omenti

the importance of art and nature

It was a chilly day in early Spring and I had only been with Bell Labs  for a few months when I came across Alan in Lord Stirling Park.  It's a lovely place and I was near the end of an eight point something mile loop.  I'd seen him going on the way out as he crouched by his homemade four by five inch view camera.  It was beautifully made with a very expensive German lens.  He showed me the controls and went back to looking at a tree stump as I walked on.  Three hours later he was still in the same spot when I came by .  Naïvely I asked how many exposures he'd made:

"Oh just one - but it was so beautiful!  In an hour the light could be right for another."

Years later I learned he was a physicist at another Bell Labs location.  We worked on a few projects together.  His patience and out-of-the-box creativity are remarkable 

 

One of my undergrad physics professors suggested walking in the woods,  not thinking of anything in particular before working on a difficult problem. You'd regularly see him just watching something on a tree or bush on campus.   He was also a big fan of art museums and was taking by "finding beauty in simple forms. " He also told us not to study for exams in classes that meant something to us. Just keep up and think and let the tests flow by as nothing other than mileposts.   Some of the best suggestions I've had.  When I've interviewed people for positions that demand a degree of cleverness I always ask about their hobbies.  It turns out that was a good idea.

 

The trigger for this  is new work from a group of Cambridge psychologists that, for the first time, offers empirical evidence that engaging in artistic beauty helps you escape the "mental trappings of daily life" and induce "psychological distancing" -  the zooming out on your thoughts to form connections and gain clarity.

 

The tests asked people to study simple ceramics as well as line drawings of them. Their simplicity demanded focus - something that might be difficult with a complex piece of art.   All of the subjects in the ceramic group tested higher on abstract thinking tests compared to those who looked at the drawings for short time.  The later group saw no improvement over their scores before the tests.  More startling were the results of those who regularly engaged in an artistic hobby. Their abstract thinking scores were even higher than the non-hobbyist group. 

 

Physics and math are the only areas I know with any depth.  Both are driven by beauty and curiosity.  Perhaps it's not surprising that many in these fields engage in artistic hobbies like art, music and even poetry as well as spending some time every day being alone with nature in some way.

 

Go to your local museum and look at a few things deeply, wander in a park or the woods and loose yourself.  Try drawing something.  Not only is it a good break, but your ability to think abstractly may improve!

 

the hit list

Since restarting the blog I tool a look at its statistics.  These 12 represent around 90% of visits a month after posting.   As always lots of errors that I don't bother correcting given my textbookish editing style.

 

Do bats echolocate in color?

G, A, F, ↓F, C

How much power do you need to go fast?

fire and ice

50 miles on a pint of peanut oil

solar powered hurricanes

the physics of rowing (dimensional analysis)

why does light bend and slow down in glass?

playing with dimensions (simple estimates of difficult problems using dimensional analysis)

moore's law and largish numbers

falling trees and sufer music

homer simpson and olympic swimming events

 

 

 

 

comments on innovation

A few weeks ago my friend Om began a piece on innovation with the torpedo bat.  As with anything Om writes, it's a recommended read.  I have an interest in innovation in sport, but will start with some more general comments.

 

I tend to see innovation as a step in a chain: discovery → invention → development → innovation.   These usually don't come from the same organizations and can span a large amount of time.  There's also a great non-linear mixing.  Discoveries can lead to other discoveries, inventions can lead to discoveries and so on.  I've been involved in the first three areas at different times.  In my mind innovation is a successful change that embeds itself in some area.  I've never been directly involved in that process, although things I've worked on have led to it. 

 

It isn't an efficient process and efforts to make it more efficient usually fail.  Research, the leading edge, is often broken into three areas:  curiosity driven research, high impact research and applied research.  Various labels are used, but curiosity driven research is where major change often comes from.  In the US it's much rarer than it once was as funders expect progress on a time schedule.  High impact is more common - research that is likely to achieve a stated goal.  And finally applied research can be thought of as the leading edge of development.  

 

In many disciplines innovation is the only segment recognized and richly rewarded by the public, but they're all difficult and necessary,

 

Witnessing the current US regime's attack on science and education is beyond disturbing.  I'll stick with the research side as that's what I know best, but the attacks on intellectual freedom, students, faculty and funding will lead to medium term programs and long term disaster for the country and beyond. As an example very little basic research on drugs is done in pharmaceuticals.  They take research from universities and the NIH and apply it.  An important step, but the pipeline is being destroyed as I write. And the attach on education in general will dry up human resources at all stages.  The price the nation will pay for acting on grievance will be enormous. 

