The Democratic primary campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been moving along at warp speed. Obama, of course, has produced an unexpected and most impressive run of decisive wins, and now has Clinton desperate to win both Texas and Ohio a week from Tuesday. In addition, Clinton's once expected dominance of the superdelegates is in question, as many have recently claimed suport for Obama; he has picked up 25 and Clinton has lost 2 just in the past two weeks. How could this be the case? Clinton, back in the fall, was the absolute favorite to win the nomination, as President Clinton is still seen by most Democrats to be the leader of the party. With his network, his command of the establishment, and the many Democrats who owe him their careers and favors, along with his pack of wealthy liberals who can raise great amounts of money, her nomination was inevitable.
To date, I would have to say that Obama has yet to stray off his campaign theme. He has been the most consistent major candidate among Democrats, to be sure. The experienced Clinton, on the other hand, has changed themes and personalities so frequently in the past two months, it seems difficult to anticipate what will be the theme of her latest stump speech. She has been forced to this state because she needs to find something that can break Obama's nearly overwhelming momentum. One of the latest tactics arose in Wisconsin. The Clinton campaign unleashed the "plagiarism" label on Obama, for using lines a national co-chair had given him to use. This came up in a big way in the recent Texas debate, where Clinton labeled Obama as a "xerox" candidate. But these negative attacks have not worked. I suspect this will once again back-fire on Clinton. In fact, just minutes after Clinton attacked Obama at the debate, she used two sets of lines, one from Bill Clinton and one from John Edwards, which were nearly word for word identical! Watch the video, as shown on Meet the Press this morning. Virtually all politicians use and borrow lines from each other, from friends and spouses, so using that to attack an opponent only hints at hypocrisy. This is something many Americans are very tired of, and what I feel is one more reason many have jumped behind Obama.
It will be interesting to see what happens in Texas and Ohio, as well as the smaller primaries in Rhode Island and Vermont. If Obama were to win even one of those states, it will be nearing the point where the delegate mathematics must be considered to see if Clinton even has a chance at the nomination. Even if Clinton wins both states, but only by small percentages, that is a virtual win for Obama, as the delegates will be more evenly split and he would maintain the lead in delegates. Keep in mind Clinton had strong double-digit leads in both states just a couple weeks ago, and now some polls have them even in Texas and almost halved in Ohio.
Now we just need to weed out the Right's attempts to spread complete false statements about Obama being a 'radical Muslim' and 'unpatriotic insurgent.' I can't imagine why so many qualified people stay out of politics, where blatant lies can be the norm. I do hope this year, unlike the many Rovian smear campaigns of 2000 and 2004, the electorate does not fall for the attempts at smearing candidates. This goes for the Left, as well.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
Grid Computing
In one of my classes today, the topic of next generation supercomputers came up. As the conversation developed, I brought up the notion of grid computing, as the amount of data humans will need to collect, store and analyze continues to expand exponentially. I want to point those who are interested in this topic to an old post from 2005, which is on grid computing. This also will become more real to the general public as the LHC turns on in Europe in the next month or two. 'tis another example of how cutting-edge pure science research is helping drive real-world technology.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Our Use of Light
Because of some topics jsut studied in my junior classes, here is an old post (Feb. 10, 2006) about light and our use of it to figure out how the universe works.
I was having a conversation with a colleague at school when the topic of light came up, and how our use and manipulation of it has allowed us to reach a level of knowledge and understanding of our universe that is really remarkable. Understanding the properties of light and being able to detect light has allowed us to explore the world of the big and small, over a remarkable range of size scales (if you have never seen it, do check out the 'powers of 10' site...very cool!!), so we are at a point in human knowledge where we can not only begin to wonder about how the universe began and how it is put together (man has always wondered about these things), but actually test ideas and learn some of the truths about these questions.
By light I refer to not only the obvious visible light our own eyes detect, but rather all the forms of electromagnetic radiation within the larger spectrum. Radio and microwaves, infrared (i.e. radiant heat) and ultraviolet, x-rays and gamma radiation are all exactly like visible light, only with different wavelengths and frequencies. When it comes to exploring the solar system and beyond, the only information we have comes from these forms of energy. This is the only way to gather any data at all...we detect the tiny amounts of energy in the form of little packets (both a particle and wave) called photons that make it to the earth over countless numbers of miles of space. We cannot physically make it to the places we look in the universe, but in some cases we literally rely on handfuls of photons from the most distant objects we know about and can gather an enormous amount of information from that ancient light.
With light we can determine what stars and galaxies are made of. Putting light through a prism fortunately breaks apart into the rainbow, and by carefully looking at the rainbow of the light from heated elements we see unique patterns appear for each chemical element. For instance, light from hydrogen will break up into four visible lines, one that is red, one that is a blue-green color, a bark blue and violet color. No other type of atom will make this pattern of colors, so when we look at an object that is a billion light-years away and see that same pattern, we know it is hydrogen. Even looking at light from the sun tells us that stars are the producers of the heavier elements we are made of. Carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, all the way up to iron, are made in the nuclear furnaces of stars. Elements above iron are produced when stars explode, and these elements then fly out into space, available to form other objects.
Not only can light allow us to know what distant objects are made of, but we can tell how objects that are seemingly at rest are actually movng at great speeds. The great distances between objects in the universe gives the illusion of everything remaining fixed in a static universe, for it takes far longer than a human lifetime for a distant star to change position to our naked eyes. This effect even fooled Einstein originally, when he included a cosmological constant in his general relativity equations. However, Hubble discovered, through an observation of star light and a common wave phenomenon called the Doppler effect, that stars and galaxies are really moving at high speeds away from each other. Just about everything we can see with our telescopes outside our own Milky Way galaxy has a 'red shift,' meaning they are moving away from us and causing light waves to stretch a bit to become more reddish in color. This is no different than a police car with its siren on moving away from us and hearing a decrease in the siren's pitch, as the sound waves are stretched out because of the relative motion between the siren and us. This observation has led us to Big Bang models of nothing less than the creation of the universe...remarkable! Since Hubble's breaktrough observations dating back to the 1920's and 30's, we have added the capabilities to look not just at the visible portion of the spectrum, but the entire range of light. Detecting radio and microwaves from around the universe has allowed us to test predictions of Big Bang theories (such as the cosmic microwave background radiation distributions) with ever better precision. Looking at frequencies above visible light, in the x-ray and gamma regions, has allowed us to search for the most violent and powerful objects we can imagine, black holes. By looking at light to determine the motion of stars within galaxies, we can compare that motion with our known laws of gravity to conclude that there needs to be more matter than we can detect with light, so now scientists speak in terms of dark matter and dark energy. Again, remarkable that we can even begin to ponder these concepts by looking at the few photons that happen to make it to earth! Only one of our senses can be used to explore space, and by employing a bit of technology to help our sense of sight we can talk somewhat intelligently about how the universe came to be.
While light has helped us observe the macrocosmic heavens, we also use light to develop an understanding of microcosmic world of the basic constituents of matter. The development of quantum mechanics came directly from a few scientists' attempts to understand a basic feature of light. When objects are heated enough, they begin to glow. When one looks at the light emitted by heated objects, we quickly find a particular distribution of the brightness of colors (i.e. blackbody radiation). The only theoretical way to explain this required the introduction of a concept where light had to come in packets (Max Planck, 1900), rather than being a continuous wave, and quantum theory was born. Einstein used his genius to develop relativity and the theory of photons, beginning in 1905. The other key use of light to develop what eventually evolved into quantum mechanics was Niels Bohr's theory to explain the characteristic patterns of light from each element mentioned above. The only explanation for such patterns requires electrons to orbit a nucleus with a particular, finite set of energies. Whereas objects orbiting the sun can have a continuum of values of radius and energy to chose from, electrons orbiting nuclei are restricted to very specific values; those values are quantized. Quantum mechanics continues to be one of the areas of study in physics, and its effects and consequences have moved into the worlds of chemistry and biology, as well as engineering and technology. All of this has been possible by a few observations of light. As with space, light is our only sense that is relevant in the study of the microcosm, whether it is loking at the nature of atoms with spectroscpes or by using microscopes to discover new things about cells.
