But there's a disturbing trend in education (brought in from non-technical fields) and in the reporting of technical fields (done by people with minimal-to-none interest in the technical matters, and yes, that includes those with putative training in the technical fields whose work is now in the infotainment business) of moving away from technical knowledge even in those technical fields:
The answers to the type 2 questions, real technical questions, from the top:
First question: The combustion equation would be
CH$_4$ + 2 O$_2$ $\rightarrow$ CO$_2$ + 2 H$_2$O
but it's unnecessary; since each methane molecule will yield a CO$_2$ molecule we can simply calculate the ratio of the masses: m(CO$_2$)/m(CH$_4$) = (12+2*16)/(12+4) = 44/16 = 2.75, so a metric ton of methane will yield 2.75 metric tons of carbon dioxide.
Second question: The density of air at one standard atmosphere and 19°C is 1.225 kg/m$^3$, so a 25 m$^3$ room contains 30.625 kg of air. A 1000 W heating element releases 3.6 MJ of energy in one hour. The increase in temperature is therefore (3600 kJ)/(30.625 kg x 0.72 kJ/(kg °K)) = 163 °K, for a final temperature of 182°C.
(Assuming no losses to the outside and using a constant value for the isochoric specific heat for air throughout the temperature range 0-200°C to avoid computing an integral, a reasonable approximation given it varies between 0.70 and 0.74 in that range.)
Third question: At resonance frequency $wL = 1/(wC)$ so $w^2 = 1/(LC)$, $w = 57,735$ radian/s or f = 9189 Hz. At that frequency the capacitor and inductor cancel each other out (impedance is zero and power factor is 1), so peak power is $5^2/100 = 250$ mW and RMS power is $250/\sqrt{2}$ = 177 mW.
These are not "gotcha" questions: I learned to solve the second in 11th grade; I learned electronics and chemistry by myself as a kid, but the material to solve the first was taught in 9th grade and the third in 11th grade, for students taking a chemical or electronics track in high-school (9th-12th grades). All of this was assumed known for incoming EECS students in the early 80s in Portugal.
Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis
From a video of an event in 2016. Most of the weight loss happened in the last 12 months as the result of intermittent fasting and a focus on high-protein, low-energy foods.
Another growth industry in San Francisco
When authors want to be science-y, but don't want to do the science…
From a mil-fic book that we'll keep unnamed.
At 18 km altitude, the gravity is 99.4% of the gravity at sea level ($6378^2/(6378+18)^2$), so Colonel Z would need super-human perception to be able to separate that $0.006 g$ from the turbulence and change in aircraft acceleration due to atmospheric changes.
(The story itself makes little sense, it's a remake semi-update of Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising," but with several errors of logic and biased by the need to make Russians super-hyper-badissimo-evil idiots.)
Chocolate milk, the high Protein-to-Energy version
Geeky linkage
(Because work has gotten into the way of blogging, social media, and other things. Book is 90-95% complete.)
Claustrophobia-inducing video by Smarter Every Day crawling inside a torpedo tube in a submarine while it's under the Arctic Ice Cap.
Nasa makes Einstein-Bose condensates aboard the ISS.
Scott Manley showcases the ideal villain lair, complete with a rocket to take the villain to a secret space base. Or a smart way to use the oceans to position a launch pad precisely where one wants (on the Equator, for example, to minimize the energy necessary to change the inclination of the orbit for a GEO satellite).
Because a real geek needs some sci- fi in their life.
Been busy with book writing (another short book in the works while I wait for advance readers feedback on the numbers book; less math more management), so no time to blog. Some images from my Twitter for now.
When someone putatively supports one side (free markets) but uses such a flawed and weak argument, I recommend they wholeheartedly join the other side. This level of fail almost suggests it's a false flag.
While getting some of YV's books in audible form for travel and rowing, I realized that maybe Audible's search engine has some pathologies...
Trying a new yogurt I found at Whole Paycheck, ahem, Foods. Those live cultures help with 'le transit intestinal' as the French say. Obs: 1. very pricey; 2. P:E ratio 2/3 (low for yogurt); and 3. Inconsistent message. Taste: 7/10, will buy again.
From a site that has "engineering" in its title. Apparently not engineering enough for its writers to do basic (middle-school) physics. Relying on the NYT for physics is like using a chocolate frying pan. Behold:
Note that at Mach 15, around 5 km/s the energy density of a projectile is 12.5 MJ/kg (~ 3 times that of TNT), so the first sentence only makes sense for a impactor of around 1 to 3 tons. (More feasible that 100 tons, at least.)
Audiophiles aren't, in general, audiophools. There's some foolishness in the wings, but mostly what people who criticize us don't like is that we have taste and discernment.
From my YouTube subscriptions, the image that inspired all this:
Ah, MIT teaching, where professors get former students who they consult for/with to teach all their classes, while still getting their teaching requirement filled…
(For what it's worth, students probably get better teaching this way, given the average quality of MIT engineering professors' teaching.)
These are not the typical MIT/Stanford/Caltech post-docs or PhD students teaching the classes of their Principal Investigators or Doctoral Advisors. These are business associates of Tom Eagar, who get roped into teaching his class "as an honor." (In other words, for free.)
Note that there is such a thing in academia as "organizing a seminar series," which some professors do (for partial teaching credit), formally different from "teaching a class" (full teaching credit). Doing the former for the credit of the latter… questionable, but sadly common in certain parts of academe.
