This last weekend we made it out to artopia in Seattle’s Georgetown neighborhood. One of the cool event at artopia was the power tool races. That’s right, power tool’s or other appliances propelling themselves down a long track! Here, for instance, is my favorite, the Piña Collider:
Won the race, finishing perfectly at the end of the track, where the owner popped open the blender and poured himself a nice Piña Colida (this shot taken by Mrs. Pontiff, who is much better at aiming her iPhone than I am.)
Quantum Twitter
Is Waterloo’s Institute for Quantum Information the first quantum institute to have a twitter feed?
Update: @WaterlooIQC tells me that no they probably aren’t the first. That title probably goes to iqoqi.
Who Will Study the Studiers?
NSF awards $400K in stimulus funding to study the impact of stimulus funding on science.
Researchers at the University of Virginia get $199,951 to study the impact of stimulus funding on employment in science and engineering fields, while the University of Michigan receives $199,988 to develop a database of the investments in and outcomes of social science projects funded by the ARRA.
But no one is asking the real question. Who will study the impact of funding these two groups on science? Huh?
Dangers of Discussing Quantum Theory in Public
An old friend from my undergrad days sent me a link to Physics discussion ends in skateboard attack:
A homeless man is on trial in San Mateo County on charges that he smacked a fellow transient in the face with a skateboard as the victim was engaged in a conversation about quantum physics, authorities said today.
Jason Everett Keller, 40, allegedly accosted another homeless man, Stephan Fava, on the 200 block of Grand Avenue in South San Francisco at about 1:45 p.m. March 30.
At the time, Fava was chatting with an acquaintance, who is also homeless, about “quantum physics and the splitting of atoms,” according to prosecutors.
Keller joined in the conversation and, for reasons unknown, got upset, authorities said. He picked up his skateboard and hit Fava in the face with it, splitting his lip, prosecutors said.
No word on whether it was Bell’s theorem which set off the brawl, or a debate about the validity of string theory.
Slow Science
The “slow movement” is a vast beast: there’s Slow Food, Slow Travel, Slow Money, and even, I kid you not, Slow Reading. These movements all begin with the premise that modern culture emphasizes ever increasing speed and convenience (cue the Eagle’s: “Listen, baby. You can hear the engine ring. We’ve been up and down this highway; haven’t seen a goddam thing.”) The prescribed medicine is a moderance in life. More smelling of the roses (but watch out for Ringo), more taking the long road, and most definitely more chewing your food slowly. While the movement suffers from large doses of overly nostalgic pastoralism, I find myself resonant with the slow movements search for a good pace and balance in how I try to live my life.
Thinking about this the other day (while chewing slowly, of course) I wondered, well, what about “Slow Science?” And like most thoughts you think might not have ever been thought, it turns out that this phrase has come up before: “Taking time to savour the rewards of slow science” Lisa Alleva, Nature 443, 271 (2006). To quote from the letter:
In shedding the ambition of my peers, I have discovered a secret: science, slow science, is perhaps the most rewarding and pleasurable pastime one could ever hope for. My supervisor’s lab is small — two postdocs only, with no teaching responsibilities. We are free to read the literature, formulate ideas and carefully plan our experiments so as to execute thoughtful strategies. We do not plough through genomes hoping to discover something interesting; we formulate a theory, and then we go in and test it.
Perhaps we are old-fashioned, but I feel my education as a scientist has benefited far more from my five years of slow science than the preceding five years of fast science. What’s more, we are on the brink of something big, exciting and wonderful, that spurs my slow science forever onwards.
So what about it? Who’s in for a slow science movement?
Continue reading “Slow Science”
Film Reviews in Nature Physics?
What in the world is a review for Star Trek doing in Nature Physics? (Thank to reader W for pointing this out.) I mean, at least the review of Angels and Demons has references to physics, but the review of Star Trek, is, well, just a review of Star Trek with no reference physics or science or, well, anything that I could see the audience of Nature Physics relating to.
I’m not saying I don’t appreciate the review, or the book/art section of Nature Physics, but doesn’t this seem a bit out of place. It is too bad, indeed, because the movie does contain time travel, and as Cosmic Sean demonstrated their is ample fodder for a review of Star Trek that at least pulls in some fun physics.
In a related note, Nature physics now requires a statement of author’s contributions. (“Dave Bacon’s contribution was to sit around and crack jokes all day while we worked hard and tried not to get distracted.”)
Strip Malicious Mischief
Ah, the games people play:
A 23-year-old Tacoma man and an 18-year-old Lakewood woman are suspected of throwing rocks from a railroad trestle onto at least 14 vehicles traveling southbound on Interstate 5 early Monday.
…
Investigators told KOMO-TV that the couple was playing a stripping game that involved each of them shedding a layer of clothing for every headlight they managed to break.
I Want to Quantum Jump to a Tiger
From Pravda, some pretty serious funny: Quantum transition to transform mankind in 2012.
Continue reading “I Want to Quantum Jump to a Tiger”
The Equilibrium Theory of Games
The other day I ran into a good friend from Tlön, who told me the most fascinating story about his discovery of a new theory of games.
Continue reading “The Equilibrium Theory of Games”
Half-Space Algorithms For Identifying Geniuses
In his latest New York Times op-ed column, David Brooks, the conservative liberals can most stomach, attempts to tackle the problem of “what makes a genius”. This is, of course, the kind of reasonable length topic that one can explain in a single newspaper column (it’s the New York Times, you now.) The article begins, like all great op-ed, with a strawman that would make Dorothy proud:
Some people live in romantic ages. They tend to believe that genius is the product of a divine spark. They believe that there have been, throughout the ages, certain paragons of greatness — Dante, Mozart, Einstein — whose talents far exceeded normal comprehension, who had an other-worldly access to transcendent truth, and who are best approached with reverential awe.
Having properly stuffed his straw man, Brooks then lights it afire with his main thesis:
The key factor separating geniuses from the merely accomplished is not a divine spark. It’s not I.Q., a generally bad predictor of success, even in realms like chess.Instead, it’s deliberate practice. Top performers spend more hours (many more hours) rigorously practicing their craft.
This is, of course, a miraculous discovery, worthy of a true genius! Did you know that you can identify geniuses by the use of a two dimensional plot and circling those in the upper right hand corner? I had no idea.
Continue reading “Half-Space Algorithms For Identifying Geniuses”