Perhaps in the future we will have the technologies to add to our observational arsenal. Perhaps we will one day open new astronomical fields of neutrino astronomy or gravity wave astronomy (check out, for example, the LIGO experiment). Perhaps nanotechnology will develop nanomachines that will allow us to extend our sense of touch to the world of the small, so we can add to ur sense of sight in this realm. Time will tell, but it is nice to step back for a moment and reflect (no pun intended) on how relatively simple and basic observations of light have brought us to where we are in our understanding of the universe
I was having a conversation with a colleague at school when the topic of light came up, and how our use and manipulation of it has allowed us to reach a level of knowledge and understanding of our universe that is really remarkable. Understanding the properties of light and being able to detect light has allowed us to explore the world of the big and small, over a remarkable range of size scales (if you have never seen it, do check out the 'powers of 10' site...very cool!!), so we are at a point in human knowledge where we can not only begin to wonder about how the universe began and how it is put together (man has always wondered about these things), but actually test ideas and learn some of the truths about these questions.
By light I refer to not only the obvious visible light our own eyes detect, but rather all the forms of electromagnetic radiation within the larger spectrum. Radio and microwaves, infrared (i.e. radiant heat) and ultraviolet, x-rays and gamma radiation are all exactly like visible light, only with different wavelengths and frequencies. When it comes to exploring the solar system and beyond, the only information we have comes from these forms of energy. This is the only way to gather any data at all...we detect the tiny amounts of energy in the form of little packets (both a particle and wave) called photons that make it to the earth over countless numbers of miles of space. We cannot physically make it to the places we look in the universe, but in some cases we literally rely on handfuls of photons from the most distant objects we know about and can gather an enormous amount of information from that ancient light.
With light we can determine what stars and galaxies are made of. Putting light through a prism fortunately breaks apart into the rainbow, and by carefully looking at the rainbow of the light from heated elements we see unique patterns appear for each chemical element. For instance, light from hydrogen will break up into four visible lines, one that is red, one that is a blue-green color, a bark blue and violet color. No other type of atom will make this pattern of colors, so when we look at an object that is a billion light-years away and see that same pattern, we know it is hydrogen. Even looking at light from the sun tells us that stars are the producers of the heavier elements we are made of. Carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, all the way up to iron, are made in the nuclear furnaces of stars. Elements above iron are produced when stars explode, and these elements then fly out into space, available to form other objects.
Not only can light allow us to know what distant objects are made of, but we can tell how objects that are seemingly at rest are actually movng at great speeds. The great distances between objects in the universe gives the illusion of everything remaining fixed in a static universe, for it takes far longer than a human lifetime for a distant star to change position to our naked eyes. This effect even fooled Einstein originally, when he included a cosmological constant in his general relativity equations. However, Hubble discovered, through an observation of star light and a common wave phenomenon called the Doppler effect, that stars and galaxies are really moving at high speeds away from each other. Just about everything we can see with our telescopes outside our own Milky Way galaxy has a 'red shift,' meaning they are moving away from us and causing light waves to stretch a bit to become more reddish in color. This is no different than a police car with its siren on moving away from us and hearing a decrease in the siren's pitch, as the sound waves are stretched out because of the relative motion between the siren and us. This observation has led us to Big Bang models of nothing less than the creation of the universe...remarkable! Since Hubble's breaktrough observations dating back to the 1920's and 30's, we have added the capabilities to look not just at the visible portion of the spectrum, but the entire range of light. Detecting radio and microwaves from around the universe has allowed us to test predictions of Big Bang theories (such as the cosmic microwave background radiation distributions) with ever better precision. Looking at frequencies above visible light, in the x-ray and gamma regions, has allowed us to search for the most violent and powerful objects we can imagine, black holes. By looking at light to determine the motion of stars within galaxies, we can compare that motion with our known laws of gravity to conclude that there needs to be more matter than we can detect with light, so now scientists speak in terms of dark matter and dark energy. Again, remarkable that we can even begin to ponder these concepts by looking at the few photons that happen to make it to earth! Only one of our senses can be used to explore space, and by employing a bit of technology to help our sense of sight we can talk somewhat intelligently about how the universe came to be.
While light has helped us observe the macrocosmic heavens, we also use light to develop an understanding of microcosmic world of the basic constituents of matter. The development of quantum mechanics came directly from a few scientists' attempts to understand a basic feature of light. When objects are heated enough, they begin to glow. When one looks at the light emitted by heated objects, we quickly find a particular distribution of the brightness of colors (i.e. blackbody radiation). The only theoretical way to explain this required the introduction of a concept where light had to come in packets (Max Planck, 1900), rather than being a continuous wave, and quantum theory was born. Einstein used his genius to develop relativity and the theory of photons, beginning in 1905. The other key use of light to develop what eventually evolved into quantum mechanics was Niels Bohr's theory to explain the characteristic patterns of light from each element mentioned above. The only explanation for such patterns requires electrons to orbit a nucleus with a particular, finite set of energies. Whereas objects orbiting the sun can have a continuum of values of radius and energy to chose from, electrons orbiting nuclei are restricted to very specific values; those values are quantized. Quantum mechanics continues to be one of the areas of study in physics, and its effects and consequences have moved into the worlds of chemistry and biology, as well as engineering and technology. All of this has been possible by a few observations of light. As with space, light is our only sense that is relevant in the study of the microcosm, whether it is loking at the nature of atoms with spectroscpes or by using microscopes to discover new things about cells.
Perhaps in the future we will have the technologies to add to our observational arsenal. Perhaps we will one day open new astronomical fields of neutrino astronomy or gravity wave astronomy (check out, for example, the LIGO experiment). Perhaps nanotechnology will develop nanomachines that will allow us to extend our sense of touch to the world of the small, so we can add to ur sense of sight in this realm. Time will tell, but it is nice to step back for a moment and reflect (no pun intended) on how relatively simple and basic observations of light have brought us to where we are in our understanding of the universe
Top 14 Engineering Challenges of the 21st Century
An expert panel has selected their top 14 engineering challenges for the 21st century. Check it out here. The group, the U.S. National Academy of Engineering, was asked by the National Science Foundation to develop the list of challenges, so they may begin to plan and funnel funding to various efforts. The list has many of the same challenges I posed to our present-day students, but mine were in the form of science-related policy concerns for the near and long-term future. A couple I did not include on my list are enhance personalized learning/education and managing the nitrogen cycle (for agricultural reasons). Check it out...further motivation for young people to go into the sciences and engineering, as the quality of life in the future will continue to depend directly and, I would say, primarily, on scientific and engineering advances. We just need the will to provide resources for these efforts, as well as the qualified personnel to do it.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
One of the Earliest Galaxies Ever Observed
Many of my students are fascinated with the concept of gravitational lensing. In general relativity, Albert Einstein conceived the idea that gravity is not a force, in our sense of the word, but rather a consequence of matter warping the space-time continuum. This is indeed very abstract and weird for one to comprehend, as our brains are unable to picture things in four dimensions. However, a prediction based on this model was that light should then be 'bent' by gravity since photons must travel through space and time. It is like a ball rolling on a hilly surface...it will 'bend' its direction of travel because it must follow the surface. In the case of gravity, this was very different from what Newtonian gravity predicted, since photons do not have mass.
Gravitational lensing is now used on a daily basis by astronomers to help them see very distant objects. Now, a galaxy has been observed at some 13 billion light-years from the earth. This galaxy would have existed fairly soon after the Big Bang (13.7 billion years ago), and I would have to guess it was a first generation galaxy with first generation stars. Chalk up another discovery for the Hubble Space Telescope.
Gravitational lensing is now used on a daily basis by astronomers to help them see very distant objects. Now, a galaxy has been observed at some 13 billion light-years from the earth. This galaxy would have existed fairly soon after the Big Bang (13.7 billion years ago), and I would have to guess it was a first generation galaxy with first generation stars. Chalk up another discovery for the Hubble Space Telescope.
Friday, February 01, 2008
More on Science Funding Woes
I just found another article from Scientific American dealing with funding cuts for basic science research. It, too, points out that such cuts in this day and age are entirely counterproductive for our nation. Such cuts affect:
- economic development and growth (our economy is largely driven by scientific innovation and technology development;
- competitiveness and standing in the global community (we have reached superpower status largely because of the gap in science infrastructure and discovery between the U.S. and the rest of the world);
- scientifically literate workforce decline (we risk having our own 'brain-drain' as scientists leave the U.S. to go to the top facilities, which are being located in other parts of the world...for example, we have already seen this in high energy physics, stem cell research, and at some level the world of alternative energy technology and development);
- hurting our future scientists (cuts at the national lab level, for instance, have resulted in some 700 projects being terminated; national labs play a significant role in providing a training ground for young scientists and students);
- may have a negative effect long-term in our ability to do 'big science' of any kind (we have pulled funding on ITER, the experimental fusion reactor being built in France; science research has become international in many fields, and requires monetary contributions for many larger projects from multinational collaborations...we now have sent the world a message that we may not be trusted to partner in future projects);
- hurts industry (there are countless contracts between labs in academia/national labs and private industry, because researchers at the company/industry level are 'users' at these other labs, where large, sophisticated scientific machines and facilities exist; we are cancelling some of the projects and shutting down several facilities that some industries also need...the worry is, will industry R&D groups relocate overseas where they have access to similar, better funded facilities?)
Let's hope the funding woes will improve after the November elections.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
The Need for Science and Math Teachers (Who actually know science and math!)
Building on the theme of some recent posts, the future of the United States depends on its science and technology base, and a continued lead over the rest of the world in these areas. In addition to the fact that more and more of the higher paying jobs, and those that will be evolving in the information age, are technical in nature, the major issues and problems that dominate the political landscape are largely dependent on science to figure out the solutions. We have a problem with this from the start, unfortunately. In order to continue to build the science and technology based economy, or compete in an ever-increasingly competitive technical world, or to find solutions to science-related problems, we need scientists. We won't build the numbers of scientists unless we have teachers who can teach younger generations of students the basic science needed in college, or inspire students to pursue science in college and beyond. And we are reaching the point in many school districts around the nation where we don't have the teachers to complete this first, vital step in the process.
In a report put out by the Department of Education, 36% of high school math teachers and 27% of high school science teachers did NOT major in math or science in college. This means about 1 in three students around the country are being taught by non-experts. Many districts do have staff development programs in place, as well as mentoring programs, but fundamentally many teachers are working hard to do their best, but with limited knowledge and training in the field they are teaching. This is not an ideal situation.
It is difficult to imagine this will improve any time soon. In 2004-05, for example, 22 percent of all bachelor's degrees awarded in U.S. colleges and universities were in business; 11 percent were in social sciences; 7 percent in education; and 6 percent in psychology.
Just 1 percent of undergraduate degrees were in math or science. This makes for a limited pool of subject-trained members of the job market. For those small numbers who go into teaching, about half will leave the teaching profession altogether after 3-4 years. Low pay (compared to other professional fields) for the some times overwhelming amount of work teachers must do
chase out large percentages of new teachers. For instance, "in 2003, the median salary for full-time high school math and science teachers was $43,000. That compares to median salaries ranging between $50,000 and $72,000 for professionals with comparable educational backgrounds such as computer systems analysts, engineers, accountants or financial specialists, in the same year, according to the National Science Board."
In the final analysis, the lack of strong, scientifically trained teachers will continue to hurt younger students coming up through the pipeline. This will almost certainly have further negative effects on our ability as a nation to solve serious, complex, science and technology related problems. It will have a long-term effect on the stability of our economy. It will have long-term efffects on our standing in a technical, globally competitive world and marketplace. And I don't see it improving when our leaders decide to further cut funding at some of our best science resources and training grounds, the national labs. The next President absolutely needs to work on this problem, because it is, in my opinion, one of the absolute keys to the future our nation will be able realize.
In a report put out by the Department of Education, 36% of high school math teachers and 27% of high school science teachers did NOT major in math or science in college. This means about 1 in three students around the country are being taught by non-experts. Many districts do have staff development programs in place, as well as mentoring programs, but fundamentally many teachers are working hard to do their best, but with limited knowledge and training in the field they are teaching. This is not an ideal situation.
It is difficult to imagine this will improve any time soon. In 2004-05, for example, 22 percent of all bachelor's degrees awarded in U.S. colleges and universities were in business; 11 percent were in social sciences; 7 percent in education; and 6 percent in psychology.
Just 1 percent of undergraduate degrees were in math or science. This makes for a limited pool of subject-trained members of the job market. For those small numbers who go into teaching, about half will leave the teaching profession altogether after 3-4 years. Low pay (compared to other professional fields) for the some times overwhelming amount of work teachers must do
chase out large percentages of new teachers. For instance, "in 2003, the median salary for full-time high school math and science teachers was $43,000. That compares to median salaries ranging between $50,000 and $72,000 for professionals with comparable educational backgrounds such as computer systems analysts, engineers, accountants or financial specialists, in the same year, according to the National Science Board."
In the final analysis, the lack of strong, scientifically trained teachers will continue to hurt younger students coming up through the pipeline. This will almost certainly have further negative effects on our ability as a nation to solve serious, complex, science and technology related problems. It will have a long-term effect on the stability of our economy. It will have long-term efffects on our standing in a technical, globally competitive world and marketplace. And I don't see it improving when our leaders decide to further cut funding at some of our best science resources and training grounds, the national labs. The next President absolutely needs to work on this problem, because it is, in my opinion, one of the absolute keys to the future our nation will be able realize.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
UN Chief Says Water Shortages Are #1 Concern
I often tell students that the one issue that can lead to the most numbers of conflicts worldwide is the looming shortage of clean drinking water, the one material humans cannot do without for basic survival. The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, has now publicly made this same statement and is calling for this to become the world's top priority for 2008.
Coming from an article on Yahoo! News,
"He said a recent report identified 46 countries with 2.7 billion people where climate change and water-related crises create "a high risk of violent conflict" and a further 56 countries, with 1.2 billion people "are at high risk of violent conflict." The report was by International Alert, an independent peacebuilding organization based in London.
Ban told the VIP audience that he spent 2007 "banging my drum on climate change," an issue the Forum also had as one of its main themes last year. He welcomed the focus on water this year saying the session should be named: "Water is running out."
"We need to adapt to this reality, just as we do to climate change," he said. "There is still enough water for all of us — but only so long as we can keep it clean, use it more wisely, and share it fairly."
This is one of those issues that science will need to help solve in the long-term, but short-term there are both financial and political problems that need to be addressed in portions of the world where chaos tends to reign supreme politically, and water is desperately limited. Climate change will be affecting rainfall worldwide, and instability looms for certain governments if its citizens begin to have health concerns because of a lack of water. It is also important to remember that unsanitary conditions will also help encourage and propagate illness and disease. The next President of the United States will likely have to deal with new regional conflicts and humanitarian crises because of water shortages around the world. New technologies, international cooperation between governments, NGOs, and the private sector, and strong political will to take action in a relatively short period of time will be required if we want to try and save literally countless millions of people from this crisis.
Coming from an article on Yahoo! News,
"He said a recent report identified 46 countries with 2.7 billion people where climate change and water-related crises create "a high risk of violent conflict" and a further 56 countries, with 1.2 billion people "are at high risk of violent conflict." The report was by International Alert, an independent peacebuilding organization based in London.
