Archive for the 'Science' category

Space, Time and Marilyn Monroe

The Guardian carries an interview by Emma Brockes with Stephen Hawking, a refreshing piece that steers clear of the usual condescension-tinged-with-awe tone that most intervewers seem to adopt when talking to him.

Starting off by telling us that it is wrong to “read him solely through his condition,” and that his curt tone “might as easily be a sign of geekiness or superiority or intolerance of non-scientists,” Brockes goes on to talk to Hawking about a lot of things, incuding the effect of art on people (good art is rare, mediocre art sucks), his latest book - A Briefer History of Time and most importantly for us, Marilyn Monroe.

A Briefer History of Time is not exactly String Theory for Dummies. Like a lot of specialists, Hawking has trouble imagining what it might be like not to understand what he does, or rather, where the non-scientist’s understanding will be weak and where strong. The book’s range is therefore a little eccentric, lurching between explaining what a scientific theory is (”a model of the universe”) and going into quantum mechanics in the kind of vertiginous detail that makes you open your eyes very wide as you read. It is fascinating, up to a point.

Hawking communicates by twitching his cheek, and articulating the simplest of thoughts takes him as long as 20 minutes. After a bunch of scripted questions about the book, Brockes switches over to live questions, an “arduous and time-consuming process.”

Behind his shoulder, his assistant nods. There will now be some time for live questions. Stupidly, given that I have read all about it, I fail to realise just how arduous and time-consuming the process of live communication is. If I did, I wouldn’t squander the time on asking a joke, warm-up question. I tell him I have heard he has six different voices on his synthesizer and that one is a woman’s. Hawking lowers his eyes and starts responding. After five minutes of silence the nurse sitting beside me closes her eyes and appears to go to sleep. I look around. On the windowsill are framed photos stretching back through Hawking’s life. There are photos of one of his daughters with her baby. I notice Hawking’s hands are thin and tapering. He is wearing black suede Kickers.

Another five minutes pass. There are pictures of Marilyn Monroe on the wall, one of which has been digitally manipulated to feature Hawking in the foreground. I see a card printed with the slogan: “Yes, I am the centre of the universe.” I write it down and turn the page in my notebook. It makes a tearing sound and the nurse’s eyes snap open. She goes over to Hawking and, putting her hand on his head, says, “Now then, Stephen,” and gently wipes saliva from the side of his mouth. Another five minutes pass. Then another.

Hawking’s assistant, who sits behind him to see what is going on on his screen, nods slightly. Here it comes: “That was true of one speech synthesizer I had. But the one I use normally has only one voice. It is 20 years old, but I stick to it because I haven’t found better and because I’m known by it worldwide.” That’s it? The fruit of 20 minutes’ effort? This man is a Hercules.

Brockes confesses to Hawking that when she thinks string theory, she imagines cheese strings and asks him how he visualizes strings. Hawking tries to say something (I think the answer started with seventh letter of the alphabet), and then pulls back to tell her something inane about the human brain. Whatever, prof.

But he does redeem himself with this one:

I ask: “If you could go back in time, who would you rather meet, Marilyn Monroe or Isaac Newton?” and after 10 minutes he says in that voice that makes the blandest statement sound profound: “Marilyn. Newton seems to have been an unpleasant character.”

At least he has his priorities straight. Most of the time.

Full Interview

Creationism by any other name…

Using seductively simplistic arguments such as this,

Someone who finds a rock can easily imagine how wind and rain shaped it. But someone who finds a pocket watch lying on the ground instantly knows that it was not formed by natural processes.

With living organisms so much more complicated than watches, [...] “The marks of design are too strong to be got over.”

a small (but very vocal) minority of scientists is arguing for the inclusion of Intelligent Design in school curriculums across the US. The New York Times is running a series of articles on this, and if you read the first two, you realize how hollow the arguments favoring Intelligent Design are. Carefully placed could-not-haves and usually-ares might sway public opinion, but innuendo can’t be a substitute for scientific rigor. If human imagination is the yardstick, any counter intuitive scientific discovery can be disputed - Geocentrism anyone?

