Archives For March 2010

Apple CEO Steve Jobs and the new iPad tablet computer

Back in January, I posted the announcement of Apple’s iPad tablet computer.  I’m personally really excited about it – don’t know if we’ll get one right away (it took us a couple of years before Stephanie and I both got our iPhones – which we love…).

However, this post is about the irony of Newsweek Magazine’s Senior Editor Daniel Lyons writing, within the course of two months, articles which seem to be covering their bets on whether the iPad will be a success or a failure.

The first article is titled “Why the iPad is a Letdown” and the second article is titled “Why the iPad Will Change Everything“.  Maybe they’re consistent with each other (?), but it’s kinda like betting on red and on black in roulette, just to make sure you win (hopefully the wheel doesn’t come up double-zero!…).

Again, I’m personally intrigued by the iPad launch – it’s probably the first time tablet computing will be taken seriously (and probably will take off much like the iPhone did…).  Here’s to another of Steve Jobs’ impact on the computing world!

With the start of the 2010 Major League Baseball season upon us, MSNBC.com has an article about how the game of baseball has come to value statistics more and more over the years.

The trend toward utilizing relevant statistics started in the 1970′s with Bill James’ Baseball Abstract, and came to more widely accepted practice after Billy Beane, as General Manager of the Oakland A’s, used these statistical values to build a playoff team on the cheap.  Beane’s efforts, and how they’ve changed the landscape of modern baseball, was documented by author Michael Lewis in Moneyball.

By the way, Lewis is a good author – I wrote another post about Michael Lewis’ latest book on the global financial meltdown called The Big Short

You can read the article here

Element 112 has an official name – Copernicium – named after the 16th-century Polish scientist Nicholas Copernicus, who first theorized that the Earth revolved around the Sun.  Copernicium’s periodic element symbol is Cn.

While the name was announced some time back, it became official only recently.

Wonder how this would look in the periodic table of periodic tables?…

Read the Los Angeles Times article about Copernicium and the other most recently named elements here

In a previous post, I mentioned that the Large Hadron Collider was starting their official research program, seeking to smash protons together in the 17-mile tunnel at energies of 7 trillion electron-volts (7 TeV).

Well, they did it!  The record was officially achieved today, breaking its previous record.

You can read more about the events at CERN here

Discover Magazine has a really good article about some of today’s scientists that are trying to overthrow the conventional wisdom and find a more complete and accurate model for our universe.

Isaac Newton presented his theory of universal gravitation in 1687, and Albert Einstein overthrew that explanation with his theory of general relativity in 1915.  However, the efforts since Einstein, which include combinations of quantum mechanics and superstring theory, has left most of the scientific world wanting.

There is no doubt that quantum mechanics can predict much of the universe’s probabilistic weirdness.  However, string theory demands multidimensional universes to work and predicts basically nothing.

The three physicists highlighted in the Discover article are Andreas Albrecht, Lee Smolin, and Stuart Kauffman.  (I actually like Smolin’s book The Trouble With Physics – worth a read…).  Here’s a mini-snipit from the Discover article:

Physicists should not spin any theories that require the existence of things, such as multiverses, that cannot be disproved.

I couldn’t agree more.  I wrote a previous post on just this subject and, in another post, Sir Roger Penrose is interviewed discussing the same thing.

Take a preview of the April 2010 Discover Magazine here and read the article…

Albert Einstein and Arthur Eddington

HBO is airing a docudrama they produced in conjunction with BBC on the pursuit for a new theory of gravity.  The movie “Einstein and Eddington” details (if not dramatizes a bit…) Albert Einstein’s efforts to come up with his theory of general relativity, and Arthur Eddington’s efforts to prove him right, all in the backdrop of World War I.

The tensions of the times (and within the movie) highlight that, with World War I pitting German and English armies against each other, Einstein was German-born and Eddington was English, so their long distance correspondence went against the nationalistic trends of the day.

As many people know, Einstein allowed us to realize that objects with heavy mass, such as the Sun, bend the space around it, which is why planets orbit around the Sun.  The theory would also predict that light would also be bent in the same way as it traveled by the Sun. 