Ban told the VIP audience that he spent 2007 "banging my drum on climate change," an issue the Forum also had as one of its main themes last year. He welcomed the focus on water this year saying the session should be named: "Water is running out."
"We need to adapt to this reality, just as we do to climate change," he said. "There is still enough water for all of us — but only so long as we can keep it clean, use it more wisely, and share it fairly."
This is one of those issues that science will need to help solve in the long-term, but short-term there are both financial and political problems that need to be addressed in portions of the world where chaos tends to reign supreme politically, and water is desperately limited. Climate change will be affecting rainfall worldwide, and instability looms for certain governments if its citizens begin to have health concerns because of a lack of water. It is also important to remember that unsanitary conditions will also help encourage and propagate illness and disease. The next President of the United States will likely have to deal with new regional conflicts and humanitarian crises because of water shortages around the world. New technologies, international cooperation between governments, NGOs, and the private sector, and strong political will to take action in a relatively short period of time will be required if we want to try and save literally countless millions of people from this crisis.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
A Case for Obama
The Democratic race for President has heated up with the Iowa caucus results and surging momentum of the campaign for Barack Obama. It was always assumed that Hillary Clinton was to inherit the Democratic throne, in part because the Democratic base still is largely loyal to Bill Clinton. The Clinton network is vast, and fund raising capabilities are as strong as one can imagine. But that entrenched network has been shown to be vulnerable by Obama. Of course, immediately after the Iowa results, the attacks came his way. Leading the way is the argument of lack of experience. But what does that mean, exactly?
There is a case to be made that Obama lacks executive experience. What large organization or bureaucracy has he ever led? That is a valid point. The trouble is, look at who is making that argument – Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. They, being lawyers and Senators, also have no executive experience, so their attacks in this venue are simply invalid and hypocritical. Someone like Bill Richardson, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee can legitimately separate themselves from the Senators on this point, as they are Governors and a mayor of one of the largest economies in the world, New York City. John McCain cannot claim executive experience, either, for the same reason as the other Senators. Generally, though, a new President appoints a chief of staff who is largely responsible for day to day running of the administration, so I personally don’t place executive experience as high as ideas/principles or foreign policy experience.
When it comes to foreign policy experience, however, think about the Presidents over the past thirty years, since the days of Jimmy Carter. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and G.W. Bush were governors. Governors generally have no true experience with foreign policy. The only one with experience in that realm was G.H.W. Bush, who at least had experience as a Vice President and director of the CIA. I would argue that Obama has more experience with thinking about and dealing with foreign policy matters (this includes national security issues, which governors typically don’t deal with directly) in two years of the Senate than four of the five last presidents had when they took office. This holds true for Senators Clinton, Edwards, and McCain, as well. Presidents appoint top experts in foreign policy and national security matters to their cabinet and as advisors, so it is actually more important to have a President who is willing to listen to arguments about a given situation, look at evidence and data, and then make a decision.
On this point, I have to go with Obama. He is known as one who wants to talk with experts in a given field to get the best information and data, and use those data as the basis of a decision. I think back to when the Congress was debating whether to give Bush a blank check and the authority to do as he pleases with the ‘war on terror,’ which of course led to the Iraq War. Clinton and Edwards voted to give Bush the authority, while Obama said as a state senator he opposed such authority. What I have a problem with when it comes to Clinton and Edwards is their lack of identifying and basing their vote on evidence, which points to the two of them as following a political decision to go along with a very popular president (Bush was at something like 80+% approval at that time, following the 9/11/01 attacks). The evidence I mention came from the inspectors who were on the ground in Iraq at the time of the congressional vote. They were given sites to check out by the CIA and other foreign intelligence services as they searched for WMDs. They had access to those sites, including Saddam’s presidential palaces. These were high-probability sites for WMD, as evaluated by intelligence services. The inspectors found nothing at any of the sites. This was direct evidence that our intelligence was flawed at best. The inspectors pleaded for more time to check out more of the country, but once given authority, Bush ordered the inspectors out and the invasion began shortly thereafter. The votes for giving Bush authority, from both Republicans and those Democrats who went along, is unacceptable to me. People who ignored direct evidence that intelligence was flawed, and gave authority to ultimately go to war based on that poor intelligence, are not who I want in the Oval Office making decisions of this magnitude.
What is left? Senators Clinton and Edwards cannot attack Obama on executive experience since they are in the same situation, and the attack on lack of foreign policy experience does not hold water based on presidential history and precedent. In fact, I would also argue that Obama has another important edge because of his expertise with constitutional law, as he has been a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Clinton, Edwards, and McCain cannot make suc a claim.
I also think there is some logic to Obama’s argument to look at where ‘experience’ in Washington has gotten us. We have had no progress with any of the major issues we face. Social security, Medicare, energy policy (let’s face it, going up to 35 mpg by the year 2020 is lame! It should be 50 mpg minimum, if not more, with over a decade of new science and technology development…), infrastructure maintenance, port security, immigration, deficit reduction, and so on, are no different now than years ago when Edwards, Clinton, McCain and others (Biden, Dodd) have been in office.
New ideas, new energy, and a new mindset might just be the true answer to making progress on any of these problems. Obama has those types of characteristics, which is why I think many find him appealing. And he has two years in Washington under his belt, just enough to know how the current system works (or doesn’t work), while still being fresh enough to have better connection with us everyday folks. Remember, he came into all this as one of us…not wealthy, a middle class upbringing, challenges faced by minorities as he came up the ranks, working as a low-paid community activist after Harvard (when he could have had just about any job with a major law firm in the country) and little to no privilege. He may even know what the cost of a gallon of milk is.
I just think if voters really think about all this, the main arguments and attacks Clinton and Edwards have already begun to make to bring down Obama really won’t have the impact they’re intended to make. Obama’s chances of winning in New Hampshire depends greatly on turnout, particularly first time voters and the under-30 portion of the electorate, in order to beat Hillary and the Democratic establishment in the Northeast. It happened in Iowa, and now we will see if New Hampshire follows. After watching the frenzy he had the state Democrats in last night, at the annual dinner where all the remaining candidates spoke, and this morning’s campaign stop at a Nashua high school, where they had to open an entire wing of the school for the overflow crowd, his momentum is still strong and perhaps growing even stronger. What’s more, the polls of likely voters being shown by the press are not good indicators of who will win since the voting blocks Obama dominates will not be included in the polling samples. Those are simply news items to keep the press occupied at this point, as historically low turnout groups are likely to come out in unprecedented numbers with Obama in the race.
There is a case to be made that Obama lacks executive experience. What large organization or bureaucracy has he ever led? That is a valid point. The trouble is, look at who is making that argument – Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. They, being lawyers and Senators, also have no executive experience, so their attacks in this venue are simply invalid and hypocritical. Someone like Bill Richardson, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee can legitimately separate themselves from the Senators on this point, as they are Governors and a mayor of one of the largest economies in the world, New York City. John McCain cannot claim executive experience, either, for the same reason as the other Senators. Generally, though, a new President appoints a chief of staff who is largely responsible for day to day running of the administration, so I personally don’t place executive experience as high as ideas/principles or foreign policy experience.
When it comes to foreign policy experience, however, think about the Presidents over the past thirty years, since the days of Jimmy Carter. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and G.W. Bush were governors. Governors generally have no true experience with foreign policy. The only one with experience in that realm was G.H.W. Bush, who at least had experience as a Vice President and director of the CIA. I would argue that Obama has more experience with thinking about and dealing with foreign policy matters (this includes national security issues, which governors typically don’t deal with directly) in two years of the Senate than four of the five last presidents had when they took office. This holds true for Senators Clinton, Edwards, and McCain, as well. Presidents appoint top experts in foreign policy and national security matters to their cabinet and as advisors, so it is actually more important to have a President who is willing to listen to arguments about a given situation, look at evidence and data, and then make a decision.
