Dry Slot

Hiya, Shore. Thanks for the Valentine greeting! Thanks also for being willing to break the ice. Things were awfully quiet around here until you came along.

Congratulations on first post.

I look (askance) at those cats, and I can't help thinking about the article I just read over at the Atlantic Monthly courtesy of sp34n119w.

I will grant that the cats may know more about string theory than the string theorists. Most of what I had to say on string theory was a rant. Now that I have gotten that out of my system, I can say that there is at least one beneficial side effect of this research. A lot of physicists and mathematicians have been banging their heads against what must surely be some very tough mathematics. The effort has kept them off the streets, and all that practice may one day enable them to solve a useful problem, even if strings turn out to be a dead end for physics.

Hi, BriarCraft. It's Valentine's Day. Today is more about feeling. Save the profound thoughts for later. :o)

Thanks for dropping by, folks.

sp - I realize that physics is not everybody's cup of tea. I've had this stuff on my mind, though, and thought I could expiate it and generate a new blog at the same time. I apologize that the entry came out so long-winded, and there are no pictures. How do you illustrate a theory? Maybe I could take a few hints from the science magazines.

One thing I appreciate about these two videos is that they show smart women talking science. Dr. Loll is one of the originators of the CDT theory. Back when I was in school, I had the feeling that the hard sciences were almost exclusively a male preserve. It seems we've made some social progress during my life, even if the ultimate physical theory remains out of reach.

Ylee - It has been a good Valentine's Day here in the Dry Slot. I hope Cupid finds you in good spirits, too.

Good evening, ycd.

The Big Bang theory has a lot going for it. In one swell foop it explains: 1) the observed motion (red shift) of galaxies, 2) the relative abundance of elements (hydrogen, helium, lithium etc.), 3) the cosmic microwave background, and a short period of hyperinflation explains 4) the observed curvature (or lack thereof) in the universe. That's for starters. I may be leaving something out here.

Quantum theory is perhaps the most successful theory ever. It doesn't explain a great deal of what we see in everyday life, but it underlies what we see. Not long ago I read that photosynthesis, the special trick by which green plants take advantage of the energy of the sun, is a quantum process. If you've ever taken a chemistry course, you've probably seen a demonstration of electrolysis of water. Electrolysis operates on the familiar human scale. You can hold the apparatus in your hand. The reaction cleaves water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen atoms. It takes a lot of energy. Quantum trickery explains how plants can split water quietly, routinely and efficiently. They make their living doing it, and sunshine suffices for power.

These theories are stories that scientists tell about the world. You hear some people talk as if the theories are the world, that they are literal truth. That is not the right way to interpret them. They are only the best available working hypotheses. The practice of science challenges you to discover better stories of your own.

People have always told stories. It is what we do. For instance, there is a story that lightning is caused by Zeus flinging thunderbolts. If you accept this as a working hypothesis, you will be disappointed. You will never find Zeus. If you ask a scientist, he will tell you that lightning is a current of electrons. You can find electrons. You can learn how to make them jump through hoops. You can use them to operate computers and the internet and Las Vegas neon. That is the difference. The tales science tells are more useful.

Hi, Rob.

I'm never sure, sometimes, when I write things, how other people are going to read them. And you're right, it's not easy. Doing this entry increased my respect for the writers who work for publications like Popular Science. It's one thing to think you understand a thing. It's something else to try to explain that thing to somebody else. That's ultimately why I took this on. I wanted to see if I could translate physics into English. I'm glad you think I did okay.

The introduction of time's arrow into a theory is sort of a big deal. In relativity there is no such thing. Relativity postulates a four-dimensional space-time continuum. There are arguably two things wrong with that. One is that quantum theory says the universe is not continuous. The other is that, while there is a time dimension, there is no sense of time passing. It's like one big static block, with all of time visible and no preferred direction of travel. In other words, the equations work the same forwards or backwards. To account for entropy or causality you have to make assumptions and invoke other theories.

When you have newly transplanted trees, you have to coddle them through their first year. Last year I was happy just to see them survive. This year I want to see some growth!

Rob - I would say that human perspective is important. Maybe that means that my version of science is parochial. If there are space aliens out there, their view of how the universe works may be altogether different from ours.

On the other hand, I am inclined to believe that evolution has equipped us to see things as we do for a reason. A billion years of trial and error should yield a fairly robust product.

Shore - ycd's brother-in-law has a point. Quantum theory is not for the fainthearted. The quantum world looks very strange when viewed from the human perspective. The rules are different in the submicroscopic realm where quantum effects prevail. The things that happen there are counterintuitive and sometimes downright unbelievable.

A lot of ink has been expended by folks who philosophize about what quantum theory means. You may find some of what they have to say helpful.

Or not. I don't think it has to mean anything more than "this is how the world works, when you view it in a certain way". If you view your world in the usual way, it works as it always has.

Hi, Cal. You're exactly right. All of that evolution took place on the surface of one small planet.

Add to that the fact that there are obvious flaws in the overall plan. The appendix, the plumbing around the prostate gland, the fact that our retinas are inside out... Evolution evidently changed its mind a few times. So much for "intelligent design".

