Blogs / Cosmic Variance

From The Tao of Physics to What the Bleep Do We Know?, quantum mechanics has been a favorite target for wildly misguided cultural appropriations. That’s hardly surprising; quantum mechanics is hard, and not many physicists understand it at a deep level. The only interesting argument is whether “not many” in that sentence should be replaced by “no.”

Yesterday I stumbled across two invocations of quantum mechanics in very different contexts. First, via 3quarksdaily, historian John Lukacs muses on the centrality of our nature as human beings to our ability to apprehend and understand the world.

All of this happened during and after three-quarters of a century when physicists, inventing and dependent on more and more powerful machines, have found more and more smaller and smaller particles of matter, affixing them with all kinds of names. Until now, well into the 21st century, it is (or should be) more and more likely that not only A Basic Theory of Everything but also the smallest Basic Unit of Matter will and can never be found. Why? Because these particles are produced by scientists, human beings themselves.

Every piece of matter—just as every number—is endlessly, infinitely divisible because of the human mind. Some scientists will admit this. Others won’t.

It goes on like that at great length; it was hard to choose a representative excerpt. Basically, Lukacs is making a mistake resembling that which I accused Paul Davies of some time back — demanding that properties of as-yet-known physical theories conform to some cherished metaphysical presuppositions. In reality, the fact that scientists built the apparatuses that produce elementary particles doesn’t tell us anything at all about whether a Theory of Everything is an attainable goal. It may or may not be, but our status as conscious human beings doesn’t have anything to say about it.

And then, via Cynical-C, we find Roger Ebert reviewing Watchmen:

So let’s ask what we understand about quantum mechanics. We’ll start with me. I understand nothing.

Oh, I’ve read a lot about it. Here is what I think I know: At a basic level, the universe is composed of infinitesimal bits, I think they’re called strings, which seem to transcend our ideas about space and time. One of these bits can be in two places at once, or, if two bits are at a distance, can somehow communicate with one another. Now I have just looked it all up in Wikipedia, and find that not only don’t I understand quantum mechanics, I don’t understand the article either. So never mind. Let’s just say my notions are close to the general popular delusions about the subject, and those are what Dr. Manhattan understands.

Let’s see: despite the name “quantum,” it’s not really right to think of quantum mechanics as based on individual “bits.” But it’s true that fields resolve themselves into particles under careful observation, so that’s an excusable confusion. “Strings” have nothing to do with it, a consequence of mixing up different topics in the pop-science domain. “Somehow communicate with each other” refers to entanglement — widely-separated entangled particles don’t really communicate, but that’s certainly our fault as scientists and communicators, since we keep saying that they do.

There are two major differences between Lukacs’s discourse on quantum mechanics and Ebert’s. First, Lukacs is much more subtle, intricately weaving concepts from modern physics into a thesis concerning the role of history in human affairs. (Still completely wrong, of course.) But second and more importantly, Ebert admits he has no idea what he’s talking about, and goes to look things up on Wikipedia; Lukacs, in contrast, flaunts his misunderstanding, waving it around as proof of his erudition. Score one for the non-academics.

(And there’s no justification for scientists sneering at historians in general on this score; if I had a nickel for every time a physicist flung around concepts like “falsifiability” or “postmodernism” without knowing what was going on, I could rescue the American banking system all by myself.)

What I really found interesting was that Ebert, after giving up on Wikipedia — and rightfully so, their physics articles are uniformly useless for someone approaching the ideas as an outsider — turned next to YouTube for edification! He includes a few clips that try to say something helpful about quantum mechanics. I wonder if that’s the wave of the future. It gave me the idea of making a set of very short videos, each of which would succinctly explain one scientific idea. Making a two-minute video would take less time than writing a decent blog post. (Right?)

Phil has a nice post discussing the recent press release on a binary system of supermassive holes identified by Todd Boroson and (CV commenter) Tod Lauer.

Go check it out!

Well, it seems that (influenced by Sean, I’m sure) Maureen Dowd has picked up on John McCain’s twitter feed, and has placed yet another mocking stab at science in the mainstream press. (”Catfish and grape genetics”? Ha ha ha! “Promotion of astronomy”? Bwah!)

The specific line from McCain’s feed is the sarcastic “nothing says new jobs for average Americans like investing in astronomy”. And I think this is the essence of why scientific projects continue to be held up for derision.

Simply, most people assume science has absolutely nothing to do with them. Nobody blinks an eye at massive building projects that funnel money to construction workers, even though construction accounts for only 5% of the non-farm employment in the US. However, even though the “average american” is highly unlikely to work in construction, they at least imagine that they could.