If this were true, stars would appear to us in slightly different places in the sky when stars are behind the Sun.  Eddington realized that this could be tested by photographing stars at night, and then photographing these same stars during a total solar eclipse.  In the solar eclipse, the starlight would have to pass by the Sun, but the Moon would block out any sunlight, allowing us to view the stars themselves.

Eddington had to wait several years for the right eclipse conditions, traveling to Africa in 1919.  There were rain and clouds that made the expedition a near failure – but only a near failure because he actually got two good pictures that were enough to confirm Einstein’s theory.  As a result of Eddington’s efforts, Einstein became a celebrity overnight and changed the way we view the universe around us.

There are some interesting ideas that are brought to light in this movie, which track the real-life arcs of these two great scientists pretty well, although there is a little literary license to make the scientists “Hollywood” interesting.  Still, if you run across it, “Einstein and Eddington” is worth the hour-and-a-half of your time.

Predict-A-Lot

2010/03/26 — Leave a comment

Crazy cool stuff – a Yahoo! app called Predictalot lets you make any prediction you can think of, and it will calculate the odds of that prediction being true.  Predictalot is starting out with the NCAA tournament, where you can make predictions such as “Duke will finish better than Maryland” or “Each of the Final Four teams will begin with the letter U”

In calculating these odds, it evaluates all 9.2 quintillion possible outcomes – the combinatorial result of the 64 team, single elimination tournament. 

By the way, 9.2 quintillion = 9,200,000,000,000,000,000 or 9.2 billion billion…   As the Donald would say, that’s ‘UGE!

Here’s a link to read more about Predictalot from Decision Science News.

Coolness (or just plain geekiness) abounds when scientific stuff is self-referencing…

Bill Keaggy (among many of his “visual indiscretions”) has a link that shows a periodic table of various websites that have different periodic tables!  Some are in the shape of galaxies, while other are periodic tables of cupcakes or candies…

Here’s the link.  Enjoy!…

Albert Einstein - One of the Great Scientific Communicators

It’s amazing sometimes how certain things come together, but I didn’t realize that I’d run across an article that was so true in so many ways.

In this week’s edition, Newsweek‘s science editor Sharon Begley describes why scientists are their own worst enemies when it comes to communicating their ideas.  And, in my mind, the world is suffering as a result.

From evolutionary biology to climate change, scientists regularly lose the battle for the public’s attention to less correct, but more understandable alternatives.   Darwin presented the inarguable theories of evolutionary biology well over 100 years ago, and society (especially American society) is still arguing over whether it’s an accurate explanation of the world around us.

And as Begley puts it, it’s mainly due to “scientists’ abysmal communication skills.”

Begley mentions how scientists regularly present themselves and their findings with “arrogance” and a “smarter-than-thou condescension”.   Startling factiod from Begley’s article:  The United States is 33rd out of 34 developed countries in the percentage of adults who agree that species, including humans, evolved. 

How could this be, unless scientists just don’t care about communicating their findings to others so that they can understand the truth.

(Soapbox alert!…)

I’ve written several articles about the importance of communicating, and it becomes especially important for those in the sciences.  Math and science geeks think presenting is merely for marketers and sales people…  Not so!  If you care to see others believe your research and findings, you have an obligation to learn how to communicate your ideas effectively. 

Here’s the attitude that most scientists take, according to Randy Olson, a scientist-turned-filmmaker who earned his Ph.D. in Biology from Harvard, became a tenured marine biology professor at the University of New Hampshire before changing careers, moving to Hollywood, and entering film school at USC.  Here’s how Begley presents his view:

“Scientists think of themselves as guardians of truth,” he says. “Once they have spewed it out, they feel the burden is on the audience to understand it” and agree.

And I’ll tell you – it is incredibly true!  Many scientists are exactly this way…, and they shouldn’t be.  

Read Begley’s article here, especially if you are a scientist!…

The Large Hadron Collider at CERN

March 30, 2010, marks the date on which the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will attempt to break its own record for achieving energies near what was present at the Big Bang.

Twin beams of protons, traveling with energies of 3.5 trillion electron-volts (TeV), will be directed at each other in the 17-mile round LHC, located underneath the French-Swiss border at CERN.  According to CERN, this will mark the beginning of LHC’s official research program.

I posted their original landmark test here, and you can read more about their upcoming tests here