omenti

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 .. 

before chatgpt - from mozart

My favorite duet in all of opera is  Pa-Pa-Pa-Papagena from Die Zauberflöte. Papageno is the funny guy in the opera and the name is a play on the German word for parrot - Papagei. It brings to mind Emily Bender's stochastic parrot description of how generative AI programs work.  There's no mind behind it so be careful.  

Here's an absolutely wonderful video of a studio session with Huw Montague Rendall and Elisabeth Boudreault.  She's a Canadian coloratura soprano who went to McGill for the Canadians on the list.  There's some joyful chemistry here!

enjoy!!

a watson lecture with carver mead

Carver is one of the most important engineers of the 20th century - a great lecture on some of the events that occurred around him at Caltech over the years.  He's 90..  the lecture is a few months old. Highly recommended - particularly if you're interested in invention, innovation and transformation.

a statement of support

In 2016 I was part of the march against the war on science that the GOP was waging.  Then again in 2020.  Science is expected to an apolitical, but it never has been.  Given the anti-science, the constant lies, the never-ending hate machine, the misogyny, the disrespect for the rule of law ... I can't be silent given the possibility of a fascist government.  I support Harris and Walz and my state and township Democrats.  I don't always agree with them, but there's too much at risk.

 

In his excellent book On Tyranny, [Yale History Professor] Timothy Snyder  writes:

Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.

and restates

Today the owners of the Washington Post an the LA Times showed their cards.  The slogan under the masthead of the Washington Post states:

Democracy Dies in Darkness

Washington Post cartoonist Ann Telnaes made the appropriate comment: