Archive for the ‘Science’ Category

Your tax dollars at work

Tuesday, February 27th, 2007

Ok, so I was kind of upset when President Bush announced in his 2004 State of the Union address that NASA should plan a manned mission to Mars. Not that they’re getting any additional funding for a Mars shot. No, they’ll just have to gut their successful planetary science program, unmanned rovers and the Hubble telescope in order to work on a pointless publicity exercise. (Hey, anything to distract us from the quagmire in Iraq.)

Fair enough. So what do we the taxpayers get for our investment?
NASA is building its very own Bouncy Castle!

Inflato Moon dome

NASA tests moon building

That’s right. Imagine all the fun those astronauts will have in this big inflatable dome! Personally, I think NASA should have spent the extra bucks for the inflatable slide too.

OK, so maybe it makes sense to build light if you’re paying like $1000 a pound for overweight luggage. But wait. Something else seems out of proportion here. Let’s take a closer look.

NASA moon building air lock - CNET

Just look at the size of that airlock door! Is that really reinforced steel?

They’re using bulkhead door from Das Boot and attaching it to a nylon tent? If anyone slams the door too hard, the whole castle will flip over! Or that door will just rip right off and end up embedded in the dirt outside. I hope someone remembered the patch kit.

The science of flaming

Tuesday, February 20th, 2007

The New York Times has a fascinating article on why people flame online:
Flame First, Think Later: New Clues to E-Mail Misbehavior

Flaming has a technical name, the “online disinhibition effect,” which psychologists apply to the many ways people behave with less restraint in cyberspace.

John Suler, a psychologist at Rider University in Lawrenceville, N.J., suggested that several psychological factors lead to online disinhibition: the anonymity of a Web pseudonym; invisibility to others; the time lag between sending an e-mail message and getting feedback; the exaggerated sense of self from being alone; and the lack of any online authority figure. Dr. Suler notes that disinhibition can be either benign — when a shy person feels free to open up online — or toxic, as in flaming.

But there’s more. Apparently neuroscientists now think that flaming also arises from our inability to communicate properly without the visual and auditory cues of normal conversation.

In face-to-face interaction, the brain reads a continual cascade of emotional signs and social cues, instantaneously using them to guide our next move so that the encounter goes well. Much of this social guidance occurs in circuitry centered on the orbitofrontal cortex, a center for empathy. This cortex uses that social scan to help make sure that what we do next will keep the interaction on track.

Socially artful responses emerge largely in the neural chatter between the orbitofrontal cortex and emotional centers like the amygdala that generate impulsivity. But the cortex needs social information — a change in tone of voice, say — to know how to select and channel our impulses. And in e-mail there are no channels for voice, facial expression or other cues from the person who will receive what we say.

Of course, since I went to school with a lot of people who were socially artless,  I’m used to filtering those messages anyway. After all, engineering students aren’t graded on their empathy.

Playing games with wave functions

Thursday, February 15th, 2007

On Tuesday, a Canadian company chose an unusual setting to announce a new computer system – the Computer History Museum in Mountain View. (Home to thousands of unsuccessful machines made by now defunct companies). There D-Wave Systems demonstrated their 16 qubit quantum computing device, remotely located in Burnaby, BC. You can’t do much with 16 qubits, other than solving Sudoku puzzles. But D-Wave claims they can scale up their device to 1000 qubits or more.

In most prototype quantum computing systems, researchers hit atoms with lasers or use other means to excite particles into fuzzy quantum states. But in a technique called adiabatic quantum computing, researchers cool metal circuits into a superconducting state in which electrons flow freely, resulting in qubits. They then slowly vary a magnetic field, which lets the qubits gradually adjust to each other, sort of like people huddling in the cold. In 2005 German researchers built a three-qubit adiabatic quantum computer.

D-Wave announced that it has constructed a 16-bit version crafted from the superconducting element niobium. “What we’ve built is really a systems-level proof of concept,” says Geordie Rose, D-Wave’s co-founder and chief technology officer. “We want to get people’s imagination stimulated.”

Well, that and raise a bunch of venture funding too, of course.

D-Wave quantum computer - Scientific American

Apparently, D-Wave is specifically targeting NP-complete problems. My buddy Steve Leibson has some more technical details:

Briefly, D-Wave’s Orion solves such problems by holding all possible solutions in a superposed state in a 16-qubit register, arranged in a ring on the 5×5 mm chip. A qubit is a quantum storage element that can hold a 0 or 1 (like a digital bit) and an infinite number of intermediate states, all in simultaneous superposition. The qubit’s operation depends on the physics of quantum mechanics and, consequently, Orion operates at 4 mK (that’s 4 thousandths of a Kelvin above absolute zero).

Orion accepts queries phrased in the common and familiar SQL (structured query language). [...] D-Wave’s Orion determines the answer to such problems by creating “graphs” of problem solutions, superimposing all such graphs onto Orion’s 16-qubit storage register, and then searching all answers in parallel to find the solution with the lowest energy, which is the right answer based on the graph constructions.

It’s an impressive technical achievement, and I wish them good luck scaling up their machine. But to me this just seems like an expensive version of the old Spaghetti Computer.

Why are adolescents so selfish?

Monday, September 25th, 2006

A researcher at University College London has used MRI imaging to study the brains of adolescents as they make decisions. She found that teenagers and adults use different areas of the brain in making those decisions. The “superior temporal sulcus” used by adolescents handles very basic behavioral actions, whereas the “prefrontal cortex” used by adults is better able to understand how actions may affect others.