In one often-cited argument, Michael J. Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University and a leading design theorist, compares complex biological phenomena like blood clotting to a mousetrap: Take away any one piece - the spring, the baseboard, the metal piece that snags the mouse - and the mousetrap stops being able to catch mice.

Similarly, Dr. Behe argues, if any one of the more than 20 proteins involved in blood clotting is missing or deficient, as happens in hemophilia, for instance, clots will not form properly.

Such all-or-none systems, Dr. Behe and other design proponents say, could not have arisen through the incremental changes that evolution says allowed life to progress to the big brains and the sophisticated abilities of humans from primitive bacteria.

These complex systems are “always associated with design,” Dr. Behe, the author of the 1996 book “Darwin’s Black Box,” said in an interview. “We find such systems in biology, and since we know of no other way that these things can be produced, Darwinian claims notwithstanding, then we are rational to conclude they were indeed designed.”

’tis the season for tags

Navin tags, and sincere geek that I am, I do.

If you read this, and would like to take a (loong) survey about your blog, feel free to click here:

Take the MIT Weblog Survey

Homebrewn Genius

The Man Who Knew Infinity: A Life of the Genius RamanujanEnigmatic. Idiosyncratic. Brilliant. Genius. Words used to describe the life of Srinivasa Ramanujan. Robert Kanigel’s outstanding biography of the Indian mathematician makes you realize that all these adjectives fall flat on their (type)faces when faced with having to describe his life.

Born into poverty in an obscure corner of British India and stifled by an educational system that stressed conformity over creativity, he managed to break free and went on to become one of the preeminent mathematicians of his time. Over time, the same circumstances that helped him get fame and recognition – his domineering and persistent mom, intense creativity and a tendency to work, work and work, all the rest be damned – contrived to kill him early.

But the outlines hardly capture the essence of Ramanujan - a man full of outrageously contrasting streaks: Genial and gregarious, boorish and cranky. Humble and brash; supremely confident yet in constant need of approval and validation. He could also be called hypersensitive, but that would be understating it. When a couple of his guests at Cambridge refused a third helping of his rasam, Ramanujan left home abruptly and didn’t return for four days. He was also maddeningly stubborn and fatalistic. When on his deathbed, when a doctor suggested he go to Thanjavur for further treatment, he refused, punning instead that – “He wants me to go to Than (My) – Savoor (City of Death). A potpourri of odd ingredients that somehow ended up brewing a genius. Or a magician, in the words of Mark Kac,

An ordinary genius is a fellow that you and I would be just as good as, if we were only many times better. There is no mystery as to how his mind works. Once we understand what he has done, we feel certain that we, too, could have done it. It is different with the magicians. They are, to use mathematical jargon, in the orthogonal complement of what we are and the working of their minds is for all intents and purposes incomprehensible. Even after we understand what they have done, the process by which they have done it is completely dark.

A magician with a brain wired to invent, and invent feverishly. When he came across an obscure book of formulas designed to serve as a cheat sheet for British students taking mathematical exams, he set out trying to prove some of the theorems, and ended up conjuring hundreds of new identities. When he wanted to send some of his results to other mathematicians, he started copying the results to another notebook – a fair copy – but as he was writing, he would invent a few more new results. He relied on intuition and disdained rigor - frequently, his proofs were amateurish and wrong, but remarkably enough, the theorems were right. How? (Kanigel puts forth theories that include divine inspiration, and intuitive leaps of faith, though Hardy stubbornly refused to accept that Ramanujan was wired any different from the rest)

His was a lucky genius too – it found British mathematician G.H. Hardy – possibly the best British mathematician of his time - a charming young h atheist, a “non-practicing” homosexual and a liberal in the best sense of the word. A man who was open to the possibility that brown can sometimes do good things. Ramanujan wrote Hardy, begging to introduce himself and coyly stating a few intriguing results with no proofs. Unlike his contemporaries who had seen the results and dismissed them as worthless, Hardy recognized the letters as the work of a mathematician of considerable ability, and nurtured Ramanujan for the next few years – bringing him to England, and gently teaching him the virtue of rigor without dampening his creativity or hurting his ego.