On this point, I have to go with Obama. He is known as one who wants to talk with experts in a given field to get the best information and data, and use those data as the basis of a decision. I think back to when the Congress was debating whether to give Bush a blank check and the authority to do as he pleases with the ‘war on terror,’ which of course led to the Iraq War. Clinton and Edwards voted to give Bush the authority, while Obama said as a state senator he opposed such authority. What I have a problem with when it comes to Clinton and Edwards is their lack of identifying and basing their vote on evidence, which points to the two of them as following a political decision to go along with a very popular president (Bush was at something like 80+% approval at that time, following the 9/11/01 attacks). The evidence I mention came from the inspectors who were on the ground in Iraq at the time of the congressional vote. They were given sites to check out by the CIA and other foreign intelligence services as they searched for WMDs. They had access to those sites, including Saddam’s presidential palaces. These were high-probability sites for WMD, as evaluated by intelligence services. The inspectors found nothing at any of the sites. This was direct evidence that our intelligence was flawed at best. The inspectors pleaded for more time to check out more of the country, but once given authority, Bush ordered the inspectors out and the invasion began shortly thereafter. The votes for giving Bush authority, from both Republicans and those Democrats who went along, is unacceptable to me. People who ignored direct evidence that intelligence was flawed, and gave authority to ultimately go to war based on that poor intelligence, are not who I want in the Oval Office making decisions of this magnitude.
What is left? Senators Clinton and Edwards cannot attack Obama on executive experience since they are in the same situation, and the attack on lack of foreign policy experience does not hold water based on presidential history and precedent. In fact, I would also argue that Obama has another important edge because of his expertise with constitutional law, as he has been a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Clinton, Edwards, and McCain cannot make suc a claim.
I also think there is some logic to Obama’s argument to look at where ‘experience’ in Washington has gotten us. We have had no progress with any of the major issues we face. Social security, Medicare, energy policy (let’s face it, going up to 35 mpg by the year 2020 is lame! It should be 50 mpg minimum, if not more, with over a decade of new science and technology development…), infrastructure maintenance, port security, immigration, deficit reduction, and so on, are no different now than years ago when Edwards, Clinton, McCain and others (Biden, Dodd) have been in office.
New ideas, new energy, and a new mindset might just be the true answer to making progress on any of these problems. Obama has those types of characteristics, which is why I think many find him appealing. And he has two years in Washington under his belt, just enough to know how the current system works (or doesn’t work), while still being fresh enough to have better connection with us everyday folks. Remember, he came into all this as one of us…not wealthy, a middle class upbringing, challenges faced by minorities as he came up the ranks, working as a low-paid community activist after Harvard (when he could have had just about any job with a major law firm in the country) and little to no privilege. He may even know what the cost of a gallon of milk is.
I just think if voters really think about all this, the main arguments and attacks Clinton and Edwards have already begun to make to bring down Obama really won’t have the impact they’re intended to make. Obama’s chances of winning in New Hampshire depends greatly on turnout, particularly first time voters and the under-30 portion of the electorate, in order to beat Hillary and the Democratic establishment in the Northeast. It happened in Iowa, and now we will see if New Hampshire follows. After watching the frenzy he had the state Democrats in last night, at the annual dinner where all the remaining candidates spoke, and this morning’s campaign stop at a Nashua high school, where they had to open an entire wing of the school for the overflow crowd, his momentum is still strong and perhaps growing even stronger. What’s more, the polls of likely voters being shown by the press are not good indicators of who will win since the voting blocks Obama dominates will not be included in the polling samples. Those are simply news items to keep the press occupied at this point, as historically low turnout groups are likely to come out in unprecedented numbers with Obama in the race.
Further Decline in US Science Commitment
If there is one issue everyone tends to agree on, it is that in our global, competitive, technical world, the future of the US economy and position as a superpower is dependent on our science research and technology foundation, which has led the world since WWII. No other country in the world can come close to matching our science and R&D infrastructure, which consists of the merging of the entire university system, government funding and facilities, and private investment from business and industry. Scientists from around the world come here in droves to make use of American universities and national labs to do their cutting-edge research.
A looming problem, however, is we may lose this edge in science and technology because of a numbers game. When the baby-boom generation of scientists and engineers retires, there are small numbers of American students in the pipeline, meaning we anticipate severe problems replacing our current scientists. Well, the US government is on the verge of making this problem worse, further threatening our long-range world status and economic development. As reported in the Jan. 4, 2008, Chicago Tribune, there will be significant budget cuts for many of our national laboratories, including Fermilab and Argonne, both of which are outside Chicago.
This is ironic because my last post from just a couple days ago addresses major issues we face politically, environmentally, educationally, economically, and militarily. The issues are all connected intimately with science and technology. What political leaders, who control the budgets of national labs as they are run through the Department of Energy, continue to NOT understand, is that pure research is on an equal footing with applied research. What is more troubling is that the president, just last August, signed into law the America Competes Act, which was supposed to significantly increase our commitment to science and technology development. But the new budgetary priorities make no sense whatsoever.
I have argued many times the importance of pure research, which is what we typically do at national labs, certainly Fermilab and a good amount at Argonne. Pure and applied research go hand-in-hand, and just because one does not necessarily get a 'useful product' that can be sold from pure research does not make the knowledge attained meaningless or less valuable.
In addition to losing some amount of research in a variety of fields from the looming budget cuts, hundreds of high-tech jobs and positions will be cut. I fear another mini-exodus of American science talent, as happened when Congress, in its ultimate wisdom, pulled the funding entirely from the Superconducting Supercollider back in the early 1990s. Hundreds of American high-energy physics graduate students, technicians and professors have left research positions and collaborations here in the US and now do the bulk of their research in Europe, as the Large Hadron Collider is set to turn on later this spring, which will surpass Fermilab.
National labs help form the training grounds for future US scientists, engineers, computer experts and mathematicians. Why would we even consider making it more difficult to attract young students into any technical field? Rhetoric is one thing, but actions and budget priorities show one's true intensions. Students will see this lack of real commitment to jobs and training and research, and simply move into a different career path. Our future depends on our science and technology base, period. We are simply shooting ourselves in the foot long-term with decisions being made today.
If you are concerned about this lack of commitment to our future, please contact your congressional Representative and Senators and demand that we make real efforts to building and growing our science and technology base, not cutting it and discouraging young people from pursuing careers that are vital to keeping the US strong.
A looming problem, however, is we may lose this edge in science and technology because of a numbers game. When the baby-boom generation of scientists and engineers retires, there are small numbers of American students in the pipeline, meaning we anticipate severe problems replacing our current scientists. Well, the US government is on the verge of making this problem worse, further threatening our long-range world status and economic development. As reported in the Jan. 4, 2008, Chicago Tribune, there will be significant budget cuts for many of our national laboratories, including Fermilab and Argonne, both of which are outside Chicago.
This is ironic because my last post from just a couple days ago addresses major issues we face politically, environmentally, educationally, economically, and militarily. The issues are all connected intimately with science and technology. What political leaders, who control the budgets of national labs as they are run through the Department of Energy, continue to NOT understand, is that pure research is on an equal footing with applied research. What is more troubling is that the president, just last August, signed into law the America Competes Act, which was supposed to significantly increase our commitment to science and technology development. But the new budgetary priorities make no sense whatsoever.
I have argued many times the importance of pure research, which is what we typically do at national labs, certainly Fermilab and a good amount at Argonne. Pure and applied research go hand-in-hand, and just because one does not necessarily get a 'useful product' that can be sold from pure research does not make the knowledge attained meaningless or less valuable.
In addition to losing some amount of research in a variety of fields from the looming budget cuts, hundreds of high-tech jobs and positions will be cut. I fear another mini-exodus of American science talent, as happened when Congress, in its ultimate wisdom, pulled the funding entirely from the Superconducting Supercollider back in the early 1990s. Hundreds of American high-energy physics graduate students, technicians and professors have left research positions and collaborations here in the US and now do the bulk of their research in Europe, as the Large Hadron Collider is set to turn on later this spring, which will surpass Fermilab.
