omenti

a meltdown between two brownies

You need to read Om’s blog post Why iPhone is today’s Kodak Brownie Camera  It reminded me of my home-brew digital camera about 35 years ago (the Meltdown the ferret photo is in this post - probably the first digital image of a ferret).   

 

 

Digital photography - at least how we usually think of photography (more on that later) - was invented in 1975 by Steve Sasson at Kodak.  (a fun NY Times piece)  Charged coupled devices (CCDs) used to capture the image, had been invented at Bell Labs a few years earlier.  Sasson used one made by Fairchild for his experiments.  I had read a bit about digital cameras when I built mine, but decided to used a modified DRAM memory chip because I could get one for nothing and it seemed like a reasonable thing to try.  It was just that - fooling around with some hardware and writing a bit of software for fun.  The fact that it captured my only record of my ferret Meltdown made it special.

 

 

But there’s another form of digital image making.  Experimental particle physics people moved from detecting events with regular photography (bubble chambers and film emulsions) to electronic counters.  Around 1968 the multiwire proportional chamber revolutionized the field and set the stage for dramatic discoveries that lead to the Standard Model - still the best description of three of the four fundamental forces.  A MWPC consists of many planes of parallel wires.  They’re assembled in a chamber filled with a gas that ionizes when a charged particle flies by.  The wire closest to the passing particle detects the event and a signal is read out. These arrays are arranged at right angles in tightly spaced pairs so it’s possible to calculate a position in two coordinates.  As the particle passes through the chamber its x and y position is registered along its track.  A computer calculates a trajectory for each particle and all of the particles that registered form a 3d image of the event.  This information is then processed to reveal the physics of the event.   This type of photography has become more sophisticated and MWPCs have largely been replaced by more capable detectors, but it's still the same idea - just a fancy camera.    The people  who use these exotic cameras use their smartphones like everyone else for all kinds of personal images. 

 

 

Over the years I’d spent some time worrying about image and sound quality.  At one point I thought better was - well - better.  My epiphany came in the a perfectly restored 66 red Mustang.  It was near Cleveland with the head recording engineer from Telarc Records and a seriously good musician from the Oberlin Conservatory.  We were talking about where music reproduction might go with sound field reconstruction and dramatically more information than CDs could provide when a favorite Beatles tune came up on the 8 track (gasp! - it *was* an authentically restoration).  The volume came up and the two of them were singing along to the music in pure delight.  There is something transcendent about the music - even with awful reproduction in that noisy environment.   Portable music players with cheap headphones would be good enough for most.  As long as there's a personal touchstone.

 

 

Om points out there is a market for high end photography.  Perhaps the real distinction is high end photography is more of a verb than a noun.  You do it to learn how to see images as much as to capture them.   Hopefully it will never go out of fashion.

 

you're here because dinosaurs didn't have good telescopes

Sixty six million years ago - the end of the Cretaceous period  - an asteroid or comet struck the Earth near what is now Chicxulub, Mexico creating a crater 150 kilometers in diameter.  Huge tsunamis that rose hundreds of feet as they approached coastlines.  Worse, firestorms swept the planet and the oceans underwent a sudden and deep acidification.  Food chains collapsed on land and in the oceans and with them three quarters of plant and animal species vanished.  

Arguably it was a bad day.

If the non-avian dinosaurs only had evolved larger brains perhaps they would have made it to the point where they had good astronomy and a good enough space program.   But nature keeps moving on and the massive change allowed other lifeforms to evolve including us.  In retrospect it was a great day for the human race.

 

Could it happen again?  That one's easy -  100 percent probability.  Fortunately we're at the point where we have astronomy and a space program so it makes sense to think about risk and mitigation efforts.   

 

In 1994 a comet called Shoemaker-Levy 9 broke into 21 major pieces and struck Jupiter.  It had been captured by Jupiter's gravity and had been orbiting the planet for about three decades it put on a show that would have devastated life on Earth.

 

An Earth strike would be different and Jupiter's large size makes it a more likely target it did ring alarms and people started thinking about the probability of something big enough to do serious damage hitting the Earth as well as what could be done about it.  After all - we had telescopes to figure out likelihoods and rockets to do something about it. 

 

On the 1^st of July, 1770 we came very close to a major extinction event - one that probably would have included humanity among the erased.  Lexell's comet came with six times the distance between the Earth and the Moon. Cosmically speaking that's a near miss.  New comets tend to appear anywhere between a few months to a year before they could be dangerous.  But there's much more than just comets out there. 

 

NEOs - Near Earth Objects - are comets or asteroids that come close to or pass through Earth's orbit.   They range in size from a few meters to several kilometers.  Small ones are common and tend to fragment or disintegrate leaving only small pieces for collectors and scientists.  Moving up the size scale you pass through city killers to objects capable of global devastation.  Fortunately the big ones are fairly easy to spot, but over ninety percent of the estimated city killers have yet to be cataloged.