Evolution designs a critter to live long enough to reproduce. Once the genes are passed on, evolution is through. I'm thinking that the basic sensory apparatus — sight, hearing, smell, touch etc. — is pretty doggone critical, and (on average) it is going to become the best that it can be, given the needs and lifestyle of a particular species.

The astronauts' problem is that they were newbies. Imagine a baby born and raised in space. Do you think it would have the same problems?

Rob, I guess it depends on how you define 'smart'. In a generation or two we may be smart enough to fix some of the design problems that the human body inherits. Maybe future generations will have the vision of a hawk, the hearing of a bat and the olfactory prowess of a dog.

And maybe old guys like me will get to keep their hair. ~:o)

Then, maybe (depending on how you define 'smart'), we can talk about intelligent design.

Hey, Ylee. I'm pretty sure I would like the good vision. I've never been sorry to see well.

The nose might take some getting used to. Or it might mean living out in the country instead of downtown.

As for the eavesdropping, people do that now, if they're so inclined. There are shops that will sell you all kinds of bugs, directional mikes etc. Not that I'm an expert myself, or even interested in such things.

To me the bad thing about superlative ears would be all the noise. Trucks, trains and airplanes. Teenagers. Dogs barking. How are you going to sleep at night?

Hmmm, do you suppose there is any chance that the world might actually get... quieter?

Rob - All I can say is, it doesn't seem to bother the dog much.

Cal - The health question is still out there, because nobody has lived in space longer than a few months. So far everyone who goes to space wants to return to the blue marble. That means they have to somehow maintain a level of fitness suited to a one gee world.

If we keep trying, sooner or later space tech will improve to the point that somebody will be willing to cross the high frontier. Not long after that there will be a child born, the first human baby ever to begin life off-planet.

Without good medical evidence to the contrary, I would bet that people who choose to live in weightless or low-gee environments will survive, but they could find return to earth extremely difficult if not life-threatening. The kinds of places that look relatively easy to reach and colonize are low gravity planets, moons, asteroids or artificial orbital habitats. So if humans are ever to become a space-faring race, that is most likely where we'll start.

Last night I dreamed I was living in the universe of Things That Are Provably True.

I was very happy there. :o)

Howdy folks. Been out of town and off the internet for a couple of days. I'll get back to you later, I promise.

Yesterday I had another funeral to attend, the last of my uncles. I reckon it's that time of my life.

BriarCraft - In the real world, most of the provable stuff is mathematical or logical. As a teenager I remember being disappointed by geometry class. I thought it would be about shapes, but it was about proofs. Those sorts of proofs are possible only if you narrow down your discourse to a set of axioms and rules for codifying observations. That's not very interesting to me. Perhaps it should be, but to me it smacks of cheating. The universe is larger than that. So what if you can 'prove' something within your narrow little playpen? In 1931 Kurt Gödel 'proved' that these logical systems are inherently limited and therefore suspect. When I heard about that (much later, certainly not in geometry class), I went "Aha!"

In our world we talk about proving things in a court of law. It strikes me that all too often what we 'prove' in court is, who retained the most expensive law firm.

In general it can be hard to prove anything to everyone's satisfaction. One hears such phrases as "rules of evidence", but for any set of rules there are people who refuse to be bound by them. In any debate listeners are as likely to be swayed by emotion as by reason.

The salient thing about my dream is that it was dream. I don't feel that I have to explain anything about it, because it wouldn't make sense in the real world. I was happy because I was in a place with no doubt or subterfuge. Even the politicians were honest.

I appreciate all the effort you put into researching your marvelous comment. I look forward to following your links and considering your verbal pointers at the first opportunity. For now, until morning, I'm moving toward the bedroom. Perhaps I'll have another memorable dream.

shoreacres - Well, our world is full of things that are probably true. At least, I think so. Lots of other people's mileage seems to vary. Some folks claim to believe things that I know are probably — even provably — false. Some claim to disbelieve things that to me are patently obvious.

sp34n119w - Thanks for bringing news of those egg hatching experiments, even if you can't supply a link. It's entirely possible that terrestrial biology won't function in space. I'm no expert. I do know that certain processes, such as diffusion and convection, work differently or don't work at all without gravity (or equivalent acceleration). Those sorts of processes are likely to be very important in the development of an embryo.

Please note that I am not saying that space-born humans would be what we earthlings consider physically normal. If living in space turns out to be possible, it will surely be different in all sorts of ways, not all of which we can anticipate.

Ylee - I don't know about crocodiles, but I always bite. :oB

Oh, yeah, almost forgot.

It snowed while I was gone. I called up Wife on Sunday night. She looked out the window and exclaimed, because she hadn't realized that the intermittent rain, which had been falling all day, had transitioned to white flaky stuff.

It did not snow where I was in southeastern Virginia. I saw meager remnants of snow on north-facing slopes along the roadside as my cousin and I drove home yesterday. There was no snow remaining anywhere south of the state border.

Thanks for the sympathy, SP. My uncle's death was expected, as such things go. We've had years to get used to the idea that he was failing. The blow surely fell hardest on my cousin and her family. We made the trip more to support the living than to mourn the dead.

