor have I been forced to gulp down 2-minute noodles as my main meal. But perhaps it’s different in Europe/America. Anyone care to enlighten me?

My favourite “recipe” is on the second page from Bernice Durand, where she studied textbooks to find the necessary daily requirements of vitamins, etc, then ate bunches of parsely or brewers yeast mixed with powdered milk to give her what she needed! Spoken like a true physicist, I say! However, her vegetable scrap soup sounds a little unappealing

But Andrzej Buras also had an interesting daily regime - 2 potatoes, 1 cucumber and 2 meatballs. Every day. He claims it’s the secret recipe to becoming a full proffessor of physics - and who am I to argue with that? I better head to the shops now…

This is an interesting story: being thirsty makes you more susceptible to pain, according to a recent study.

The actual paper isn’t online yet, but as best as I can gather: Ten rather brave volunteers agreed to be hooked up to a PET (Positron Emission Spectroscopy) machine which did real time scans of their brain, by monitoring a radioactive (but harmless) isotope which was injected through an IV in their arm. They were subjected to mild pressure on their thumbs, causing pain, and were (I gather) asked to rate the pain. Then, a saline solution (salty water) was injected into their arms to make them feel thirsty, and the procedure was repeated. Perhaps there were control experiments, etc, there, but this is the basic idea.

The results showed that new areas of the brain lit up when both pain and thirst were present. The researchers involved suggest that this might be a way of making sure that the most important stimuli is brought to our attention, in this case, pain. They also suggested (based on earlier experiments on rats) that extreme thirst would dull pain, which again may play an important survival role - if we’re that thirsty, nothing should get in the way of our search for water.

Ironically, what I find most interesting about this study isn’t the actual result itself, but how it was obtained. Who would volunteer to be strapped to a table for three hours, with a saline drip in one arm making you thirsty, a drip in the other arm injecting a radioactive isotope, and some guy causing pain on your thumb? I’ve wanted to get an MRI scan of my brain for ages, and I’m always on the look out for a study that involves one, so that I can exchange my time for a scan However, I’ve only found two studies so far: one on acapuncture, where they wanted to inject a saline solution under my arm until I found the “pressure” (it’s pain, c’mon, we all know it) becomes intolerable (and which would then subside over a few hours), and another where they wanted me to do mental tests while they scanned my brain, but would give me some sort of drug to enhance the scans which has been known to have side effects of nausea, twitching, etc (admittedly, only for larger/prolonged doses, but I’m not messing around with my brain like that!) So, I guess I’ll have to hold off for now - some day, though!