 

A program to funding the construction and operation of new survey telescopes along with retrofitting existing observatories was kicked off about ten years ago with the US and EU taking part.  It's relatively inexpensive and has made some progress, but the Trump Administration cut funding.  

 

So what can you do?  With enough advance warning you can evacuate regions for objects in the city killer size range.  Moving up the size scale means using rockets to intercept the threatening NEO.  What to do with it is non-trivial and depends a lot on its composition and size.  That's an interesting subject for a future post if there's interest (hint: you probably don't want to nuke it) , but an important step would be expanding missions to asteroids of various sizes to learn about their makeup.  In addition to insurance there are technical and scientific benefits that are probably justification enough.  

 

Perhaps it would help us think about preparation and mitigation - the next pandemic and global warming will both make their presence known with much higher probabilities in the next few decades.  

 

 

 

 

making the whole more than the sum of the parts

Basketball is my first love, but the athleticism of beach volleyball is amazing.

_____

Watching the men and women spike, block, and dive around a court that is almost impossible for two people to adequately cover makes one appreciate the elite level of athleticism necessary to be competitive on an international level. After basketball, it may very well may be the second-most exciting international sport.  

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 

 

Sport is often seen as a microcosm of society.  It brings disparate groups come together to peacefully play, watch and cheer.  Sometime it's a vehicle for highlighting social issues and even bringing change.  Looking around more carefully you find more - teamwork is a good example and I'll go there.  

 

People tend to have favorite events.  My wife likes gymnastics, ice skating, and weight lifting (she lifted as an amateur).  I like a few Winter sports, but my favorite sport is beach volleyball.  Requiring little in the way of equipment and having simple rules it's a fairly clean sport.  Easy for some people to get together and knock a ball around as well as being very difficult to master.  Played at the highest levels it's a mental game of strategy and tactics.  Successful two person teams require a set  skills a single player rarely has forcing a mixture of  specialization along with a generalist's skill.  It's this  difficult simplicity that attracts me.¹  

 

The real reason for the post is to focus on what makes a successful team.  The best teams tend to have a mixture of physical characteristics, types of athleticism and approaches to the game play.  Communication and reading the game and the other players are critically important.  High level players develop court sense - they know where the other players and ball are as well as how that information is changing with time.    And it's just them - they can't use a coach during the game.

 

Sarah Pavan is a friend and half of the current women's world champion team that was just named one of the most significant volleyball teams of the last decade.  (the link is worth checking out as it shows some of what makes them an unusual and great team)   They're an example of finding success by celebrating differences.   Sarah is shy and somewhat introverted while Melissa Humana-Paredes, known in the sport as the smiling assassin,  is a five alarm joyful extravert.  Sarah is a strategic player, some call her the most cerebral player in the game, while Melissa is one of the most intuitive players.  They manage to bring their differences together without changing each other.  

 

Social scientists who study teamwork in the workplace, military and other areas regularly point out three main components of the most successful teams (individual skill is not one of them): the ability to communicate freely, empathy (that's a loaded word, but I'll leave it at that), and having women on the team.   I sent a video link to a match to a professor who studies verbal and non-verbal communication.  She noted Sarah and Melissa appear to have mastered an almost off-the-chart skill level.  Empathy is more difficult to nail down, but these two seem to know what each other is thinking on and off the court.  And, of course, they have women on the team nailed down.

 

There are probably lessons here and in other areas of sports applicable to teams outside of sports.  I've had a couple of fascinating discussions comparing and contrasting the dynamics of physics collaborations, movie animation teams and beach volleyball. 

__________

¹ Not quite the whole story.  There isn't a lot of money in the sport and the players are very approachable and enthusiastic. It's part of the sport's atmosphere.   I'm also interested in the physics of what's going on, but that would probably happen in any sport - the first time I seriously watched curling I had to work out why the stone curled the "wrong" way. 

 

getting down to the bedrock

Some areas are built on foundations of fundamental principals that can be built upon.  For example many of the world's religions have a form of the golden rule in their bedrock.  Physics has a few of these cornerstones that are so deep they're considered beautiful and have become guides.  I've been thinking about one of them - complementarity -  a lot recently.  Particularly as it appears outside of physics in many areas probably including some you're used to thinking about.

 

Neils Bohr and Albert Einstein were contemporaries - peers actually.  Both were great sources of quotes.  Einstein's fame is such that it's difficult to figure out exactly what he did say without original sources. Bohr's lack of fame outside of physics makes it easier. Here are a few:

 

“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough.”

“Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think”

“A physicist is just an atom's way of looking at itself.”

“There are trivial truths and there are great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true.”

 

None were meant to be flippant and the last one is one of the richest quotes I know.  Really deep ideas have meanings that go beyond the surface.   As an example consider this question

 "is light a particle or a wave?"