National labs help form the training grounds for future US scientists, engineers, computer experts and mathematicians. Why would we even consider making it more difficult to attract young students into any technical field? Rhetoric is one thing, but actions and budget priorities show one's true intensions. Students will see this lack of real commitment to jobs and training and research, and simply move into a different career path. Our future depends on our science and technology base, period. We are simply shooting ourselves in the foot long-term with decisions being made today.
If you are concerned about this lack of commitment to our future, please contact your congressional Representative and Senators and demand that we make real efforts to building and growing our science and technology base, not cutting it and discouraging young people from pursuing careers that are vital to keeping the US strong.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Calling All (Future) Scientists...Can You Please Solve These?
As we are fast approaching the year 2008, I cannot help but think about where we are headed and the role science will play in not so distant future. This takes on a new weight when considering it is about to become a presidential election year. When one thinks about the variety of problems we face as both a national and global society, it becomes clear that science will be looked to to develop answers and solutions to many of these problems. It is also clear that we need to think of this as science in the broadest sense, as all areas and disciplines will need to contribute. This goes to the heart of the definition of consilience, as numerous areas of knowledge and expertise will need to mix together if we are to make solid progress in finding effective solutions.
To get the ball rolling, consider the following broad issues/problems. All of these will require contributions from a variety of scientific and technical areas of study...multidisciplinary tasks galore:
To get the ball rolling, consider the following broad issues/problems. All of these will require contributions from a variety of scientific and technical areas of study...multidisciplinary tasks galore:
- Quality of air and water
- Fresh water supplies for much of the west and southwest
- Disposal of solid wastes (everyday garbage)
- Modernization and maintenance of national power grid
- New energy sources, better energy efficiency and conservation
- Climate change (both at an understanding level as well as preparing for consequences)
- Improved electronic encryption algorithms as we digitize everything (medical, financial records, etc)
- Transportation infrastructure
- Telecommunications networks, both development and maintenance
- Continued improvement and progress in computing technologies
- Mass electronic data storage
- Medical treatments for the disease of your choice. This includes stem cell issues, genetic engineering, drug R&D, and so on.
- Military related technologies
- Improved search technologies for earth-crossing asteroids (something I have yet to hear policymakers talk about publicly, but there are literally many thousands of sizeable objects that cross earth's orbit we should try to identify and monitor)
- Food supplies and quality control
- Disposal of nuclear wastes, nuclear proliferation issues
- Nanotechnology in general
- Security technology of all types
- Robotics
- Implementation of educational strategies and structures based on brain research and learning theory to best prepare the next generation of workers
- Continued development of network theory, game theory, etc., and progress in our understanding of complex systems for physical and social applications
- Materials science and development
I encourage comments with additional major issues that are technical in nature and subject to progress via scientific avenues; this is not at all a complete list. What we cannot forget is that further inclusion of other areas of study are intimately connected with just about everything on the above list, such as ethics, state/national/international law, economics, political science, sociology, public policy, military concerns, all areas of engineering, business/industry, job creation, international relations, anthropology, and countless subfields that fall under these larger areas of specialization.
The quicker we as a society recognize and realize the complexity, multidisciplinarity, and difficulty level of finding both short-term and long-term solutions to problems found in any of these areas, the better off we will be. The next president will need to address all of these during the course of an administration, as will every other prominent political figure in every nation across the globe. We will not be able to ignore any of them, and these loom as multi-generational issues that need to be solved. This will require leaders who are able to connect with the masses and communicate the seriousness of the issues, as well as move his or her nation toward a mindset of long-term planning and policy, something we seem to not be very good at.
We need to find and create massive numbers of people who are trained in the all of the sciences, mathematics, engineering and technology, and all the other fields mentioned above to remain competitive in a global marketplace, as well as the maintain and improve the quality of life for future generations. It is challenging work, but do we have any other choice but to address the challenges? Does our consumption-based and entertainment-driven society have the backbone and means to deal with these issues? Will we leave the world in better condition for our kids and grandkids than what we inherited?
Friday, December 21, 2007
Fun with Tesla coils
Check out the video at http://youtube.com/watch?v=Opf5jIukSBM...make sure to have your speakers on. Thanks to Mr. DuBrow for the link.
The Physics of Santa
I am unsure who the author is (I would love to give credit where credit is certainly due), but here is the classic Physics of Santa...enjoy.
A consultant report about Santa ...
There are approximately two billion children (persons under 18)in the world. However, since Santa does not visit children of Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or Buddhist religions, this reduces the workload for Christmas night to 15% of the total, or 378 million. Santa has about 108 million homes to visit and 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west. This works out to 967.7 visits per second. This is to say that for each Christian household with a good child, Santa has around 1/1000th of a second to park the sleigh, hop out, jump down the chimney, fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks have been left for him, get back up the chimney, jump into the sleigh and get on to the next house. Assuming that each of these 108 million stops is evenly distributed around the earth, we are now talking about 0.78 miles per household; a total trip of 75.5 million miles.
This means Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second. The payload of the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium sized Lego set weighing two pounds, the sleigh is carrying over 500 thousand tons, not counting Santa himself. On land, a conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds.
Even granting that the "flying" reindeer could pull ten times the normal amount, the job can't be done with eight or even nine of them --- Santa would need 360,000 of them. This increases the payload, not counting the weight of the sleigh, another 54,000 tons, or roughly seven times the weight of the QE2 (the ship, not the monarch). 600,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance --- this would heat up the reindeer in the same fashion as a spacecraft re-entering the earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of reindeer would absorb 14.3 quintillion joules of energy per second each. In short, they would burst into flames almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them and creating deafening sonic booms in their wake.
The entire reindeer team would be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second, or right about the time Santa reached the fifth house on his trip. Not that it matters, however, since Santa, as a result of accelerating from a dead stop to 650 m.p.s. in .001 seconds, would be subjected to inertial forces of 17,500 g's. A 250 pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the back of the sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force, instantly crushing his bones and organs and reducing him to a quivering blob of pink goo. Therefore, if Santa did exist, he's dead now. Sorry....
A consultant report about Santa ...
There are approximately two billion children (persons under 18)in the world. However, since Santa does not visit children of Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or Buddhist religions, this reduces the workload for Christmas night to 15% of the total, or 378 million. Santa has about 108 million homes to visit and 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west. This works out to 967.7 visits per second. This is to say that for each Christian household with a good child, Santa has around 1/1000th of a second to park the sleigh, hop out, jump down the chimney, fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks have been left for him, get back up the chimney, jump into the sleigh and get on to the next house. Assuming that each of these 108 million stops is evenly distributed around the earth, we are now talking about 0.78 miles per household; a total trip of 75.5 million miles.
This means Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second. The payload of the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium sized Lego set weighing two pounds, the sleigh is carrying over 500 thousand tons, not counting Santa himself. On land, a conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds.
Even granting that the "flying" reindeer could pull ten times the normal amount, the job can't be done with eight or even nine of them --- Santa would need 360,000 of them. This increases the payload, not counting the weight of the sleigh, another 54,000 tons, or roughly seven times the weight of the QE2 (the ship, not the monarch). 600,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance --- this would heat up the reindeer in the same fashion as a spacecraft re-entering the earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of reindeer would absorb 14.3 quintillion joules of energy per second each. In short, they would burst into flames almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them and creating deafening sonic booms in their wake.
The entire reindeer team would be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second, or right about the time Santa reached the fifth house on his trip. Not that it matters, however, since Santa, as a result of accelerating from a dead stop to 650 m.p.s. in .001 seconds, would be subjected to inertial forces of 17,500 g's. A 250 pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the back of the sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force, instantly crushing his bones and organs and reducing him to a quivering blob of pink goo. Therefore, if Santa did exist, he's dead now. Sorry....