Meanwhile, Ramanujan was starting to feel homesick - and the war wasn’t helping. Getting vegetarian food (potatoes, butter) was proving to be hard, and Ramanujan had to subsist on canned food -
sometimes cooking the food in the cans themselves. His possessive, overbearing mom would not let him bring his wife to England with him – denying Ramanujan the one thing he missed in the most in England - companionship - something to distract him from work, someone to talk to, care for and be cared by. Lonely, he buried himself in his work and neglected his health. Like all things in Ramanujan’s life, Hardy’s friendship was a double edged sword: it helped him gain worldwide recognition, but Hardy might have pushed him too hard, and not cared enough for his personal life which was unraveling rapidly. Kanigel dances around a little bit here (Hardy was too English to pry into his personal life), but it is fairly obvious that Hardy comes across as uncaring in his (personal) relationship with Ramanujan. Even after Ramanujan attempted suicide by jumping in front of a train in London, Hardy stayed aloof – professionally he was invaluable to Ramanujan, but as his only friend in an alien land he probably let him down a little bit.

Ramanujan returned to India a sick man, and died in the next couple of years. He was only 32. The cause of death is unknown, though Tuberculosis seems to be the widely accepted explanation. His creativity hit a peak in the years before his death, and his best work probably was done as he was dying.

The soap opera didn’t end after his death, though. His wife left to live by herself, and his brothers tried to get jobs using his fame, writing letters to everyone who would read them, claiming they had wasted the last few years of their life caring for their brother, and accusing his wife of “stealing” all his papers.

A country hungry for heroes lapped up his success, and the media was only too glad to overblow the case. Barely tangential applications of Ramanujan’s findings were touted as his “inventions”. The truth though was that Ramanujan didn’t care much for applications of his theories – he just did Mathematics. Hardy disdained applied Mathematics, and considered anything that could be applied to the real world inferior. India today takes immense pride in Ramanujan, though it is debatable how much it contributed to his success.

“His life,” Kanigel says, “is like a parable.” You can infer whatever you want from it. True. Could a better system of schooling have helped? Maybe he would have learnt a lot of what existed without having to reinvent the wheel. Or maybe it would have killed the genius in him.

At first glance, it appears that India did nothing for him. He pretty much made himself, and it took an English mathematican to tell the world how good he was. But then, could it have been his fatalistic spirituality that led him to trust his intuition? Did his brain’s wiring have anything to do with his upbringing?

Meanwhile, I think of Mr. Romald , who back in sixth grade used a wooden ruler to stunningly good effect when I added a couple of decimal numbers wrong. “Point under Point,” he screamed, letting loose a spray of spittle onto my double ruled notebook. I am pretty sure he killed my creativity.

Deconstructing a genius

The Indian Express reports that George Andrews and Bruce Berndt (associate editor of the Ramanujan journal) are on the verge of releasing a decrypted version of the first of Srinivasa Ramanujan’s famous Lost Notebooks.

Link through SepiaMutiny : An exhaustive post that provides a lot of background about the great man. Genius is an overused word these days, but he was the real thing. Pity that he died so early.

Razr starting to shave off Nokia’s Market share

Finally, Motorola is starting to generate some positive buzz. The Razr is like the coolest cellphone ever - the iPod of cellphones.

For example, Motorola execs talk of a forthcoming music phone within the Razr family, Rockr, that might recognize songs being played in a club, let users download them to their phones and then send them home to their cable boxes and stereos. That would definitely be cool, and for Motorola, that’s the goal.

More hot air

As a follow up to my post about Global Warming, Navin had mentioned that he found Lomborg’s article in the Economist interesting. I re-read it and realized it does make a compelling argument. But here’s the other side of the story.