A loose cable, eh?

New data, however, will be needed to confirm this hypothesis.

Certainly wouldn't want to go off half-cocked. :o)

It was warm in the northern piedmont Thursday afternoon, after the sun burned through lingering morning clouds. My car has a lot of glass around the passeger compartment, so the resulting greenhouse effect had me running the air conditioner in February. The owner's manual says it's a good idea to cycle the AC occasionally during winter. Generally when I fulfill that requirement it's because I need the defroster.

BriarCraft - Can I be rational without being a misogynist? I want to come down on the side of reason. Emotion is real, but it is a subjective thing. Reason can be shared objectively. Ability to reason is a thing that distinguishes Homo sapiens from other animals. Reason is our species' sharpest tool.

I don't want to dismiss emotion entirely. One can reason about emotion, and one can emote while reasoning. Both mental aspects have their place and purpose. We do well when we strike a functional balance.

As for laws and rules, sp is right that there is a category problem. In English we use the same word, 'law', both for physical things like gravity and thermodynamics and for social things like murder and speeding. No enforcement is required for physical laws. They apply always and everywhere. You can't break them if you try. Man-made laws, on the other hand, are readily flouted. All it takes is an action. (I started to say "a decision and an action", but one can break a social law without knowing or consciously trying.) Enforcement is spotty and reactive. Penalties may or may not ensue, depending on lawyers etc. We really ought to have two different words for these very different concepts. It would save a lot of conflation and confusion.

sp - With respect to gestation in space, I've been wondering whether there is any difference between aquatic and terrestrial species. Aquatic organisms are effectively weightless in water, although on earth they do exist in a gravity field: bubbles rise, fluids convect etc. Among land species embryos manage to develop normally, floating within their eggs (or wombs), with random orientation to the gravitational field. If there is some critical developmental stage determined by gravity, it's not obvious. In space it's possible to create alloys of metals that won't mix on earth. Perhaps that effect is enough to mess up embryonic growth.

One of the beauties of science is that we needn't wait for revelation. If you want to see the light, flip a switch. =o)

Rules are good for providing structure. Physical laws define the shape of the universe. Man-made laws shape society.

The thing to remember about social laws is that they are, in a sense, arbitrary. Different societies implement different laws. Each society changes its laws from time to time. In that sense these man-made laws are hardly sacred. They are only guidelines meant to help keep us out of trouble. They should be regarded with a reasonable suspicion for both their quality and their quantity. They should be enforced with discretion. The goal is not to inflict punishment on individuals but to foment a healthy society.

Rob - Thanks for taking the time to say howdy.

On my side of the family I have a mom and one aunt left. After they go, it will be my generation's turn.

Hi, BF! I guess the short answer to your question is that we evacuated. We drove right through the squall line 200 miles west to Mom's house over the weekend. The visit was planned come rain or shine.

We returned home this afternoon. I was somewhat gratified to see that home is still here. There was a tornado watch in effect when we left.

Well, as far as belief enters into it, I believe in objective reality. Most of us can agree that the clear sky is blue whether or not we agree on a reason why. We have language to describe the passage of time, and we have even more language to describe motion from place to place. I'm not saying that the world exists exactly as scientists (or anyone else) describe it, but I think there is something real being described.

We may only be seeing the tip of an iceberg, or we might be making a mountain out of a molehill. Our shared perceptions and the deductions and inferences based on those perceptions are the best tools we've got. If those fail us, then there is no reason to believe anything or do anything.

The success that we've had with science over the last few hundred years suggests that we're onto something, that we can make headway against our own ignorance, that we can learn about the world we inhabit, and that the knowledge we gain is worth seeking. Within that body of knowledge time and space remain useful concepts.

I understand that, despite your skepticism, you hold a job. I assume you somehow manage to arrive at the designated place at the appointed hour.

It's cool, rainy and gray in the north end of the Southeast this morning.

Outside on the lawn Wife's daffodils are putting on a show.



Does that mean it's spring?

Ylee, thanks for offering another example of a shared perception. See, the world does operate in a fairly reliable and consistent way. If it didn't, we probably wouldn't be here long enough to comment about it.

Yep, BriarCraft, Red Oak would fit the bill. Might have to go buy a growler.

...although the next few days promise to be warmer and dryer. If I get a chance, I hope to slake my thirst at a new brewery opening in Hillsborough this week.

Rob, one reason I believe in some kind of objective reality is that it's too bizarre to be imaginary. Nobody could make this stuff up.

Not only that, but it's the same every dang morning. If people were making it up, they would surely change it up more. Some days the trees would be green, some days they would be pink, some days paisley. Nobody likes the same stuff every day. "Imagine greater."

We're having a cold front which is supposed to retreat later as a warm front. It's a bit rainish tonight, and it's supposed to be rainy again Friday. Meanwhile the prediction for Thursday is beautiful. Sunny, 75 degrees.

I think spring is here. The flowers are coming out. There have been things blooming (anomalously) since Christmas. Up to now has been early, but March 1st is open season. Frank Strait on Accuweather has given up on snow. The sun is coming back.

The bad news is that I really need to get out there and start working on the yard. The time has come.