Angry Physics

Let A be the set of people who read this blog and B be the set of people who read Gizmodo, assuming that I am the only member of the intersection of these sets, let me refer the remainder to this relativity watch mentioned there. Act now, and you too can own an Einstein action figure.

There's a blog I read authored by a prof at MIT if I recall correctly. Somewhat eclectic, I got turned on to it by the guy's photography reviews. Well, he's got a very opinionated review of his new Infiniti, but what I particularly liked was his Bose bashing (my bolding):

Lexus went to Mark Levinson, makers of 100,000ドル home stereos that sound fantastic, for their premium sound system. Infiniti went to Bose, makers of a 300ドル table radio with a one-note bass. How does the fancy Bose stereo sound? Not too bad, but it still has that one-note bass. Instead of a big expensive subwoofer, the Bose system in the Infiniti M has a cheap mid-bass bump. Almost any kind of bass content will excite this mid-bass resonance. The theory behind this design, which has worked great for selling table radios, is that people who don't know anything about sound will be fooled into thinking that they are hearing deep bass.

I had a student sneak out during an in-class, group exercise to which she attached her name. I'm sure she thinks she's so smart that I didn't notice. The truth, however, is that I don't enjoy her presence in class and was happy to see her go. As to her grade, what do I care? Good riddance.

That's not to say I'll let any cheating pass without action. If the cheating hurts someone else's grade or hurts the morale of the class, I step in. If it's discrete and serves only to cheat the culprit (a bit cliche, but nevertheless true), I remain lazy.

Is that bad? I don't see how, but I still find myself wondering each time. I suppose if a student who would otherwise fail ends up passing because of cheating, that wouldn't be good. But that's never been the case in my experience. My experience is that people cheat to avoid work, not to boost their grade (perhaps at higher-stress schools, things are quite different?). I gave a take home physics test once, and many people clearly cheated off each other. I say "clearly" because a large group would have the same very wrong answer. If they cared much about their grade, they would have cheated using someone who actually knew the answer. No, they didn't search out such a person, but instead took the lazy path of copying from a classmate.

If so, then you might wonder what would happen if you tried to publish a paper with a glaring grammatical mistake in its title! Sure, we all make mistakes, but what are the chances a title would make it past all the authors, any referees, and, of course, the editors!

Just to be clear, "off" is a preposition as in "off a brane." It takes an object. The word "of" is also a preposition. The combination "off of a tense brane" is....not English?...an abomination?

Two preemptive arguments. (1) Yes, I make grammatical mistakes. I would guess that I have made none in any of my published titles (and probably all my unpublished ones as well). (2) There will be those who say "Oh, it's common usage just like 'for free' is technically wrong but is now accepted." To this I say that 'for free' is, at the least, a single instance of a mistake. To accept double prepositions as a rule, however, is a different matter entirely. Are we going to accept things like "I got on in the bus"?

And to be clear, I'm not just faulting the authors here. But, do you notice that one of the authors is from Oxford!

• Via Slashdot, an article on Google's involvement with huge data sets from the academic world (e.g. Hubble data).
  
  
• Clifford links to a very interesting read about a maladjusted physics ex-grad student who got mixed up with vandalizing one night and is suffering. I can see the justice system messing up cases such as these, but I would have hoped such would be corrected quickly.
  
  
• Speaking of the justice system, I'm still in a good mood from the Libby verdict and was happy to have a good read from one of the jury members at The Huffington Post...probably not a must read for most out there, but certainly one filled with some interesting tidbits both about the case and the behind scenes of an important trial.
  

• Where do high energy gamma rays crashing into the Earth come from? These guys say they come from the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy.
  
  
• A somewhat silly article about how Hollywood handles the laws of physics.
  
  
• What to do about a shortage of science and math teachers? The answer to all problems apparently is money. Speaking of which, there are places in this country where I would make more as a high school science teacher than I do now (well, base salary that is).
  
  On a completely unrelated note, I'm in a good mood because of the Libby verdict yesterday. Nice to see the system work occasionally. I really hope history gets it right and that this period is rightly remembered as pure adulteration of what our country stands for.
  

One of the authors of "Freakonomics" suggests getting rid of tenure, at least for economics profs. These discussions pop up every so often, but I don't recall some of the more interesting points mentioned here. Basically, that schools could rid themselves of tenure, increase faculty salaries, and thereby kill two birds with one stone by attracting the best and dispensing with the worst.