In contrast, science is perceived as something that is done by an elite group of people that “average americans” could never hope to join, or even meet. So, it’s not that the government’s money is going to someone else, it’s that it seems to be going to someone they could never, ever be. I’ve always found it terribly sad that scientists are almost universally cast as a tribe of “others”, so distinct from “average americans” that they cease to be realistic aspirational figures. Pro-basketball players are equally unusual and elite in their physical attributes, training, and skill sets, but that doesn’t stop generation of kids wanting to grow up and play in the NBA. In contrast, scientists often come across as “born that way”, and not as the end products of rigorous training that a large fraction of smarter-than-average people could engage in. (And note that it’s not just the fault of the nebulous “media” — in their quest to climb to the top of the scientific heap, plenty of scientists cultivate an aura of “impressiveness”; while this may be useful for their individual careers, it can be plenty demoralizing for those on the lower rungs, who are questioning if they have what it takes.)

On top of this is a disconnect between what science actually does, and people’s perception of how it affects their own lives. Most “average americans” probably don’t have many gripes with the NIH budget, because they understand that curing disease is something that could potentially help them in the end. Most physical sciences, however, don’t present obvious, immediate connections to people’s day to day life, or to the main engines of the US economy. Those connections are of course there (grape genetics = wine production = millions of dollars in farming economy = tasty beverages produced more cheaply domestically), but they’re not obvious. Science is left playing catchup every time we’re mocked — yes, lots of articles came out pointing out that “volcano monitoring” was in fact useful, but not in time to stop the initial spurt of derision on the national stage.

Sadly, I don’t have any obvious solution to this, except the usual calls for increased outreach and better science teaching.

Quick! What do the following kinds of people have in common?

• Rebel
• Hypocrite
• Masturbator
• Atheist
• Slave
• Diva
• Fornicator
• Porn Addict
• Homosexual

Answer below the fold.
Read the rest of this entry »

May 15 will be the premiere of Angels & Demons, the Ron Howard movie starring Tom Hanks and Ayelet Zurer, based on the Dan Brown novel. The narrative moves between particle physics at CERN and religious politics at the Vatican — feel free to provide your own characterization of that particular binary opposition.

We have no idea how good the movie is going to be, but it’s sure to garner attention, and it does feature physics prominently. So the Division of Particles and Fields of the American Physical Society figures that we might as well get some mileage out of it. They recently sent around the email below, encouraging physics departments to host “Angels & Demons lecture nights” to capitalize on the interest generated by the movie. Seems like a good idea to me — rather than spending energy finding flaws in the physics as portrayed in the movie (which are sure to be there), let’s grab the opportunity to spread the word about some exciting science that’s being done in the real world. If nothing else, the most common question about the LHC will change from “Will it make a black hole that will destroy the world?” to “Will it make an anti-matter bomb that could destroy the Vatican?”

This May, Sony Pictures will release Angels and Demons, a movie based
on Dan Brown’s best-selling novel that focuses on an apparent plot to
destroy the Vatican using a small amount of antimatter. In the book
and the movie, that antimatter gets stolen from CERN.

Starring Tom Hanks and directed by Ron Howard, parts of the movie were
actually filmed at CERN. It’s not every day that a major motion
picture places particle physics in the spotlight. The US particle
physics community would like to take advantage of this opportunity to
tell the world about the science behind the movie, the Large Hadron
Collider and the excitement of particle physics.

Along these lines, the Fermilab, SLAC and US LHC users organizations
will join forces to organize Angels and Demons public lecture nights
at universities or other venues across the country when the movie
premieres in mid-May. While each institution will be responsible for
the local logistics of planning the public lecture, the Fermilab
Office of Communications and the CERN Press Office can help. A Web
page on the US LHC Web site (http://www.uslhc.us/Angels_Demons) will
provide you with materials that will include:

- a template PowerPoint talk, for your use if helpful

- a template poster to advertise the lecture at your institution

- tips on answering tough questions

- information on how to broadcast the lecture on the Web

If you would like to host a lecture, please contact Elizabeth Clements
(lizzie@fnal.gov) or Katie Yurkewicz (katie@fnal.gov). They will give
you more information and help you with publicity for your event.