Friday, December 14, 2007
Plumpy'Nut In The Field
If you saw the 60 Minutes episode featuring a relatively new peanut-based paste of vitamins and other simple foods, you'll recognize that plumpy'nut is likely to be one of those rare products that will save millions of lives, particularly severely malnourished children. Already, countless numbers of starving children in Africa have been given plumpy'nut. See the Plumpy'Nut In The Field website for updated news and projects in Africa, southern Asia, and South America. The cost for a 2-week supply is only $20, and donations are being accepted for this expanding, worldwide effort to save malnourished children.
Bioelectricity Examples
As some of my classes study electricity, we do not have the time to get into the role electricity (and more broadly, electromagnetism) plays within cells and living organisms. I'm looking for help in finding a large number of examples of bioelectricity, so please add some examples through comments to this post or email me and I can include them in the comments. A couple sentence description is fine (like an abstract), and add in URLs for links to good sources so others can learn more about it. Thanks!
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Arctic Melting
As many of the world's nations are presently talking about how to combat global climate change in Bali, Indonesia, new data from this past summer (the 2nd warmest on record, behind 2005) indicate record melting of the summer ice sheets in the Arctic Circle. Scientists who study climate and climate change tend to rely on advanced computer modeling in order to make predictions based on earlier years and measurements, and in the past many skeptics have often mentioned that computer models were unreliable and tended to overestimate the long-term effects of climate change, to the point that some have stated humans play no role at all in what is happening to our global climate. Unfortunately, those skeptics are correct - 'over-estimates' of the models are not accurate. Instead, they were under-estimates based on this year's data. The melting is now taking place at staggering rates, so much so that some have estimated that if this rate remains the norm, the summer ice will be gone by 2012! This is only 5 years away. Previous estimates had the ice gone in a few decades.
Regrettably, the U.S. and some other nations are remaining stubborn at the Bali talks. Al Gore has publicly stated the U.S. is blocking any progress at these talks, and the Europeans are threatening to leave the talks. Bureaucrats are bickering about whether or not certain emissions targets are acceptable or not, all the while the climate continues to change. We are flirting with a level of change that may soon become irreversible, and future generations will be forced to deal with the consequences. Let's hope that someone steps up now to get nations agreeable to some plan NOW, and not years later when the Arctic summer ice is entirely gone.
Regrettably, the U.S. and some other nations are remaining stubborn at the Bali talks. Al Gore has publicly stated the U.S. is blocking any progress at these talks, and the Europeans are threatening to leave the talks. Bureaucrats are bickering about whether or not certain emissions targets are acceptable or not, all the while the climate continues to change. We are flirting with a level of change that may soon become irreversible, and future generations will be forced to deal with the consequences. Let's hope that someone steps up now to get nations agreeable to some plan NOW, and not years later when the Arctic summer ice is entirely gone.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Interesting Post about the Child Prodigy
The Drs. Eide have an interesting post titled 'Is Prodigy a Myth?' They make a point that individual children, and I'll add all people, learn at different rates, and I would indeed have to argue that there are "late bloomers" who do not reach their learning stride until later years in school. I don't think prodigy necessarily shows its face at very young ages, but can in some cases begin in later years, meaning middle or high school years. Is this a product of practice, or is there innate ability that develops in the appropriate environment? I think we'd be wise to consider both...the brain is a complicated creature, and there is a broad range of possible outcomes and developments for individuals.
This also falls back to an argument I have made in the past about the American education system, and why I wish we'd not fall into a type of testing fixation (i.e. a test meritocracy) as our definition of learning or academic success...we need variety in schools, and we need to expose children to all subject areas over their entire schooling career so they can find what interests them and provide choices for what to take on and study in later years. I suspect giftedness and prodigy will continue to be debated forever, but my experience leads me to conclude that we must continue to allow individuals to have choice and the ability to 'play the field' of academic areas of study in order to find their own place in society, and where they want to focus their energy and effort. And we should resist the notion that every individual will find that area of study or interest at an early age, and allow those who do happen to develop in the high-age tail of the distribution a chance to do so. I've had students who did not flourish intellectually until late in high school or even in college (and their achievement prior to that on standardized tests as well as school grades suggested average or below average ability), and they ended up excelling once their intellectual skills, interest and motivation caught up with their age. I should metion that this notion is supported by brain research. For example, the highest IQ children tend to fully develop the prefrontal cortex of the brain at later ages (~11 years of age) than average IQ children. This tends to lead to more immature behavior, which may in turn mean they do not perform (or be allowed to perform, if classified as ADD or something similar) in class as a high-IQ individual until they are older. So biologically, some high-IQ kids are late bloomers. We need to be aware of this.
This also falls back to an argument I have made in the past about the American education system, and why I wish we'd not fall into a type of testing fixation (i.e. a test meritocracy) as our definition of learning or academic success...we need variety in schools, and we need to expose children to all subject areas over their entire schooling career so they can find what interests them and provide choices for what to take on and study in later years. I suspect giftedness and prodigy will continue to be debated forever, but my experience leads me to conclude that we must continue to allow individuals to have choice and the ability to 'play the field' of academic areas of study in order to find their own place in society, and where they want to focus their energy and effort. And we should resist the notion that every individual will find that area of study or interest at an early age, and allow those who do happen to develop in the high-age tail of the distribution a chance to do so. I've had students who did not flourish intellectually until late in high school or even in college (and their achievement prior to that on standardized tests as well as school grades suggested average or below average ability), and they ended up excelling once their intellectual skills, interest and motivation caught up with their age. I should metion that this notion is supported by brain research. For example, the highest IQ children tend to fully develop the prefrontal cortex of the brain at later ages (~11 years of age) than average IQ children. This tends to lead to more immature behavior, which may in turn mean they do not perform (or be allowed to perform, if classified as ADD or something similar) in class as a high-IQ individual until they are older. So biologically, some high-IQ kids are late bloomers. We need to be aware of this.
Here's to the Juniors - Voyager
Some of my classes have spent some time learning about what NASA does when it comes to launching spacecraft and sending probes around the solar system. One of the great modern technological miracles, at least in my mind, were the Voyager spacecraft launched back in 1977. These both made trips to Jupiter and Saturn, with one then going on via gravity assists to Uranus and Neptune. We are still receiving signals and data from those probes, after moving through billions of miles of space! In fact, a new discovery was made by this mission 30 years after it began, as the solar system is apparently a bit 'squashed.' This means that the solar wind is not circularly symmetric around the boundaries of the solar system, but rather there are 'dents' in the distribution due to varying magnetic fields in the heliosphere of the solar system.
Check out the Voyager project site, and I, for one, cannot get over the images from the mission; truly beautiful. I also highly recommend the Hubble Space Telescope page.
Check out the Voyager project site, and I, for one, cannot get over the images from the mission; truly beautiful. I also highly recommend the Hubble Space Telescope page.
A Second Wind...Applied vs Pure Science
This is a post I had back in August of 2006. It is the post that has had the most hits over the last 1+ years, so I thought I would re-post it. This goes along with the fact that this blog is now dedicated to my students and classes I teach, as we can extend on discussions from class or start discussions that we do not have time for in class. Feedback is needed, and this will provide yet another means for students to be involved in the world of science and all that comes with it. Let's get going!
A summer science research course I used to teach always had many good discussions about analysis techniques, the scientific method, and specific areas of research. A topic that always made an appearance was the debate over what type of research is more valuable, pure or applied. In particular, the class debate peaked when we traveled out to Fermilab to visit some of the facilities and labs. Prior to that visit, classes are normally close to split over which is more vital to the progress of science and the U.S. lead world research.
Pure science research is that work which is done in the pursuit of new knowledge. Scientists working in this type of research don’t necessarily have any ideas in mind about applications of their work. They may be testing an existing theory, they may have a new experimental technique they want to try, or they may literally stumble accidentally into a new area of discovery (many of the great discoveries in history occurred by accident, such as X-rays and penicillin). Encompassed in this realm is a good deal of theoretical research, such as those who are working on quantum mechanics, superstrings, theoretical cosmology, and many others.