I've seen some of the worst abusers of tenure, but I also see that it actually protects some appropriately. Part of the problem is that Universities are somewhat dysfunctional with power spread in a strange way among the faculty, administrators, the boards, and perhaps the state legislature, if public. The spread doesn't serve to check any one faction, but instead to politicize the whole process. [Insert Uncle Al's damnation of the whole higher ed system here]

And as to the issue of tenure in grades K-12, I really have no clue why it's there or how it got there. Boggles the mind, it does.

Anyway, I've worked hard for my tenure and I don't think I'll be given the option anytime soon of either keeping my tenure or getting more money per year. But as Dr. Seuss asks at the end of "What would you do?"

• These discussions on the blogosphere of inherent ability versus work ethic (oh, to have both!) such as at nanoscale views and CV, bring to mind my advice for college choice. As an undergraduate, there's not going to be lots of differences among good schools, state flagships included (Berkeley, UMich, UTexas, UVA, UNC, etc). *However*, that is to say there won't be much difference in terms of the quality of instruction, equipment, etc. The biggest difference will be among your fellow students. That's one reason many of these schools have honors programs. The better your peers, the more the instructor can expect of you, and that's important. Not only that, the environment you immerse yourselves is largely made up of your peers. I interview for my alma mater and they want to know whether the applicant would contribute to that environment. And one shouldn't just concern yourself with quality. If you're lucky enough to have the choice between Stanford and Harvard, there's no concern for which has better students. The issue then is the *type* of student the school attracts. I'm not that fond of those who go to Stanford. Yes it's a horrible generalization, but I've found people that go to Stanford are competitive, driven, and true believers in metrics (test scores, etc). Those that go to Harvard are more of a mix, usually a bit strange, not well rounded, but of course extremely talented in some way. So come all 'ye Googlers looking for school advice!
  
  
• I'm starting to have some faith that this "voting site" for arXiv.org will be worth something.
  
  
• Chad made me chuckle today with this quote about baseball (a sport which ranks with golf for watching, but which is otherwise fun to play):
  

  
  Back in the day, stat-wanking was mostly confined to baseball, which is so ridiculously boring that calculus seems like a fun way to spice things up.
  

  
  
  
• Oceanographers have it easy. They always get to put cool pictures of them in exotic locales into their talks. But I had never heard of this ship that literally flips itself vertical in the middle of the ocean. Gizmodo has a nice YouTube video for you.
  
  
• I just got a hold of the movie "Shut Up & Sing" about how those Dixie Chicks were so vulgar as to criticize our prez during a time of war. I really look forward to watching it.
  
  
• The problem with digital cameras is the same as a fundamental problem in quantum mechanics. Don't believe me? Try and take a spontaneous picture of a young kid these days. Once they see the camera, they rush over *behind* camera to see the LCD viewfinder! You're lucky to get one picture.
  

I saw this posting over at CV soon after it got posted and went back to read more of the comments. A very worthwhile read. To be sure, I wasn't sure how common such thoughts are. So many of us growup being the smartest kid around...that is until college. How we face up to being just one of many smart kids makes for interesting discussion.

It was so long ago, yet I think I'm still dealing with it now (I know, I know, it sounds pathetic). Just the other day I posted how I can get in a bad mood reading good work from "competitors." Am I among the top in my field? Or not? Should I content myself to be just one of many physicists contributing just a small piece to this global endeavor, try to make some ground-breaking discoverer at the risk of coming up empty-handed, or perhaps leave the field?

I am insecure about these things, going so far as to make somewhat ridiculous rationalization such as "Oh, that person is a postdoc so the pressure is on and s/he doesn't have to teach or attend faculty meetings." But, at least I'm not one of those jerks who tries to out talk others as if they know it all. I've been lucky to have good examples in grad school of famous & high powered theory people who, nevertheless, were down to Earth and could admit when they weren't getting something.

I'm not sure how much this Wired article on the disparity between young genius and late bloomers applies to the world of physics. I might know better if I could slog my way through the whole article. But I will take this opportunity to mention that I get in awful moods sometimes when I see a good paper out by a "competitor." I sometimes do feel like an "also ran"...I wonder what movie actors feel like. You make a movie, and then you wait to get another offer or script (unless you're real hot). Do you immediately have doubts? I used to get in a great mood when I started writing up a paper, only to feel bad once it was accepted (well a couple days later). And I'm not a real competitive person. I wonder if I could fully accept my rung on the totem, whether that would mean I'd get really lazy...is this competitive streak necessary to the self-discipline needed in academic research? Is there anything similar in industrial/commercial physics, or is it just "my salary is bigger than yours?" kind of rivalry?