On the other hand, as most MIT faculty and students will confirm, technical learning is 0.1% lectures, 0.9% reading textbook/notes, 9% working through solved examples, 90% solving problem sets, so all this "who teaches what" is basically a non-issue. (These numbers aren't precise estimates, just an orders-of-magnitude reference used at MIT.)
That's probably the major difference between technical fields and non-technical fields, that all the learning (all the understanding, really) is in the problem-solving. Concepts, principles, and tools only matter inasmuch as they are understood to solve problems.
(Sports analogy: No matter how strong you are, no matter how many books you read and videos you watch about handstand walks, the only way to do handstand walks is to get into a handstand, then "walk" with your hands.)
Which brings us to the next section:
Understanding technical material
There are roughly five levels of understanding technical material, counting 'no knowledge or understanding at all' as a level; the other four are illustrated in the following picture:
The most basic knowledge is that the phenomenon exists, perhaps with some general idea of its application. We'll be using gravity as the example, so the lowest level of understanding is just knowing that things under gravity, well, fall.
This might seem prosaic, but in some technical fields one meets people whose knowledge of the technical material in the field is limited to knowing the words but not their meaning; sometimes these people can bluff their way into significant positions simply by using a barrage of jargon on unsuspecting victims, but generally can be discovered easily by anyone with deeper understanding of the material.
A second rough level of knowlege and understanding is a conceptual or qualitative understanding of a field; this is the type of understanding one gets from reading well-written and correct mass-market non-fiction. In other words, an amateur's level of understanding, which is fine for amateurs.
In the case of gravity this would include things like knowing that the gravity is different on different planets, that there's some relationship with the mass of the planet, and that on a given planet objects of different masses fall at the same rate (with some caveats regarding friction and fluid displacement forces).
The big divide is between this qualitative level of understanding (which in technical fields is for amateurs, though it's also the level some professionals decay to by not keeping up with the field and not keeping their learned skills sharp) and the level at which a person can operationalize the knowledge to solve problems.
Operational understanding means that we can solve problems using the material. For example, we can use the formula $d= 1/2 \, g \, t^2$ to determine that a ball bearing falling freely will drop 4.9 m in the first second. We can also compute the equivalent result for the Moon, using $g_{\mathrm{Moon}} = g/6$, so on the Moon the ball bearing would only fall 82 cm in the first second.
This level of understanding is what technical training (classes, textbooks, problem sets, etc) is for. It's possible to learn by self-study, of course, since that's a component of all learning (textbooks were the original MOOCs), but the only way to have real operational understanding is to solve problems.
There's a level of understanding beyond operational, typically reserved for people who work in research and development, or the people moving the concepts, principles, and tools of the field forward. Since that kind of research and development needs a good understanding of the foundations of (and causality within) the field, I chose to call it deep understanding, but one might also call it causal understanding. Such an understanding of gravity would come from doing research and reading and publishing research papers in Physics, rather than applying physics to solve, say, engineering problems.
An example: Sergei Krikalev, the time-traveling cosmonaut
The difference between qualitative understanding and operational understanding can be clarified with how each level processes the following tweet:
More precise data can be obtained from the linked article and that's what we'll use below.*
Qualitative understanding: Special Relativity says that when people are moving their time passes slower than that of people who are stationary; the 0.02 seconds in the tweet come from the ISS moving around the Earth very fast.
(There's a lot of issues with that explanation; for example: from the viewpoint of Krikalev the Earth was moving while he was stationary, so why is Krikalev, instead of the Earth, in the future? Viascience explains this apparent paradox here.)
Operational understanding: time dilation relative to a reference frame created by being in a moving frame with speed $v$ is given by $\gamma(v) = (1 - (v/c)^2)^{-1/2}$. The ISS moves at approximately 7700 m/s, so that dilation is $\gamma(7700) = 1.00000000032939$. When we apply this dilation to the total time spent by Krikalev at the ISS (803 days, 9 hours, and 39 minutes = 69,413,940 s) we get that an additional 0.0228642576966 seconds passed on Earth during that time.
Because we have operational understanding of time dilation, we could ask how much in the future Krikalev would have traveled at faster speeds (not on the ISS, since its orbit determines its speed). We can see that if Krikalev had moved at twice the ISS speed, he'd have been 0.0914570307864 seconds younger. At ten times the speed, 2.2864181341266 seconds younger. And at 10,000 times the speed – over 25% of the speed of light – almost 28 days younger.
As a curiosity, we can use that $\gamma(7700)$ to compute kinetic energy, $E_k(v) = (\gamma(v)-1) \, mc^2$, or more precisely, since we don't have the mass, the specific energy, $E_k(v)/m = (\gamma(v)-1) \, c^2$. At its speed of 7.7 km/s the ISS and its contents have the specific energy of ethanol (30 MJ/kg) or seven times that of an equivalent mass of TNT.
- - - - -
* The article also refers to the effect of gravity, noting that it's too low to make any difference (Earth gravity at the ISS average altitude of ~400 km is 89% of surface gravity; both are too small for the General Relativity effect of gravity slowing down time to be of any impact on Krikalev, or for that matter anyone on Earth).
Even though this is not a review, but rather a description of how to enjoy a movie through advanced nerditude knowledge, there are some noteworthy points:
- The beginning gives an idea of how much infrastructure supports offshore exploration and the number of different companies and support industries involved. Maybe this will reduce the "nuclear energy needs a lot of additional infrastructure" comments; I'm not optimistic, though, because those comments are born of ignorance and fear.
- Casting is phenomenal and the actors portray accurately the type of worker one finds in dangerous, rough, hard jobs. Props to John Malkovich who plays the quintessential John Malkovich villain, with additional villainy and a southern accent.