Applied science research is that which is geared towards applications of knowledge and concrete results that are useful for specific purposes. Engineering is certainly an application of knowledge for finding practical solutions to specific problems. Research into instrumentation, new inventions, and new processes that may improve productivity in industry, as well as medical research geared towards the production of new drugs, are obvious examples of this type of research.
Fermilab, for example, houses a mammoth device that is used almost entirely for pure research in particle physics. Scientists look for new forms of matter, study fundamental forces between particles, test theories such as the Standard Model, and test new types of instrumentation. As an ideal example of ‘big’ science, students are wide-eyed when told the power bill is something like $10,000 per hour and that operating budgets, paid for by taxpayer dollars, run in the hundreds of millions (not to mention the billions of dollars that have been spent over the years to build the facility and the main experiments). My question for them is: Is it worth it?
On the surface, most people can think of better uses of billions of dollars. I’ve been asked countless times how scientists can justify the costs of facilities like Fermilab or the price-tag associated with sending another space probe to Mars. What about cures for cancer? New energy sources? Better sources of food that can be grown and used by the third-world? Are these not more important areas of study, especially when the answer to the question, “What good is a top quark?” is “I cannot think of a single application!” Certainly politicians are faced with such questions, and rightly so. We absolutely need to ask these questions and find priorities for limited resources and funding.
Politicians, of course, prefer applied science research. They would love to be able to go to their constituents with news of a new invention or discovery that will make life better, and, gee, since I supported the funding of the research I deserve to be re-elected. While applied science almost always wins out in a class vote of which is more important, as I argue in my last posting that thinking in terms of absolutes can limit progress, my conclusion is BOTH are absolutely essential for the progress of science as well as maintaining our status as a superpower. Pure science keeps new ideas and discoveries flowing. Progress in almost any field, be it industry, business, or medicine, depends on the amount of knowledge one has access to.
Continuing with Fermilab as our working example, it is true that a discovery such as a top quark almost certainly cannot yield a direct, beneficial application for mankind. But, in order to make that discovery, and what is not obvious to the general public, requires new technologies and breakthroughs that can often lead to spin-offs that revolutionize everyday life. The world of fast computation, massive data storage, and fast electronics has been built on the work that needed to be done to build Fermilab and discover the top quark. Applications of superconductivity took this phenomenon from a fascinating quantum state we can produce in the lab to the world of high-strength magnets necessary for steering particles at the speed of light. Little did anyone originally know that eventually someone would figure out that these same superconducting magnets can be used to create internal images of the body, now called MRI technology. This blog site is possible because of the pioneering computer network (both hardware and software) created by high energy physicists, who found it necessary to share data between experiments in the U.S. and Europe. And most people are unaware of the Cancer Treatment Center at Fermilab, that uses neutron beams created by the main accelerators. There are only four such centers in the U.S., and thousands of patients have been treated over the years.
The point is that pure science is absolutely essential. This type of science ensures that we keep pushing the envelope and continue our quest of deciphering Nature’s puzzles. It leads to the fringe and cutting edge science in all disciplines. While primary work may or may not be useful for the general public in the form of a physical device or process, history shows convincingly that whatever investment is made will usually be paid back (often many times over) in the form of spin-offs. I, for one, have no complaints of some of my tax money going towards a national lab such as Fermilab, or any other facility that promotes pure science research.
A summer science research course I used to teach always had many good discussions about analysis techniques, the scientific method, and specific areas of research. A topic that always made an appearance was the debate over what type of research is more valuable, pure or applied. In particular, the class debate peaked when we traveled out to Fermilab to visit some of the facilities and labs. Prior to that visit, classes are normally close to split over which is more vital to the progress of science and the U.S. lead world research.
Pure science research is that work which is done in the pursuit of new knowledge. Scientists working in this type of research don’t necessarily have any ideas in mind about applications of their work. They may be testing an existing theory, they may have a new experimental technique they want to try, or they may literally stumble accidentally into a new area of discovery (many of the great discoveries in history occurred by accident, such as X-rays and penicillin). Encompassed in this realm is a good deal of theoretical research, such as those who are working on quantum mechanics, superstrings, theoretical cosmology, and many others.
Applied science research is that which is geared towards applications of knowledge and concrete results that are useful for specific purposes. Engineering is certainly an application of knowledge for finding practical solutions to specific problems. Research into instrumentation, new inventions, and new processes that may improve productivity in industry, as well as medical research geared towards the production of new drugs, are obvious examples of this type of research.
Fermilab, for example, houses a mammoth device that is used almost entirely for pure research in particle physics. Scientists look for new forms of matter, study fundamental forces between particles, test theories such as the Standard Model, and test new types of instrumentation. As an ideal example of ‘big’ science, students are wide-eyed when told the power bill is something like $10,000 per hour and that operating budgets, paid for by taxpayer dollars, run in the hundreds of millions (not to mention the billions of dollars that have been spent over the years to build the facility and the main experiments). My question for them is: Is it worth it?
On the surface, most people can think of better uses of billions of dollars. I’ve been asked countless times how scientists can justify the costs of facilities like Fermilab or the price-tag associated with sending another space probe to Mars. What about cures for cancer? New energy sources? Better sources of food that can be grown and used by the third-world? Are these not more important areas of study, especially when the answer to the question, “What good is a top quark?” is “I cannot think of a single application!” Certainly politicians are faced with such questions, and rightly so. We absolutely need to ask these questions and find priorities for limited resources and funding.
Politicians, of course, prefer applied science research. They would love to be able to go to their constituents with news of a new invention or discovery that will make life better, and, gee, since I supported the funding of the research I deserve to be re-elected. While applied science almost always wins out in a class vote of which is more important, as I argue in my last posting that thinking in terms of absolutes can limit progress, my conclusion is BOTH are absolutely essential for the progress of science as well as maintaining our status as a superpower. Pure science keeps new ideas and discoveries flowing. Progress in almost any field, be it industry, business, or medicine, depends on the amount of knowledge one has access to.
Continuing with Fermilab as our working example, it is true that a discovery such as a top quark almost certainly cannot yield a direct, beneficial application for mankind. But, in order to make that discovery, and what is not obvious to the general public, requires new technologies and breakthroughs that can often lead to spin-offs that revolutionize everyday life. The world of fast computation, massive data storage, and fast electronics has been built on the work that needed to be done to build Fermilab and discover the top quark. Applications of superconductivity took this phenomenon from a fascinating quantum state we can produce in the lab to the world of high-strength magnets necessary for steering particles at the speed of light. Little did anyone originally know that eventually someone would figure out that these same superconducting magnets can be used to create internal images of the body, now called MRI technology. This blog site is possible because of the pioneering computer network (both hardware and software) created by high energy physicists, who found it necessary to share data between experiments in the U.S. and Europe. And most people are unaware of the Cancer Treatment Center at Fermilab, that uses neutron beams created by the main accelerators. There are only four such centers in the U.S., and thousands of patients have been treated over the years.
The point is that pure science is absolutely essential. This type of science ensures that we keep pushing the envelope and continue our quest of deciphering Nature’s puzzles. It leads to the fringe and cutting edge science in all disciplines. While primary work may or may not be useful for the general public in the form of a physical device or process, history shows convincingly that whatever investment is made will usually be paid back (often many times over) in the form of spin-offs. I, for one, have no complaints of some of my tax money going towards a national lab such as Fermilab, or any other facility that promotes pure science research.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Much to be Thankful for
It is difficult to keep a grip on reality in this media-driven age, where negativity sells and tends to take command of the news. In the end, as we enter the holiday season, it is important to have a reality check and remember that there is probably much more good in our lives than bad, and for this I know I am thankful. A good majority of people are good are decent, and this includes those in nations across the globe. And in the final analysis, I cannot think of another place I would rather be than right here in the United States.
Enjoy the holidays!
Enjoy the holidays!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)