 

With that off my chest I'll go back to sports.  The International Olympic Committee  talks about three principles: fairness, safety and inclusion. I've written about the importance of the ordering of these and the interpretation from science, so I won't expand on that here, but I'll add that entertainment is part of the picture. Some sports are big business as is betting on them. That can and does drive the ordering of the three basic principles. 

 

The quest to win and safety create a desire for innovation.  About ten years ago I became interested in the fluid dynamics of a volleyball in flight.  Princeton has a rich collection of sports science papers.  There are hundreds of papers on baseball, cricket, soccer, rugby, American football, hockey, tennis and the so-called Olympic sports.  There are dozens of papers on baseball ranging from the fluid dynamics of the ball in flight, neurology and vision (odd fact - of all occupations and spots, major league baseball players have the highest vision acuity by a good margin. They also have slower than average reaction times), kinesiology, and so on.    The physics of bat design and sweet spots goes back to the 1950s.  Innovation like the torpedo bat is the results of successful design and testing as the fundamental work has been around for a while. 

 

Running shoes, bicycle design and swimsuits are more controversial areas. All are now regulated for fairness although it raises the question of what a record means. Track bikes from before 1995 were much faster than current designs so how do you compare records. Innovation in shoe design over the past five years has rendered records many track events obsolete.  Some innovations are less controversial, although their impact has been great.   And there are flexible bars and floors in gymnastics, a steady progression of tennis racket design and so on.  

And then there's innovation in technique. The Fosbury flop in the high jump is often considered the single most revolutionary innovation in sport.  There's a good deal of innovation in coaching that comes from just trying things to the application of kinesiology. a better understanding of physiology, psychology and even sociology. 

 

With all of this innovation and change there's something more fundamental.  The passion, focus and drive of elite athletes.  Knowing a few Olympians has taught me a lot about that.   At the highest level of sport I suspect that's a constant that remains unchanged.   That fierce passion exists in many other endeavors, but sport offers a simple language most of us can understand giving us a way to celebrate excellence.

 

________

With all of the political craziness in the US, I've been listening to music and doing math as a diversion.  Here's a wonderful performance of the "Pa-pa-ge-na! Pa-pa-ge-no!" duet from Die Zauberflöte. . It's not often you see a coloratura soprano in the role and there's serious musical chemistry in play. 

 

K2-18b

There's a lot of excitement about the best signature of life yet seen on an exoplanet.  The plant in question is a sub-neptune about 2.6 times the diameter of Earth that orbit a red dwarf that's 124 light years away. It has an orbital period of 33 days and is in the habitable zone.  It has an atmosphere of carbon dioxide and methane, but there's a strong suggestion it's a water world.  A few years ago dimethyl sulfide was found.  That's significant because it's only produced by living organisms on Earth.  The latest work shows it exists in densities about twenty times greater than on Earth. Dimethyl sulfide is mostly produced by algae in the oceans on Earth and is partly responsible for the odor you associate with the ocean.

 

Lots of caveats..  while we don't know of other natural mechanisms that could produce a lot of the molecule it doesn't mean there aren't any. Also careful examination of signals sometimes (often) causes them to disappear.  Folklore is this group and a few other competitors have been bashing the data for some time and can't make the signal go away.   I've read the paper, but it's not my field so I can't really judge other than listening to a friend at Caltech and another at PI. 

 

It was seen with the James Webb Space Telescope.  A follow-on has largely been completed that would be useful for confirming the signal and looking for other interesting signatures, but the Trump regime killed the program along with most space science and astrophysics.  

 

A few years ago I had a long series of exolife discussions with a 35 year old friend .  My belief then - and this assumed NASA and JPL would continue to be functional entities - was that we'd have a strong confirmation in her lifetime.., probably not mine.  At this point it seems pretty hopeless as so much damage is being done to the programs

 

correcting a prediction

A huge miscalculation.

Given issues with uses of the technology I had discounted the impact of large language models on the economy in the near term, but given how it’s being used by DOGE to dismantle the infrastructure of government and by Trump’s white house group to design tariffs to swing at the global economy, I have to admit my error.  Of course a massive change that uses technology as a fuel requires someone to start the fire, some to fan the flames and those opposed to the fire to be disempowered. 

Of course one can learn from their errors.

 

 

 

 

Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!

The Office of the United States Trade Representative released the formula used to calculate Trump's "reciprocal tariffs.

My gosh!  Where does one begin?

The famous physicist Wolfgang Pauli was asked to look at a paper by a young physicist.  After a few minutes he tossed it away saying: "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!"  (That is not only not right; it is not even wrong.)