- A scene I thought was "too Hollywood," when Wahlberg runs across a burning rig to start the emergency generators and save the day (well, within possible), is actually true. It actually happened, pretty much the way they showed in the movie.
- Kudos for the minimal "character development," a disease that has made many other movies unwatchable. There was some, obviously, but the movie kept to the story and focussed on the main action (first the decisions leading up to the accident, then the evacuation of the rig).
- Instead of "you should really care about this person because they have a family and lost their dog when they were little"-type "character development," we get credible interactions among human beings (which humanize them a lot more than that usual pap) and an accurate depiction of the culture in heavy industry, epitomized by: Wahlberg (about the skipped cement test): "Is that stupid?" Roughneck: "I don't know if that's stupid... but it ain't smart."
- The class demonstration that Wahlberg's daughter is preparing in the kitchen foreshadows the blowout, but it's a bit Hollywood: the complexity of what happened is beyond the movie and in fact the movie has a lot of situations where it's clear the writers decided to move forward without trying to explain what was happening (it's a movie, after all, not a training film for petroleum engineers).
- For all the entertainment value of the movie, and the educational points one may take away from it, there were 11 fatalities, a large number of injuries, and an ecological disaster involved. So, it was nice of the producers to include the final vignettes commemorating the losses.
Now, to the hard nerditude.
I heard of the incident at the Macondo well (that's the correct name for the location, the Deepwater Horizon is the drilling rig) when it happened and for a while the news were, as usual, full of uninformed speculation, name-calling, mentions of Halliburton (always a good villain for certain parts of the population) and greed, and attacks on fossil fuels.
Not being a petroleum engineer, I assumed that (a) everything the media said was either wrong or very wrong; (b) at some point there would be smart and knowledgeable people looking at this; and (c) reports from these smart and knowledgeable people would be put online, as a prelude to the many many many lawsuits to come.
So, when a friend bought the movie (friends with kids are great: they buy movies that I can borrow), I borrowed it and in a moment of extra nerdiness decided to learn something about the Macondo/Deepwater Horizon incident before watching the movie.
I struck gold with Stanford University:
I had a general idea about how drilling works, but the details are quite important. This video was very helpful:
Being an engineer, I went to the reports too. The easiest to read is the report to the President. Having read the report helped situate the movie, since a few of the important events are not in it (some are referred to in passing):
Halliburton simulated a specific cementing plan for the well, but the actual cementing did not follow that plan. In particular, because of the tight window of usable pressures for the cementing, the cementing pipe had to be centered accurately in the hole using more spacers than were actually used. Halliburton isn't mentioned in the movie because (a) they are scary and have lots of lawyers; or (b) they didn't do what they had simulated, on orders from BP, which makes it BP's responsibility.
Schlumberger (Sch-loom-bear-g-heh, which a roustabout calls Schlam-burger to mock Wahlberg's correct pronunciation) was on site to conduct a test of the cement and see if it had set, but as the action on the movie arrives on the rig, the testing team is leaving without running the test (what happened in reality). There's no doubt that the cementing failed, since that's where the oil and gas got into the pipe and eventually the riser to the surface, so in retrospect that test would have saved the rig and well.
Unmentioned in the movie is the large quantity of highly viscous plugging fluid used as a spacer between the cement and the drilling mud, which might have blocked the narrow pipes of the kill line and shown the zero pressure when there was in fact pressure. This is the part in the movie when the writers gave up, decided that giving an impromptu course in deep-water drilling to the audience was not their job, and moved forward into the actual action.
The most unbelievable scene in the movie, when Wahlberg runs across essentially a field of giant exploding flamethrowers (the burning rig) to start the backup diesel generators, is actually true. The rig was all electrically-operated, including the thrusters; without electricity they had no lights, no PA, and lost control of the rig (it moved off-station enough that it pulled the drill string through the blowout preventer and possibly disabled parts of the blowout preventer that would have cut the pipe and sealed the well).
Watching the movie, I found it difficult to believe that Transocean management, especially HR, was okay with 1 woman and 125 men on a 21-day rotation on a drilling rig, but that is apparently accurate (maybe a few more women, but overwhelming majority of people on the rig were men). The potential for lawsuit-inducing behavior just seemed too high.
All in all, I think that the movie was much more fun to watch having read the report and watched the videos beforehand than it would have been otherwise. I would have been thinking about the discrepancy between the drill pipe and kill line pressure and the blowout preventer failure till the end of the movie, so I would have missed the emotional and action-loaded last thirty minutes.
The Wahlberg/Rodriguez jump was all Hollywood, though.
Update April 5, 2017: the problems in the blowout preventer.
I often say that a mathematician thinks in numbers, a lawyer in laws, and an idiot thinks in words. These words don’t amount to anything.
A little unfair, though I've often cringed at the use of technical words by people who don't seem to know the meaning of those words. This sometimes leads to never-ending words-only arguments about things that can be determined in minutes with basic arithmetic or with a spreadsheet.
To not rehash the Heisenberg traffic stop example, here's one from a recent discussion of the putative California secession from the US (and already mentioned in this blog): people discussed California's need for electricity, with the pro-Calexit people assuming that appropriate capacity could be added in a jiffy, while the con-Calexit people assumed the state would instantly be blacked out.
No one thought of actually looking up the numbers and checking out the needs. Using 2015 numbers, California would need to add about 15GW of new dispatchable generation for energy independence, assuming no demand growth. (Computations in this post.) So, that's a lot, but not unsurmountable in, say, a decade with no regulatory interference. Maybe even less time, with newer technologies (yes, all nuclear; call it a French connection).