In addition, she found that adolescents become adults, they require less time to answer questions that require empathy. The implication is that adults can more readily put themselves in someone else’s shoes.

The evolution of the creation movement

Tuesday, August 15th, 2006

How to Make Sure Children Are Scientifically Illiterate

The chairman of the [Kansas] school board, Dr. Steve Abrams, a veterinarian, is not merely a strict creationist. He has openly stated that he believes that God created the universe 6,500 years ago, although he was quoted in The New York Times this month as saying that his personal faith “doesn’t have anything to do with science.”

“I can separate them,” he continued, adding, “My personal views of Scripture have no room in the science classroom.”

Dr. Abrams has no choice but to separate his views from what is taught in science classes, because what he says he believes is inconsistent with the most fundamental facts the Kansas schools teach children.
… The age of the earth, and the universe, is no more a matter of religious faith than is the question of whether or not the earth is flat.
It is a matter of overwhelming scientific evidence. To maintain a belief in a 6,000-year-old earth requires a denial of essentially all the results of modern physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology and geology. It is to imply that airplanes and automobiles work by divine magic, rather than by empirically testable laws.

Femme Mentale

Monday, August 14th, 2006

The Chronicle reviews “The Female Brain“, a new book by UCSF neuropsychiatrist Louann Brizendine. In it, she tries to explain gender differences in terms of brain architecture. It’s sure to touch off some controversy, such as her explanation of why women prefer to talk about their feelings, while men prefer to meditate on sex.

“Women have an eight-lane superhighway for processing emotion, while men have a small country road,” she writes. Men, however, “have O’Hare Airport as a hub for processing thoughts about sex, where women have the airfield nearby that lands small and private planes.”

Brizendine also has an explanation for why teenage girls spend so much time text messaging.

“Connecting through talking activates the pleasure centers in a girl’s brain. We’re not talking about a small amount of pleasure. This is huge. It’s a major dopamine and oxytocin rush, which is the biggest, fattest neurological reward you can get outside of an orgasm.”

Wow. Suddenly 10 cents a message doesn’t seem so expensive any more.

A few other differences between the sexes, according to Brizendine:

  • Thoughts about sex enter women’s brains once every couple of days; for men, thoughts about sex occur every minute.
  • Women use 20,000 words per day; men use 7,000 per day.
  • Women excel at knowing what people are feeling; men have difficulty spotting an emotion unless someone cries or threatens bodily harm.
  • Women remember fights that a man insists never happened.
  • Women over 50 are more likely to initiate divorce.

Sleeping together for Dummies

Thursday, August 3rd, 2006

A study from the University of Vienna claims that sleeping with a woman makes men stupid. No, literally – men think poorly after sharing a bed. But it doesn’t seem to affect women much.

While men thought they slept better with a partner, and women believed they didn’t, actually both sexes had more disturbed sleep, even when they did not have sex. Lack of sleep led to increased stress hormone levels in men, and reduced their ability to perform simple cognitive tests the next day.

However, the women apparently slept more deeply when they did sleep, since they claimed to be more refreshed than their sleep time suggested. Their stress levels and mental scores did not suffer to the same extent.

Of course, many women will say they were stupid to sleep with a man, but that’s another study…

Hot enough for ya?

Friday, June 23rd, 2006

The National Research Council has reported that the earth is hotter now than any time in the past 400 years. They analyzed tree rings, coral and retreating glaciers that indicate surface temperatures over the past 1000 years. They also conclude that human activity is largely responsible for the temperature rise.

The committee pointed out that surface temperature reconstructions for periods before the Industrial Revolution — when levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases were much lower — are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that current warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence.

How to do the right thing

Sunday, June 18th, 2006

Harvard professor Daniel Gilbert, author of Stumbling on Happiness, gave an engaging talk at the South By Southwest 2006 conference entitled “How to Do Precisely the Right Thing at All Possible Times.” (23MB MP3 Link)

He explains why people make irrational decisions — that is, decisions that do not make economic sense. Why do so many people play the lottery? How do we over-estimate the threat of terrorism and underestimate the danger of backyard swimming pools? Some of it is due to how the news media portrays the world. But a lot of the problem is in our own minds.

As a psychologist, Gilbert has been able to conduct experiments that show how the decision-making process works. And fundamentally, he argues that the human brain is well designed for the natural world, but incapable of the kinds of statistical reasoning required in modern society.

People are notoriously bad at comparing relative risks, and of estimating chances of success or failure. We cannot even predict how much we’ll enjoy a reward, and are often disappointed in the results.

Gilbert also has some harsh words for that principle of eastern philosophy, “living in the moment”.

If you want to live in the moment, you should have been born a fruit fly. Or a toaster. One of the human brain’s most glorious and unique talents is its ability to look backward and forward across great swathes of time—to examine its own history and to imagine its own future, to engage in mental time travel. The problems that are most likely to cause the extinction of our species are due to living in the moment and letting the future take care of itself. The problem is: It doesn’t.

A trick of the light

Tuesday, May 16th, 2006

In the wierd spooky realms of quantum physics, it turns out you can play lots of tricks with the speed of light:

Robert W. Boyd, a professor of optics at the University of Rochester … demonstrated an optical fiber — a glass strand that transmits pulses of light — with a couple of odd characteristics:
A pulse of light shot into the fiber departs before it enters.
Within the fiber, the pulse travels backward — and faster than the speed of light.

And no, I don’t understand it either.