 

There are constructions so completely without clue as to merit Pauli's comment:  the flat Earth, the Earth is the center of the universe, phrenology, or that π can be legislated to be 3.2  come to mind.

 

Trump's formula completely ignores services, foreign demand and a host of other important items. His real goal is probably more along the lines of a protection racket - a tool to compel fealty.  We shall see. I can imagine people around the world acting like Canadians have when it comes to American products and services.  Not to mention the psychology of feeling "poorer" in the US. 

 

What could possibly go wrong?

_________

Catching up.. five readers have written enthusiastically about the maapl.net search engine. No AI, no ads, open source, no tracking and free.   It's also faster than Bing and Google.  I've been recommending Kagi - a paid search service - but probably won't renew my annual subscription when it comes due this Summer as maapl fills most of my needs.

 

Finally congratulations to Kip, Andrew, Frank and Jheri who solved the puzzle I posted on the 23rd of March.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

getting lost for the thrill of it

 Last week a friend and I were chatting about the tension between exploration and exploitation in technology.  The work of James March came to mind.  My old friend Norm had a few of us read his paper on exploration and exploitation for a few of our Friday afternoon sessions at Bell Labs.  It had set off a good deal of work in a number of fields and was relevant to the Labs as exploratory research was cut in favor of more exploitative work. March's paper was interesting as it suggested ways to model the tension between research, development and exploitation when resources are limited (they almost always are). It also brought up the fact that people have differing tolerances and tastes when it comes to the risks associated with each of these areas.

 

For the moment I'm more interested in concentrating on exploration as that's what I find most rewarding.  By many metrics individual exploration isn't worth it compared to sticking to a well-trodden (by you or your firm) path.  It's difficult and sometimes impossible to optimize and it frequently fails.  On the other hand if you're willing to learn from failure it can be powerful and an education plus every now and again you have an insight or discovery. 

 

Some of  us find the discoveries or insights - and even the path of being somewhat lost - fun and even thrilling.  It's been suggested there's a dopamine hit that helps drive this in some.  It's not something we can do all the time as it's generally not productive, but the discoveries and flashes of insight are what can bring change.

 

There's a good deal of work that suggests interdisciplinary at the individual and/or organizational level provides richer explorations with higher success rates.  It certainly seems to be the case in the physical sciences.  Those who make the greatest strides are often those who have come up through varied pathways.  Creativity appears to be linked to interdisciplinary as well as focus.

 

Doing something is much richer than just watching.  It's been noted dementia rates are much lower among those who are constantly doing things that require learning.  It doesn't seem to matter what it is, but has to be something that's mentally challenging.  Learning to knit, a sport you haven't done, math you don't know how to do, how to draw, play a musical instrument .. anything as long as it's hard.  

 

There are false novelties.  Social media gives a stream of novel things to watch giving people dopamine hits. There's a bit of an addiction. Perhaps we're wired for it. Another false novelty is sugar.  When we needed the calories sugar provided a hit.  Now we don't need the extra calories, but for many of us the attraction of sugar can be unhealthy.

 

Back to creativity.  I might be wrong, but I've come to believe it's something you develop and enhance.   There are several measures of it.  You have to take them with a grain of salt as it's not exactly clear what's being measured, but there's a general agreement among these methods that creativity has been dropping in teenagers and college students since the late 90s with a very large drop beginning around 2010.  A sobering conjecture is heavy use of social media is taking away from other forms of the work of exploration.   It's also been noted that this drop isn't seen among those who are doing tasks that require constant exploratory learning.

 

So turn off the GPS every now and again and take find new paths.  Surround yourself with interesting people who are dissimilar.  It's something of a luxury to do much of this in most work environments so take up new hobbies and keep pushing yourself.  

 

 

what makes an elite athlete?

I've been interested in the question for the past six or seven years.  A close friend is an elite athlete - four times first team All-American in college, best women's volleyball player in the country for three of her four years and winner of the Honda Cup - the award given to the best college female athlete (other winners include Caitlin Clark, Britney Grinner, Rebecca Lobo and Mia Hamm).  She went on to a remarkable international career and is a World Champion and Olympian. She's very thoughtful and I've been curious about her drive and focus.  There are some similarities in fields outside of sport, which means there are interesting lessons.

 

Along the way I've read dozens of papers filled with the sort of curious information people like David Epstein mines in his wonderful books and Malcolm Gladwell cherry-picks and distorts.  I'll list a few without details to give a sense

Elite athletes are rarely the oldest child.