There was no advanced math in that calculation: literally add and divide. And the data was available online. But the "word thinkers" didn't think about their words as having meaning.
And that's it: the problem is not so much that they think in words, but rather that they don't associate any meaning to the words. They are just words, and all that matters is their aesthetic and signaling value.
Few things exemplify the problem of these words-without-meaning as well as The Igon Value Problem.
An eclectic essayist is necessarily a dilettante, which is not in itself a bad thing. But Gladwell frequently holds forth about statistics and psychology, and his lack of technical grounding in these subjects can be jarring. He provides misleading definitions of “homology,” “sagittal plane” and “power law” and quotes an expert speaking about an “igon value” (that’s eigenvalue, a basic concept in linear algebra). In the spirit of Gladwell, who likes to give portentous names to his aperçus, I will call this the Igon Value Problem: when a writer’s education on a topic consists in interviewing an expert, he is apt to offer generalizations that are banal, obtuse or flat wrong. [Emphasis added]
Educational interlude:
Eigenvalues of a square $[n\times n]$ matrix $M$ are the constants $\lambda_i$ associated with vectors $x_i$ such that $M \, x_i = \lambda_i \, x_i$. In other words, these vectors, called eigenvectors, are along the directions in $n$-dimensional space that are unchanged when operated upon by $M$; the $\lambda_i$ are proportionality constants that show how the vectors stretch in that direction. Because of this $n$-dimensional geometric interpretation, the $x_i$ are the matrix's "own vectors" (in German, eigenvectors) and by association the $\lambda_i$ are the "own values" (in German, you guessed it, eigenvalues).
Eigenvectors and eigenvalues reveal the deep structure of the information content of whatever the matrix represents. For example: if $M$ is a matrix of covariances among statistical variables, the eigenvectors represent the underlying principal components of the variables; if $M$ is an incidence matrix representing network connections, the eigenvector with the highest eigenvalue ranks the centrality of the nodes in the network.
This educational interlude is a demonstration of the use of words (note that there's no actual derivation or computation in it) with deep meaning, in this case mathematical.
Being a purveyor of "generalizations that are banal, obtuse or flat wrong" hasn't harmed Gladwell; in fact, his success has spawned a cottage industry of what Taleb is calling word-thinkers, which apparently are now facing an impending rebellion.
Taleb talks about 'skin in the game,' which is a way to say, having an outside validator: not popularity, not social signaling; money, physical results, a verifiable mathematical proof. All of these come with the one thing word-thinkers avoid:
A clear succeed/fail criterion.
- - - - - - - - - -
Added 2/16/2017: An example of word-thinking over quantitative matters.
From a discussion about Twitter, motivated by their filtering policies:
Person A: "I wonder how long Twitter can burn money, billions/yr. Who is funding this nonsense?"
My response: "Actually, from latest available financials, TWTR had a $\$ 77$ million positive cash flow last year. Even if its revenue were to dry up, the operational cash outflow is only $\$ 220$ million/year; with a $\$ 3.8$ billion cash-in-hand reserve, it can last around 17 years at zero inflow."
Numbers are easy to obtain and the only necessary computation is a division. But Person A didn't bother to (a) look up the TWTR financials, (b) search for the appropriate entries, and (c) do a simple computation.
That's the problem with word thinking about quantitative matters: those who take the extra quant step will always have the advantage. As far as truth and logic are concerned, of course.
"Quantum mechanics means that affirmations change the reality of the universe."
Really, there are people who believe in that nonsense. I don't know whether affirmations work as a psychological tool (ex: to deal with depression or addiction), though I've been told that they might have a placebo effect. But I do know that quantum mechanics has nothing to do with this New Age nonsense.
The most misunderstood example: Schrödinger's cat
A common thread of the nonsense uses Schrödinger's cat example and goes something like this:
"There's a cat in a box and it might be alive or dead due to a machine that depends on a radioactive decay. Because of quantum mechanics, the cat is really alive and dead at the same time; it's the observer looking at the cat that makes the cat become dead or alive. The observer creates the reality."
No, really, this is a pretty good summary of how the argument goes in most discussions. It's also complete nonsense. The real Schrödinger's cat example is quite the opposite (note the highlighted parts):
As the excerpt shows, Schrödinger himself described applying quantum uncertainty to macroscopic objects as "ridiculous." In fact, in the original paper, Schrödinger calls it burlesque:
In other words, this New Age nonsense takes Schrödinger's example of misuse of a quantum concept and uses it as the foundation for some complete nonsense, doing precisely the opposite of the point of that example.
Sometimes "nonsense" isn't strong enough a descriptor, and references to bovine effluvium would be more appropriate. In honor of the hypothetical cat, I'll refer to this as Schrödinger's cat litter.
Say his name: Heisenberg (physics, not crystal meth)
Schrödinger isn't the only victim of these cat litter purveyors: the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle also gets distorted into nonsense like:
"You can't observe the position and the momentum of an object at the same time. If you're observing momentum, you're in the flow. If you're observing position, you're no longer in the flow."
As I've mentioned before, when over-analyzing a Heisenberg joke, the uncertainty created by Heisenberg's inequality ($\Delta p \times \Delta x \ge h$) for macroscopic objects is many orders of magnitude smaller than the instruments available to measure it. TL;DR:
Police officer: "Sir, do you realize you were going 67.58 MPH? Werner Heisenberg: "Oh great. Now I'm lost."
Heisenberg's uncertainty re: his position is of the order of $10^{-38}$ meters, or about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times smaller than an inch.