Grist has a whole series of articles that rebut Bjorn Lomborg’s article and his book “The Skeptical Environmentalist.” Grist is a an environmental magazine, so it is probably skewed a little bit, but read this:

Lomborg writes, “If we fail to consider how the money could otherwise have been spent, we actually create a societal structure in which fewer people survive. … We are in reality committing statistical murder.” But who is really failing to consider how our money is spent? As Lomborg notes, “We will never have enough money,” and therefore, “Prioritization is absolutely essential.” Why, then, does he weigh the environment only against hospitals and childcare, rather than against, say, industry subsidies and defense spending?

Exactly. To me, this is why Lomborg’s article is deceptive. It is not very smart to argue that Governments should protect the environment at the expense of say, feeding people or providing clean water. But there are a million other things that Governments and industries do, so why not ask them to spend at least some of it on protecting the environment?

More Einstein

More about everyone’s favorite physicist. From the New Yorker.

The Einstein exhibit at the Museum of Natural History. Wish I could go.

“…but it is strangely comforting to see that the man who created the modern world was so frequently befuddled by it. His relationships often failed. He fled one country and lived uneasily in another. He hated totalitarianism but was opposed to capitalism. He barely knew his sons.”

In the exhibit, the curator, Michael Shara, explains how light travels, why time warps, what makes stars shine. Walk in the door and you are immediately greeted with a view of yourself as seen through a black hole. (It is not a pretty sight.)

And then this : an almost apocryphal article about the relationship between Einstein and Gödel, that had (yet another) attempt to explain relativity to the layman. No matter how many times I read about what Einstein did in 1905, I can’t help being astonished.

Suppose to make things vivid that the speed of light is a hundred miles an hour. Now suppose I am standing by the side of the road and I see a light beam pass by at this speed. Then I see you chasing after it in a car at sixty miles an hour. To me, it appears that the light beam is outpacing you by forty miles an hour. But you, from inside your car, must see the beam escaping you at a hundred miles an hour, just as you would if you were standing still: that is what the light principle demands. What if you gun your engine and speed up to ninety-nine miles an hour? Now I see the beam of light outpacing you by just one mile an hour. Yet to you, inside the car, the beam is still racing ahead at a hundred miles an hour, despite your increased speed. How can this be? Speed, of course, equals distance divided by time. Evidently, the faster you go in your car, the shorter your ruler must become and the slower your clock must tick relative to mine; that is the only way we can continue to agree on the speed of light. (If I were to pull out a pair of binoculars and look at your speeding car, I would actually see its length contracted and you moving in slow motion inside.) So Einstein set about recasting the laws of physics accordingly. To make these laws absolute, he made distance and time relative.

Hundred Years of Relativity

 “… in 1905, a young patent clerk named Albert Einstein found the way forward. In five remarkable papers, he showed that atoms are real (it was still controversial at the time), presented his special theory of relativity, and put quantum theory on its feet. It was a different achievement from Newton’s year, but Einstein’s annus mirabilis was no less remarkable” Read more at the Economist …

And what does relativity mean to us? Rowan Hooper explains.

If you think you can explain relativity better than Hooper (and do it with pictures) then you should check out the Pirelli Relativity Challenge.

Speaking of photos

Amazon is starting to establish itself as a “technology” company. After pioneering “search inside the book”, they’ve come up with this : the block view thing on its yellow pages is a great new idea. They have pictures of almost every block in select cites, and you can view storefronts, and browse the whole block virtually. Take that for cool!

Talking about photos, Google’s Picasa picture organizer is typical Google: simple, efficient and indispensable.

Cardkeys of the Future

I love the Science and Technology content that the Economist offers, culling neat ideas from all over the world, and explaining them lucidly. Here’s one I thought was especially smart.

Cardkey readers are ubiquitous at almost every office building in America, and the cost of running wires when you want to add an extra card key reader can be prohibitive. December’s technology page has this stunnigly simple idea to make card key based systems cheaper: Just make the cards part of the network. A cool application of the idea of decentralized networking.

Read more at Economist.com Technology Quarterly