I stumbled upon this site recently (don't ask): crank.net which gives a veritable catalog of "alternative" theories on the web (I love using that word "veritable"...connection to Harvard's motto be darned).

Speaking of alternative, Lost this week featured a plotline ostensibly involving time travel. The reputed accidental time traveler visits his physicist friend asking if he's nuts or if it's possible. My hopes of anything interesting physics-wise vanished when the somewhat stodgy physicist tells him, in no uncertain terms, that time travel isn't possible. This just a week after the episode in which someone is seen reading A Brief History of Time. This is no endorsement of the show though...the writers have long abandoned any reasonable adherence to even the smallest modicum of self-consistency.

The show Heroes, by contrast, presents an interesting story which seems to keep fairly strictly within its own bounds. Mind you, these bounds are fairly wide, including a character who can warp space and time (if only they would say in the show that such a separation is meaningless and instead use "spacetime"!). But the plotlines are so tightly woven together one truly (veritably, even) feels like the writers are unfolding an integral story, not simply rolling out episode after episode with new tricks.

And what's the deal with choosing males of Indian descent (i.e. South Asian) as scholarly professor types? Heroes has a father/son team of professors of some sort of genetics from India and this physics professor in Lost appears to be South Asian as well.

For those keeping track, the power words for this post:

• veritable
  
• ostensibly
  
• modicum
  

Who better to discuss love in the physics universe today than our community's own newly christened love couple?

• Anyone know of any good online/free tax info for a professor? I've gotten a 1099-Misc and I'm wondering what I can deduct. Not the usual "itemized deductions" (on schedule A) but instead it's Schedule C-EZ stuff. Anyone? I'm not looking to cheat, but I needs my broadband.
  Update: Nada. Bupkus. Great, well at least I've got a wonderfully unhelpful link to a Q&A at Kiplingers.
  
  
• I've always been a bit uncomfortable with toll roads. Sure I love using them, but they seem so classist...the rich get to pay to use roads that poor folk cannot. Kind of like if we denied medical help unless you could pay for it...oh wait, never mind. Anyway, this article has a somewhat different perspective.
  
  

I'm not a big fan of blogging about blogging (though I'm interested what comes from Mark@CosmicVariance's recent post about the *uses* of faculty blogging). But, part of the reason I've blogged so little is that I'm losing focus of what the point is. Is there benefit to me or anyone else?

My two main motivations were to vent and to flesh out what it means to compete in the academic physics world. As to the first, the Incoherent Ponderer (sorry I'm too lazy for links, and I have yet to add him/her to the blogrool) is doing a much better job than I. I don't always agree with him but I find him pretty spot on when he/her (boy this non-gender specific stuff is a real pain and I'm not going to use "it") is railing against whatever.

As to the second, are we not a closed system? Are there really any newbies/undergrads out there reading this stuff so that they can enter grad school having read the right books, being able to pick a reasonable advisor (are there more than a couple out there?), and understanding what they may be in for?

For my own part I get some benefit from some of these blogs. Some physics I probably wouldn't see otherwise, some gossip, some complaints I share which are always nice to hear from others, some news (ala NSF budgets). But there's a lot of...what do they call it..."chaff" through which I must sort.

• Why do construction companies use a one dollar toilet flush handle made of plastic that will certainly break when another couple bucks gets you a metal one that will presumably last forever? I don't think the companies around here build enough so that the couple bucks per toilet saves them signficantly (especially in light of the frustration of its customers).
  
  
• Why would visit statistics remain about the same when no posting has happened for weeks? That's surely not a good sign.
  
  
• Why do these motifs come in cycles? A while back all the bloggers were talking about their travels, and now it's all about the great food they eat when interviewing.
  
  
• Why do I keep accumulating more media to digest? I've got a stack of Scientific Americans, Physics Todays, and Seed magazines waiting to be read. I'm behind on lots of blog feeds. I'm so far behind on keeping up with the arXiv that I'm thinking I'll just ignore three months of papers and start fresh. I've got a paper to referee and another one just came back from the authors correcting things from the last round. Add to all this the fact that I've begun listening to various podcasts on my MP3 player at the gym.
  
  
• Why is the NYT trying to make me feel bad for watching Lost tonight? I don't believe in the supernatural...it's just entertainment.
  