And yet, these New Age cat litter purveyors use the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to talk about human actions and decisions, as if it was applicable to that domain.
What are the "defenders of science" doing while this goes on?
Ignorance, masquerading as erudition, sold to rubes who believe they're enlightened. Hey, I'm sure many of the rubes "love science" (as long as they don't have to learn any).
Meanwhile, "science popularizers" spend their time arguing politics. Because that's what science is now, apparently...
Ron Rivest talking about RSA-129 (a product of two prime numbers that was set as a factoring challenge in 1977) and its factorization in 1994 using the internet:
Inspired by that video, here are a couple of fun numbers, for numbers geeks:
😎 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,003 is a prime number. It's an interesting prime number, because the number of zeros in the middle (21) is the product of the 7 and the 3, both of which are, of course, prime numbers themselves. This makes the number very easy to memorize and surprise your friends with. If you want to confuse them, just say it like this: "seventy sextillion and three."
😎 99,999,999,999,999,999,999,977 is also a prime number, the largest prime number under a googol ($10^{100}$) that has the form $p = 10^{n} - n$, with $n = 23$, meaning that if you add 23 to this number you get $10^{23}$ or a 1 followed by 23 zeros. Here's how you say this number: "ninety-nine sextillion, nine hundred ninety-nine quintillion, nine hundred ninety-nine quadrillion, nine hundred ninety-nine trillion, nine hundred ninety-nine billion, nine hundred ninety-nine million, nine hundred ninety-nine thousand, and nine hundred seventy-seven." Hilarious at parties.
Yes, the first observation is that I am a science geek. Some people binge-watch Kim Cardassian, some people binge-watch Netflix, some people binge-watch sports; I binge-watch college lectures on subjects that excite me.
(This material has no applicability to my work. Learning this material is just a hobby, like hiking, but with expensive books instead of physical activity.)
To be fair, this course isn't a MOOC; these are lectures for a live audience, recorded for students who missed class or want to go over the material again.
The following is the first lecture of the course, and to complicate things, there are several different courses from UC-Stalingrad with the same exact name, which are different years of this course, taught by different people. So kudos for the laziness of not even using a playlist for each course. At least IHTFP does that.
(It starts with a bunch of class administrivia; skip to 7:20.)
Production values in 2013, University of California, Berkeley
To be fair: for this course. There are plenty of other UC-Leningrad courses online with pretty good production values. But they're usually on subjects I already know or have no interest in.
Powerpoint projections of scans of handwritten notes; maybe even acetate transparencies. In 2013, in a STEM department of a major research university. Because teaching is, er…, an annoyance?
The professor points out that there's an error in the slide, that the half-life of $^{232}\mathrm{Th}$ is actually $1.141 \times 10^{10}$ years, something that he could have corrected before the class (by editing the slide) but decided to say it in class instead, for reasons...?
The real problem with these slides isn't that handwriting is hard to read or that use of color can clarify things; it's the clear message to the students that preparing the class is a very low priority activity for the instructor.
A second irritating problem is that the video stream is a recording of the projection system, so when something is happening in the classroom there's no visual record.
As a former and sometimes educator, I don't believe in the power of lectures without practice, so when the instructor says something like "check at home to make sure that X," I stop the video and check the X.
For example, production of a radioactive species at a production rate $R$ and with radioactive decay with constant $\lambda$ is described by the equation at the top of the highlighted area in the slide above and the instructor presents the solution on the bottom "to be checked at home." So, I did:
Simple calculus, but makes for a better learning experience. (On a side note, using that envelope for calculations is the best value I've received from the United frequent flyer program in years.)
This, doing the work, is the defining difference between being a passive recipient of entertainment and an active participant in an educational experience.
Two tidbits from the early lectures (using materials from the web):
Binding energy per nucleon explains why heavy atoms can be fissioned and light atoms can be fused but not the opposite (because the move is towards higher binding energy per nucleon):
The decay chains of Uranium $^{235}\mathrm{U}$ and Thorium $^{232}\mathrm{Th}$:
(Vertical arrows are $\alpha$ decay, diagonals are $\beta$ decay.)
Unfair comparison: The Brachistochrone video
It's an unfair comparison because the level of detail is much smaller and the audience is much larger; but the production values are very high.
Or maybe not so unfair: before his shameful (for MIT) retconning out of the MIT MOOC universe, Walter Lewin had entire courses on the basics of Physics with high production values:
(I had the foresight to download all Lewin's courses well before the shameful retconning. Others have posted them to YouTube.)
Speaking of production values in education (particularly in Participant-Centered Learning), the use of physical props and audience movement brings a physicality that most instruction lacks and creates both more immersive experience and longer term retention of the material. From Lewin's lecture above:
Yes, yet another rant against the "I Effing Love Science" crowd.
Midway through a MOOC lecture on nuclear decay I decided to write a post about production values in MOOCs (in my case not really a MOOC, just University lectures made available online). Then, midway through that post, I started to refine my usual "people who love science" vs "people who learn science" taxonomy; this post, preempting the MOOC post, is the result. Apparently my blogging brain is a LIFO queue (a stack).
Nerd, who, me?
I've posted several criticisms of people who "love science" but never learn any (for example here, here, here, and here; there are many more); but there are several people who do love science and therefore learn it. So here's a diagram of several possibilities, including a few descriptors for the "love science but doesn't learn science" crowd:
The interesting parts are the areas designated by the letters A, B, and C. There's a sliver of area where people who really love science don't learn science to capture the fact that some people don't have the time, resources, or access necessary to learn science, even these days. (In the US and EU, I mean; for the rest of the world that sliver would be the majority of the diagram, as many people who would love science have no access to water, electricity, food, let alone libraries and the internet.)