While the movie contains a great deal that is not about science,
physics is central to its plot. This makes it possible for US
physicists to lecture on the science behind the movie, the Large
Hadron Collider and particle physics in general. The physics at the
heart of Angels and Demons–the potential destruction of the Vatican
by a small chunk of antimatter–calls attention to what happens when
matter and antimatter meet. This in turn calls attention to the fact
that the absence of practically any antimatter in the universe is
crucial to our existence. To understand that absence is one of the big
challenges of particle physics. Public lectures could discuss the
challenge of the missing antimatter, possible solutions and how
experiments in both the intensity and energy frontiers will explore
these mysteries.

In order to allow enough time to plan and advertise the lecture at
your institution, the time to get started is now. We hope that you
will make the most of this wonderful opportunity to get the public
excited about particle physics and the many anticipated discoveries
that lie ahead.

Sincerely,

Boris Kayser, Chair
Division of Particles and Fields
American Physical Society

As Daniel nicely outlined below, the US astronomical community is currently going through its decadal exercise in navalnavel gazing. The decadal review process assesses the state of the field, figures out where best to invest limited resources to maximize the scientific return, and creates a report that lays out the scientific and technical priorities for the coming decade. This document becomes close to holy writ for funding agencies, who use it as a roadmap for deciding which facilities deserve funding. The decadal reports for astronomy have served us well in political circles, since they offer clear prioritization based on community-wide input, rather that a long list of projects clamoring for support. (The rumor is that other scientific fields don’t do quite so well at prioritization during similar exercises, perhaps because they lack astronomers’ long reliance on shared facilities, which forces us to practice playing well with others on a regular basis).

Right now the review process is evaluating key areas where we think substantial scientific progress can be made in the next 10 years, either with existing facilities, or with new ones. We’ve also been tasked with identifying areas with unusual “discovery potential”. This work is being done by various “Science Frontiers Panels“, after community input in the form of white papers (see the list here) and town hall meetings. Our reports then go to the “Program Prioritization Panels“, who then start the hard work of ranking the various missions, facilities, and projects, in light of the priorities identified by the SFP and the “Infrastructure and State of the Profession Study Groups“. (Horrific org chart can be found here.)

So, given that the SFP’s are encouraged to gather input from the community, I am throwing open to the floor to your thoughts on the important scientific opportunities in astronomy and astrophysics during the next 10 years. I’ll do my best to get the info to the relevant committees, particularly if you tag your suggestions with your preferred subcommittee:

• Planetary Systems and Star Formation
• Stars and Stellar Evolution
• The Galactic Neighborhood
• Galaxies Through Cosmic Time
• Cosmology and Fundamental Physics

It would also be helpful to let us know whether you’re a professional astronomer, physicist, or interested bystander. Please use pseudonyms if you’d like to be anonymous, so that we can follow the thread of discussion more easily.

There’s also a nice Facebook discussion group hashing things out here. Feel free to join in either venue.

Many Cosmic Variance readers will recognize friend-of-the-blog Allyson Beatrice — frequent commenter, occasional solo blogger, and co-blogger at Cocktail Party Physics. For a while now, Allyson’s day job has been as an administrator and conference organizer for groups of scientists and engineers — a task of uncertain rewards which, for whatever murky reasons, she truly seems to love.

I’m a lab secretary. If I’m your lab’s secretary, I have access to your credit cards, your CV, your passport, and your society memberships. I could write a crackpot paper about string theory and its effects on pineapple custard and publish it under your name on Optics Express.

But I wouldn’t do that. My job is to get you to the plane on time so that you can present your brilliant paper on quantum physics and gravity in the solar system to a bunch of people whose lives revolve around fun new uses for cesium fountains. I have no idea what any of it means, but if some government bureaucrat gets in between you and your travels, I will cut a bitch to make sure you get to your conference.

Unfortunately, through a series of circumstances too forehead-slappingly stupid to be convincingly related here, Allyson is soon going to be out of her current job. (She gave her notice at her lab, under the impression that an even better gig had been lined up, before the rug was pulled out from under her.)

So — anyone in the LA area in the market for an extraordinarily talented and dedicated lab secretary? Whoever ultimately hires Allyson will be extremely lucky, but in this economy jobs don’t come easily. Things are tough all over, but it’s heartbreaking to see someone so good go jobless through no fault of their own. Email me and I’ll pass along any leads. And thanks.

I sometimes forget that we don’t all read the same blogs, and that it’s good to recommend some of the fun stuff out there on the internets. So let me give a shout-out to Matt Springer at Built on Facts, who had the brilliant idea of discussing a different function every Sunday. Functions are one of those things that are as necessary to math and science as breathing, but which don’t necessarily percolate into the wider world. And he (quite correctly, I think) interprets his self-imposed mandate fairly liberally, taking the time to talk about various issues in middle-level mathematics. Here are some selections from Matt’s series:

• Exponential
• Arctangent
• Witch of Agnesi
• Stirling’s approximation
• Continuous but almost-nowhere differentiable

Consider this an open thread to recommend other stuff we should all be reading. Or your favorite functions.