Where you're from has a large impact - usually mid-sized communities 

The right sort of parenting is important.  Many parents get it wrong.

Specialization and the amount of training varies from sport to sport, but generally specialization before the age of 12 and large amounts of training is counterproductive

The 'quiet eye' is fundamentally important in many sports including golf, soccer, cricket, baseball and volleyball

Left-handers are at an advantage in many sports.  Cricket and baseball show an advantage for those who throw with their dominant hand, but hit with the other.

Only a few basketball players take advantage of physics in the free-throw.

 

There's a lot more, but these are specific to sports. What's more interesting is the psychology of elite athletes.  Some of these resonate with my own training and work and probably will for many of you.

 

Passion for sport comes from within.  The necessary practice is not seen as a burden, but as part of the process of getting better.  Practice has to be continually challenging, otherwise it is just maintenance at best and potentially backsliding.

 

The community for training is important. As the athlete grows there need to be others who are similar, but have better skills as well as athletes in other fields they can learn from. Finding coaches who can connect is challenging.  As the athlete moves to an elite level coaching is often subtle. This is certainly true becoming a physicist. You learn things like those who ultimately succeed are self-driven and studying for a test may be counterproductive as you're working hard along the way.

 

Motivation can be intrinsic and extrinsic. Good athletes are usually driven by extrinsic motivation - winning games, money and praise. The elites are mostly driven by intrinsic motivation.   Always getting better and improving and becoming more skilled than your peers is much more important. If your sport doesn't have great financial rewards it doesn't matter.  You do it because that's what you have to do (this is very similar to science!).  Sarah has described it as a sparkle inside that is brighter than the excuses not to practice.

 

Good athletes are often driven by criteria of success defined by others.  Elites have some of this, but a self-referenced task motivation is even stronger.  They're more resilient what it comes to recognizing failure and disappointment are teachers.  They may have a day of shock, but learn from these experiences and grow.  The super-elites seem unfazed by failure.  Again - a huge resonance with science and many other fields.

 

Some of this resilience and dealing with failure positively comes from having a bumpy trajectory during their teens.  With a couple of exceptions elites were rarely at the top of the heap when there were 14 or 16.

 

I'm still learning a lot.  The great thing about good friends are the similarities and differences.    I'll end with something from one of the Cecelia Payne - a true revolutionary. Her Ph.D. thesis 100 years ago used the emergence of quantum mechanics to show what the Sun was made of and started the path towards how it works. Because she was a woman she was denied title and most of what would have been a salary at Harvard. She had to wait over 20 years for the President of Harvard to die for an appointment as a professor.  What she says is true for science as well as most of the Olympics sports:

 

Do not undertake a scientific career in quest of fame or money. There are easier and better ways to reach them. Undertake it only if nothing else will satisfy you; for nothing else is probably what you will receive. Your reward will be the widening of the horizon as you climb. And if you achieve that reward you will ask no other.

 

__________

bonus.. a little puzzle.

what are the next four numbers in the sequence:

    4, 16, 37, 58, 89, 145, 42, ...

 

 

 

 

omenti is back

Thanks to a kind anonymous reader there's now enough money to cover hosting for the next four years.  I was on the verge of giving up the blog anyway and the hosting costs were more than I could justify.  But the note made me reconsider.  

So a huge thank you!  She had some suggestions for direction, but they're not all that different from the somewhat random posts over the last thirteen or fourteen years.  Let me know if you have topics that you think I could address. No guarantees, but it's back.

Here's the note she sent:

Steve!

I miss your blog posts and you're exceptionally different way of thinking about the world. Often it starts me thinking in directions I hadn't imagined.  Since you stopped I've gone back and read a few  hundred of your posts.  More than a few are wonderful!  I hope this is enough for you to resume. 

 

 

thanksgiving, wicked and a friend

I've mentioned Dianna Cowern (aka Physics Girl) several times here. She's the one with a terrible case of Long Covid - she's been completely bedridden with nausea, brain fog and attacks on vital organs for two years.  About a week ago there was some wonderful news.  She's still bedridden, but some of the nausea and brain fog is gone with some experimental treatments. She was able to give a one minute long thank you to her friends and patrons. That made my Thanksgiving season. 

 

The film version of Wicked triggered this post.  Eight years ago she played Newton in an a capella science parody of the classic tune from the play.  Since her BS from MIT was in physics, I had no idea she could sing.  I hope she repairs to the point where she's singing and doing science popularization again!

click on the watch on YouTube link to keep the 'confirm you're not a bot' message...

and for fun, a piece on eco-devo ..