Area A is that of people who love science and learn it but don't make that a big part of their identity. That would have been the vast majority of people with an interest in science in the past; with the rise of social media, some of us decided to share our excitement with science and technology with the rest of the world, leading to area B.
People in area B aren't the usual "I effing love science" crowd. First, they actually learn science; second, their sharing of the excitement of science is geared towards getting other people to learn science, while the IFLS crowd is virtue signaling.
People in area C are those who learn science for goal-oriented reasons. They want to have a productive education and career, so they choose science (and engineering) in order to have marketable skills. They might have preferred to study art or practice sports, but they pragmatically de-prioritize these true loves in favor of market-valued skills.
As for the rest, the big blob of IFLS people, I've given them enough posts (for now).
- - - - -
Note 1: the reason to follow real scientists and research labs on Twitter and Facebook is that they post about ongoing research (theirs and others'), unlike professional popularizers who post "memes" and self-promotion. Or complete nonsense --- only to be corrected by much smarter and incredibly nice Destin "Smarter Every Day" Sandlin:
Note 2: For people who still think that if one of two children is a boy, then the probability of two boys is 1/3 (it's not, it's 1/2):
and the frequentist answer is in this post. Remember: if you think a math result is incorrect, you need to point out the error in the derivation. (There are no errors.)
This particular math problem is one favorite of the IFLS crowd, as it makes them feel superior to the "rubes" who say 1/2, whereas in fact that is the right answer. The IFLS crowd, in general, cannot follow the rationales above, though some may slog through the frequentist computation.
Early on in the movie Interstellar there are two important lessons about what makes a society fail (or succeed), both delivered in the parent-teacher conference that Cooper attends.
Lesson one: don't underestimate the power of engineering (and science)
Lesson two: beware of those who would rewrite the truth
(Excerpts from the novelization of the movie by Greg Keyes. No, I'm not a nerd. Ok, I am.)
Andrew Rader points out some problems with the movie:
The main problem was also pointed out by Kip Thorne in The Science of Interstellar: that fighting the blight on Earth would make a lot more sense than going to a different planet.
Thorne also raises the problem of orbital mechanics in chapter 7 of the book:
and proposes a few speculative mechanisms to get the necessary changes in velocity from gravity assists. Note that there are two decelerations one of $c/3$ and one of $c/4$ for a total speed change of $7c/12$ or $1.75\times 10^{8}$ m/s. Returning to the Endurance requires an increase in speed of $1.75\times 10^{8}$ m/s as well.
To see the size of the problem, let's say they take 500 seconds (8 minutes and 20 seconds) to do each maneuver (while the rest of the Universe ages significantly) and the Ranger's mass is 2 metric tons (for simplicity, we'll assume that the water taken in on the planet makes up for the loss of Dr. Doyle to stupidity, indiscipline, and lack of planning). If we assume constant thrust for simplicity, assume away all friction and ignore the propellant mass loss (yay, infinite specific impulse!), the thrust needed for each maneuver is $7 \times 10^8$ Newton or about the same as 1077 SpaceX Merlin engines (averaging their atmosphere and vacuum thrust to 650 kN). Since there's propellant mass loss, let's say we "only" need the equivalent of 900 Merlin engines. So, yes, only a gravity assist would do.
Yes, it's an oversimplification, but didn't feel like solving the Tsiolkovsky equation. Hence the drop from 1077 to 900 engines. (That's still equivalent to 100 Falcon 9 rockets.) By the way, Thorne appears unconvinced of the feasibility of those gravity assists and hence of the feasibility of whole expedition to Miller's planet. But at least they tried to be accurate with some science in the movie.
The problem with science communication is the science communicators who aren't interested in communicating science.
Take, for example, this tweet:
Yes, it's quite obvious that the Science Channel twitterer is referring to the solar system, not the galaxy.
No. That's not true.
The announced television show itself, I'm sure will get that right. But the twitterer? I literally can't even, as the kids say. And I literally can't even... bet a cup of coffee that the twitterer understands the difference between the solar system and the galaxy --- because I have an MBA.
Yes, a Master's degree in Business Administration, and that's what tells me that it's quite likely that the twitterer has no clue about the science. First, because it was posted at midnight on Friday; second, because it's television; and third because it's on twitter.
It's not even a case of people who "love" science (as long as they don't have to learn any). It's more a case of 'we need a "communications/social media team" for this property.' (Property here refers to the Science Channel.) That's the twitter part: the team is grown as an appendage to the marketing group because that's how people in media tend to see twitter, just another channel to add to the communications mix.
And these "communication/social media team" members are recruited from communication programs and from people who are part of the influence network of those in charge of recruiting, because that's how things are done in mass media conglomerates. So that's the television part.
At midnight on a Friday, the most junior or least competent members of the team will be the ones operating the account. And those are likely to be the ones who are least likely to know the difference between galaxies and solar systems.
But the recruitment of people who know nothing about science to positions of science communication isn't the worst problem.
The worst problem is that there's no problem, not really, because:
Since the audience doesn't care, the advertisers don't care either. After all, it's not like they really want a critical thinking audience for their commercials. (Remember, I have an MBA. Only few products and companies want a critical thinking audience.)
Since the advertisers don't care, the channel management doesn't care. And most in management have no interest in science; it's a product to be sold, just like potato chips and time-share vacations.