Last week Geoff Brumfield reported in Nature about possible delays to the upcoming Hubble Space Telescope servicing mission (”SM4″) due to the recent satellite collision. Naturally, those of us who know and love Hubble were a tad concerned about this latest development, which would probably have led to a complete shutdown of the telescope in a year or two. Hubble is currently the equivalent of a 1969 VW Beetle that’s scheduled for an upcoming episode of “Pimp My Ride” — it gets around town just fine at the moment, but we hope it keeps long running long enough to be tricked out during SM4.

The latest news (or latest to me, since I just got a hold of the memo, which is actually about a week old), is that they’re cautiously optomistic that the servicing mission will be able to go ahead. The key points given in the “settle down y’all” memo are:

• NASA is proceeding with plans for the STS-125 (SM4) servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope in May 2009. A safety and mission assurance review for SM4 is scheduled for April. An in-depth analysis of all the risks, including the potential orbital debris risk – something assessed before every mission – will be considered at that time. NASA also will further assess debris risk at the mission’s flight readiness review, held routinely before each shuttle launch.
• The Hubble servicing mission team is confident the debris risk will be acceptable for the flight, but it requires time for proper analysis. Currently, the team does not have an updated risk assessment for the STS-125 mission that includes the satellite collision on Feb. 10. A detailed analysis will be available in mid-March to develop mitigating strategies, such as alternating attitudes or adjustments to the planned spacewalks.
• As NASA orbital debris experts continue to better define the risks to our spacecraft resulting from the collision, the Hubble servicing mission team will evaluate any potential additional risk caused by the collision.

The other good news, assuming that the servicing mission goes, is that the astronauts are doing really well at speeding up the installation and/or repair of the new and refurbished instruments. In terms of instruments, the servicing mission’s priorities are to install COS and WFC3, and, if there’s time, to repair STIS and ACS. However, the repairs are limited by the numbers of EVA’s (extravehicular activities) and their duration. Thus, the faster the repairs can go, the higher the chance that all 4 instruments will be up and running by the end of the mission. The key to getting them all in is whether ACS can be repaired in one EVA, or split over two. If it’s the latter, then there’s lots of packing and unpacking that has to be done at the beginning and end of each EVA, which adds a lot of overhead that could be spent actually fixing stuff. The word is that John Grunsfeld (astronaut, astrophysicist, and veteran of previous servicing missions) is getting positively speedy at the repairs. Moreover, he’s rumored to have a metabolism that doesn’t burn much oxygen, which means he can stay out on an EVA longer that mere mortals — kind of like Lance Armstrong, but in space. This means he can probably fix ACS in one shot, which will help them get ahead of schedule. So, if the mission goes in May as expected, the news from Hubble could be terrific.

RULES: Once you’ve been tagged, you are supposed to write a note with 25 random things, facts, habits, or goals about you. At the end, choose 25 people/entities to be tagged. You have to tag the person/entity who tagged you. If I tagged you, it’s because I want to know more about you.

1.  Mean free path is 10 meters before running into someone you know.
2.  Atmosphere is charged.
3.  Scenic views of the Alps.
4.  Scenic views of the Jura.
5.  Sooner or later you run into every physicist you know from every country.
6.  The cafeteria is over-crowded at lunch.
7.  The cafeteria is half-full of Americans.
8.  The lab is fueled by coffee.
9.  All business is conducted at the café.
10.    Constant stream of people in the hallways.
11.    Visitors get paid at the post office.
12.    Office space is scarce and offices are crowded.
13.    Offices could use a good coat of paint.
14.    The wooden benches in the theory conference room have a historic look to them, but are uncomfortable for long periods of time.
15.    Talks in the main auditorium can be translated into 4 different languages.
16.    There are more seminars than one can keep track of.
17.    It takes a dedicated effort to figure out how to use the washing machines in the hostel.
18.    You can hear the guy snoring in the room next to you in the hostel.
19.    The two large LHC detectors, ATLAS and CMS, are very different, and so are their tours.
20.    Everybody is holding their breadth.
21.    The main road to the lab is under construction.
22.    The streets in the lab are named after famous physicists.
23.    Tours for dignitaries, such as the King of Belgium, are routine.
24.    The cafeteria sells epoisses.
25.    Where else could a movie star start up a new accelerator???