Things are a bit crazy right now, but...

in case the bad news concerning this Nation's budget were not entirely clear, the NSF makes it pretty explicit with their latest announcement:

While we are acutely aware of the tight constraints on the available budgetary resources, NSF is continuing to issue program announcements and solicitations as previously planned.


It is likely, however, that NSF may be unable to fund a number of activities planned for this fiscal year.

• Look at this crankshaft from this engine for a tanker from Slashdot.
  
  
  
• Need to train in a super deep pool (from Gizmodo
  
  
  
• Checkout the big detector from Backreaction
  
  
• Finally, deviating a bit from the theme, check out some of these fluid movies (via Slashdot)
  
  

It's often said that people are designed/evolved such that they recognize patterns easily even when they don't exist. Something about it helping us survive, but of course it causes problems when there aren't too many threats to our survival (prejudices and the like).

Anyway, this innate tendency towards pattern matching becomes quite apparent when going through my email. Scanning my email by subject and sender, I repeatedly classify each as "junk" but I find myself often pausing because I see email from a Suzie or some such and, despite my best efforts to the contrary, I find myself thinking ridiculous thoughts of "Oh, I knew a Suzie back in high school" even though some part of my brain is saying Suzie wouldn't be emailing and if she were, she wouldn't *also* put her name in the subject line!

So for just about every fourth email or so my brain can find some very remote connection I might have to a name or subject even though I know at the same time it's spam. What's strange is that, my other mail client does a better job of filtering the email, but has a few false positives. So I scan the junk folder periodically, and I find I'm remarkably good at spotting legitimate emails. Somehow my brain is better at avoiding the "false flags" of long lost friends' names in the way that that client presents them.

Speaking of limitations of one's brain, I recently had one of the new style Corvettes on my tail on a small, two lane road. At a certain point, the roadway opens up with two lanes in each direction so I pick one and hit the gas. I was hoping to be able to see if the 'Vette was the Z06 model or not. Thing is, I quickly realized it didn't matter what kind of 'Vette it was...it was going to accelerate much faster than I could. Basically, it saturated the dynamic range of my ability to measure acceleration. Reminds me of high school when people thought I'd get into all the colleges to which I applied. Of course, getting into a college is, to a large extent, a crapshoot, but the point is that people who have problems with high school algebra don't the have the range to tell someone who is really good at math from someone who is really a genius at math.

Over the holidays, I imagine most people find themselves in some strange conversations. I had one in which we were talking sports and somehow got onto the issue of the construction of new stadiums (not stadia ala Eratosthenes, right?) with municipal funds. I mentioned my distaste, and my fellow conversationalist agreed with some simplistic statement about how that's just awful. And of course, I find myself saying that there must be benefit to the city in terms of increased revenue brought in by the franchise/stadium. Does this person really think that simplistically? It's similar over simplification of complicated issues that I find all over the conservative blogosphere. Are the writers purposefully trying to incite people or does it really reflect how they see things? Are there liberal bloggers doing the same (to which I'm presumably blind)?

• Interesting: Adviser letters
  
  
• Condolences to Lubos who got linked by Instapundit. It's a huge hit to his credibility, but I'm sure it can take it.
  
  
• Not a Hybrid Fit but a new hybrid in two years. Crash tests... presumably logic would dictate that we all go out and buy cars bigger than everyone else. Or, god forbid, have the government infringe on our inalienable right to drive whatever we want (on whose roads, btw?)
  
  
• Chad will be getting tenure. Congrats! Now you can look forward to a long life in the same position. Tenure is great, but once you have it how likely are you to ever go out and try something new. The calcification begins...sorry to be such a bummer.
  
  
• Donald Trump is such a wiener, I don't know how anyone can stand to watch him on TV, let alone on a show where he acts like he knows how to conduct business business.
  
  
• I've been tagged. So here goes:
  

  
  Careful inspection of this graph and comparison to the graph of 100 percent amplitude modulation shown in Figure 5-4 will reveal a slight difference between the shapes of the envelopes, especially for values near zero. In addition, the final DSBM wave undergoes a phase inversion each time the modulator passes through zero. The graph of balanced modulation is identical to the graph of beats shown in Figure 2-37.
  

  
  from The Physics of Sound by Berg & Stork. I'm not a big fan of chain-like things, but I suppose this falls short of a chain-mail, so what the heck....I'll tag Doug, Josh and, what the heck, good ole Glenn.