And the science-educated audience, the ones who notice these things? Well, everyone hates a know-it-all tattle-tale nerd. Until the technological society that was built by engineers on the foundations of science collapses.
Then, well, then that was a totally unpredictable act of God Nature.
Basically, because I'm not allowed to write or talk about work-related matters.
So I apply my considerable intelligence, broad knowledge, and unbeatable modesty to things like the differences between powerlifting and bodybuilding (and the superiority of the former over the latter), using the standard B-school two-by-two matrix format (click for bigger):
I also take to task people who think that knowledge is superfluous as long as their intentions are good (or at least consistent the the current "virtuous" narrative). For example, I did congratulate TIME for not using a photo of cooling towers for this article (unlike almost everyone else who uses images of cooling towers' steam to write about pollution),
but I do have to point out that most of what's seen coming out of those stacks is also steam. First, the color and the shape of the expansion give that away, but even if they didn't, gaseous $\mathrm{CO}_{2}$ is transparent, as is water vapor. (Steam is liquid water suspended in water vapor.) And soot and other common pollutants have distinctive colors; that white means water.
If you're surprised that combustion would generate water vapor, which condenses when it expands at the top of the stack, remember that hydrocarbon-based fuel combustion is mostly
and most of the rest (nitrous and sulfurous compounds, metals, soot and ash, the souls of the damned) are removed from the smoke before it's allowed to leave through the stacks (because of laws against pollution):
About a year ago, when I temporarily changed the name of this blog to Project 2016, the idea was to track non-work related learning, which is one of my hobbies; but time constraints made me choose between actually learning stuff and blogging about it, and I chose the learning.
So, expect some more carefully thought-out nonsense. Careful thinking is another one of my hobbies, so I practice it even on nonsensical topics. I have very strange hobbies: another one is moving heavy objects for no immediate purpose, like this gentleman
Now for some science. Let's assume that the stolen vial contained 1 gram of antimatter. Then, the explosion would release $E = mc^2 = (0.002) \times (3 \times 10^8)^2 = 1.8 \times 10^{14}$ Joule. At 4.184 petajoule per megaton of TNT equivalent, that is an explosion of roughly 43 kiloton.
(The more observant readers will notice that there's two grams in the energy computation. That's one gram each matter and antimatter.)
The operational ceiling of helicopters is around 25,000 ft, but the helicopter piloted by Ewan McObi-Wan Kenobi is nowhere close to that altitude when he jumps. An air burst of 43 kiloton even at say 10,000 ft would create a lot more damage than shown in the movie. (For comparison, Hiroshima's burst was at the yield-optimized height of 2,000 ft and with a yield of about 15 kt.)
So Ewan McThe Ghost Writer would probably be a carbonized carmelengo rather than a usurper to the Vatican throne. And probably so would the faithful in St. Peter's square and the Cardinals in Busch Stadium The Sistine Chapel.
Nikolaj Lie Kaas, who plays the assassin, plays the corrupt CEO of the energy company in the recent Danish series "Follow The Money." I guess he's typecast as the sociopathic type now.
I claim extra nerd points for using RStudio to do the computations (was already open; it's pretty much always open these days):
Science identity products like t-shirts, mugs, posters, and computer wallpapers are used to signal that the owner has an interest in science; unfortunately, because this interest in science has become fashionable -- at least in some segments of the population -- poseurs also buy these objects, lowering the quality of the signal.
I've written often (one, two, three, four, five times at least) about the problems with using science as an identity product, as with the people who "love science" as long as they don't have to learn any.
These products aren't necessarily only appealing to poseurs, though. People with a real interest in science and in science education also like them for, among other reasons,
1. Identity signaling. Like the poseurs, except it this case it's a real signal. People want to communicate their interest in science and the beauty of some scientific results and natural phenomena. (I own quite a few science identity products myself.)
2. Recruitment. These products can be useful motivators for bringing newcomers into an appreciation of science. By showing that there are other nerdsgeeks people interested in science, they create social conditions for others to come out as nerdsgeeks people interested in science.
3. Mere exposure. People like or at least feel more comfortable with things that appear familiar. The more exposure people have to scientific concepts and images, even if as part of jokes or background material in sitcoms like The Big Bang Theory, the less aversion they may feel when science content is presented to them.
There's one possible disconnect undermining these three points, though: that people who are influenced by exposure to the science identity products only like the aesthetics:
The big problem with the poseurs, which is a real problem not just my "I liked that band before it was cool" complaint, is not that they use the products to pretend to like science, though that would be bad enough. The real problem is that poseurs know that they don't actually like (or know) real science, so they feel threatened by those who do and take action to counter that threat, usually distracting from the science.
As my previous post showed, many poseurs in the media try to be "sciencey" but they fail miserably because in the end they don't understand that science is not like literature or art where the judgment of some other people is what matters. In science, reality is what matters. Poseurs don't get that, because to them reality is whether others buy into their pose.
Popular science content
Making science accessible to the general public is one of the most effective ways to improve society: it allows more people to partake of the benefits of knowledge (for example, avoiding junk science and quackery), it helps garner support for scientific enterprises that require public funding, and it creates the foundations for new generations with more and better scientists.
The problem is that popularizers can be real science popularizers or they too can be poseurs. And the poseur popularizers tend to be more popular. The glaring exception is Carl Sagan, but that's because he was both a pioneer in popularization and a real research scientist prior to that.
The most obvious difference is that Carl Sagan's Cosmos was designed to impress people with the power of science, while many current popularizers design their programs to impress upon the audience (a) how special they, the audience, are; and (b) how smart, knowledgeable, and suave the popularizer is. There are some exceptions, but they aren't the most successful popularizers, at least not on TV.