 It turns out it's both, but sometimes it's most useful to describe it as a wave while other times you treat it as a particle.  It's impossible to apply both descriptions at the same time.   The essence of complementarity is there are different ways of looking at the world and each can have its own language and domain where it's true. 

 

You can step back a bit and look at a satellite in orbit.   Physics developed by Newton are good enough to put it there and predicting where it is to good precision, but if you're worried about the accuracy of its clock you need to bring in relativity.  Einstein and Newton offer very different theories that describe orbital motion and how clocks keep time.  Relatively turns out to be richer, but Newton's ideas are good enough for almost everything people normally do - that and I'd hate to describe the motion of a volleyball using special and general relativity.  

 

I won't go into quantum mechanics, but complementarity is at the core how you think about things.  That and like Newton and Einstein's models, there are boundaries where one is more useful than the other.  The trick is knowing both and where the boundary lies.  It's for another discussion, but I think complementarity is a good basis for talking about the concept of free will. 

 

Bohr was so taken with the idea of complementarity that he made it part of his coat of arms with a nod to Eastern religious philosophies and the Order of the Elephant.  (how's that for clickbait?)

 

Light offers another example. Newton used a prism to break whiteish sunlight into a spectrum of colors.  Later Keats objected to the beauty of science claiming Newton unwove the rainbow.  

Do not all charms fly/at the mere touch of cold philosophy?/There was an awful Rainbow once in heaven. 

 In reality something deeper is afoot.

 

 Consider a yellow light on your desk.  The wavelength of the light makes it look yellow, but if you are moving towards at a constant velocity you observe a shorter wavelength.  If you're moving fast enough it looks blue.  Faster still and it's ultraviolet.  If you're moving away the wavelength lengthens and it shifts towards the red.  In fact by selecting your velocity with respect to the light, the wavelength can be anything you want.   In this view of nature the color of light only depends on your velocity relative to it.   It may not seem useful, but it turns out to be one of the most important tools for measuring the size and age of the Universe. 

 

Complementarity appears all over physics and turns out to be a useful way of thinking about new phenomena.   Over time I've come to think of it in areas outside of physics.  The spoken word and a television show can both get across their own versions of something.  Neither is complete and understanding both can lead to a deeper appreciation.  Picasso and Rembrandt had very different portrait styles and both tell us something deep about their subjects in very different ways.  Mix different forms of art - a piece of music might describe the feeling of Winter quite differently from a painting, but both can offer deep if incomplete views of the feeling of the season.   Sports are offer many examples.  Movement in a sport can make statements that added with the emotion of the crowd give a more complete picture.

 

You can't use a flat Earth, geocentric universe, or being able to turn off gravity for an hour tomorrow.  The descriptions have to be valid in some domain  in the first place.  But having two good but very different representations of something in your head at the same time may just lead to a deeper understanding.  Usually you're not thinking about deep truths, but that's fine.  This doesn't come easily, at least not to me, but it's a lot of fun once you get the hang of it. 

 

 

where simple beats "ai"

minipost

A friend complained about his new rice cooker.  It's a very expensive model with programmable features and claimed to use "ai" for "perfectly cooked rice" every time.  After a dozen or so attempts he called their help line and spent a half hour using their smartphone app that talked to the cooker.  It passed the diagnostics with flying colors.  He isn't happy.  

 

Simple rice cookers tend to work well every time.  They rely on two bits of physics that give clear signals.  The first is how water responds as you heat it.  The energy needed to raise the temperature of liquid water by one degree is very nearly the same from room temperature until it's right at the boiling point.  Adding more heat at the boiling point just turns the water into water vapor - the remaining liquid water stays at 100°C.  

 

The next clever bit was discovered by Pierre Curie who probably never thought of its rice cooker use. 

 

The cooker I use has a spring at the bottom of the pot and a strong permanent magnet.  You put rice and water into a smaller cooking pot and push it down a bit until the magnet attracts and grabs a piece of special metal.   Then the heating element engages and cooking begins. The rice is cooked as the water heats and continues to cook as it boils.  The rice temperature stays below 100°C until just enough of the water starts boiling.  When most of the water has boiled away the rice temperature starts rising again.  Now the discover of Madame Curie's husband takes over.  At around about 105° C, the Curie temperature of the metal, the metal is no longer attracted by the magnet.¹  The spring pushes up and turns off the heating element and a power light.  On mine it is also connected to a mechanical bell and turns off a power light.  The rice is always great.

 

I looked at a repair takedown of an expensive rice cooker.  The construction was better, but it was complex with a microprocessor, control panel, barometer, humidity sensor, thermometer and Bluetooth chip (they have a smartphone app:-). Presumably it has some sort of table that rice is perfectly cooked when all of those signals reach a certain values, although it could be more complex.   I'll stick with simple.

__________

¹ Magnets lose their magnetism when heated at a specific temperature called the Curie Point.  In this case the permanent magnet stays magnetic at 105° C, but the special metal used here suddenly loses its ability to be attracted by a magnet.