A rule-of-thumb that works for me is to ask whether the popularizer is an active researcher (or was until recently active) in the field. People whose job is some variation of "science popularizer" tout-court, even if they have some scientific training (which many of them don't), tend to focus on people and events rather than concepts and principles. In other words, they popularize the story of science rather than the actual science. (In many cases they either avoid the science completely, or they get most of it wrong.)
This rule works for two reasons:
First, an active researcher will know the science better than a non-researcher popularizer. This IMNSHO more than balances any communication advantages the non-researcher might have. One of the hilarious examples of this advantage is The Igon Value Problem, where active researcher Steven Pinker takes on the intellectual lightweight Malcolm Gladwell. (But supporting my observation above, Gladwell is more popular than Pinker.)
Second, an active researcher has to protect his/her reputation in the field. This adds motivation to get things right to the knowledge (the ability to do things right). When no one in Astrophysics takes you seriously (because you call yourself a scientist but your career total citations of 150 mark you as a museum manager), you can say ignorant things on twitter about planes and helicopters. An engineer who wrote nonsense like this would be mocked at any future technical conferences he/she attended:
Personally I decided to read textbooks in lieu of popularization books,* but there are some popular books I've read that I found worthy of recommendation, so here are two for now:
Deep science (or other technical) content
Leaning technical material is something that requires audience (perhaps in this case "student" would be the better term) participation.
Lectures can motivate study and are a good introduction to the material, but only self-paced study and practice exercises can make technical material stick.
There's a qualitative difference between (to quote again from my old post about Heisenberg) understanding that this is a joke, i.e. popularizer-level understanding:
Police officer: "Sir, do you realize you were going 67.58 MPH?
Werner Heisenberg: "Oh great. Now I'm lost."
and being able to completely spoil the joke by computing the actual uncertainty (deep understanding):
A simplified form of Heisenberg's inequality, good enough for our purposes, is
$\qquad \Delta p \, \Delta x \ge h $
Going by orders of magnitude alone, assuming that the mass of Heisenberg plus car is in the order of 1000 kg, and noting that the speed is given to a precision of 0.01 mi/h, an order of magnitude of 10 m/s, with $h \approx 10^{-34}$ Js, we get a $\Delta x$ of the order of
$\qquad \Delta x \approx \frac{ 10^{-34} }{10 000} = 10^{-38}$ m.
Only practice and study can create the kind of deep understanding that allows you to spoil people's fun at parties with numerical sidebars like this. Certainly something to aspire to...
That's not to say that lectures don't have value; I think of them as the warm-up sets you do before actually exercising. In that sense, they are very important, since they provide a passive experience that gets the material into context, setting up the active experiences of self-paced study and practice exercises.
Walter Lewin, shamefully retconned out of OCW and their official YouTube channels by MIT for undisclosed non-scientific transgressions, was one of the best Physics instructors online; even better than Feynman, since Lewin used actual in-class demonstrations and calculations matched to the examples. Here's a great class on standing waves:
1. MOOCs have economies of scale in production and diffusion, but the difficult parts of education, personalized attention, for example, don't scale.
2. MOOCs can derive brand equity from the institutions associated with the teaching, but whether that brand equity is deserved is an open question: there are many components to education beyond what most MOOCs offer. I made some observations about that regarding the Kenan-Flagler Online MBA.
3. MOOCs built out of classroom teaching and associated materials are audience-targeted; a course like Lewin's works well at MIT and possibly CalTech, but the speed of exposition and the amount of off-classroom work that Lewin expected from his students will not work for most other universities. Other materials, like textbooks, may partially make up for this, but even so most students would probably prefer better match between materials and audiences.
4. The major weakness of MOOCs as they exist now is the lack of evaluation and, in many cases, of ways to check your exercises. Since audiences (students) learn from these exercises, done individually and then corrected by a knowledgeable instructor, this is actually a much bigger weakness than I noted on the "MOOC-rize this" post.
In conclusion
There's nothing wrong about being out and proud as a nerdgeek someone who likes science; take care to avoid poseurs, both individuals and media darlings who don't have a track record of research; and if you want to learn more (kudos to you), there are plenty of MOOCs and other free resources to help you. One of those resources is called a Public Library and for the effort of getting a library card you can get a good education because in the end what matters is that you want to learn.
In the end what matters is that you want to learn. Poseurs don't want to.
-- -- -- -- -- -- FOOTNOTE -- -- -- -- -- --
* I find textbooks to do a better job than popularization books since I want to learn things at a more proficient level than a passing understanding. This requires time and effort, but I like it. (Hey, I lift heavy weights for no reason other than I like lifting heavy weights, so this isn't that different.)
The one enormous barrier to this approach is the ridiculous cost of textbooks in the US. I was interested in molecular biology, so I got Molecular Biology of the Gene, I believe for its weight in gold. There's now a new edition which costs its weight in diamonds, so I won't get that. Note that this is a personal interest in molecular biology; this is not work-related or anything monetizable, so the $\$200$ are a hobby expenditure. Which is fine, but still could discourage others from buying such an expensive book for a hobby.
I rationalize the cost by reminding myself of an old business associate who spent $\$150$ on a date with someone who, according to his later report, made Lady Macbeth sound warm and cuddly. So, that's about 3/4 of a textbook he could have bought there...
Binding energy per nucleon explains why heavy atoms can be fissioned and light atoms can be fused but not the opposite (because the move is towards higher binding energy per nucleon):
