Archive for October, 2011

Welsh Testament

Posted in Poetry with tags , on October 11, 2011 by telescoper

The video recalls the snows of last winter but the poem, read by the poet R.S. Thomas, is deeper still…

All right, I was Welsh. Does it matter?
I spoke a tongue that was passed on
To me in the place I happened to be,
A place huddled between grey walls
Of cloud for at least half the year.
My word for heaven was not yours.
The word for hell had a sharp edge
Put on it by the hand of the wind
Honing, honing with a shrill sound
Day and night. Nothing that Glyn Dwr
Knew was armour against the rain’s
Missiles. What was descent from him?

Even God had a Welsh name:
We spoke to him in the old language;
He was to have a peculiar care
For the Welsh people. History showed us
He was too big to be nailed to the wall
Of a stone chapel, yet still we crammed him
Between the boards of a black book.

Yet men sought us despite this.
My high cheek-bones, my length of skull
Drew them as to a rare portrait
By a dead master. I saw them stare
From their long cars, as I passed knee-deep
In ewes and wethers. I saw them stand
By the thorn hedges, watching me string
The far flocks on a shrill whistle.
And always there was their eyes’ strong
Pressure on me: You are Welsh, they said;
Speak to us so; keep your fields free
Of the smell of petrol, the loud roar
Of hot tractors; we must have peace
And quietness.

Is a museum
Peace? I asked. Am I the keeper
Of the heart’s relics, blowing the dust
In my own eyes? I am a man;
I never wanted the drab role
Life assigned me, an actor playing
To the past’s audience upon a stage
Of earth and stone; the absurd label
Of birth, of race hanging askew
About my shoulders. I was in prison
Until you came; your voice was a key
Turning in the enormous lock
Of hopelessness. Did the door open
To let me out or yourselves in?

Einstein and your Gas Bill

Posted in History, Television, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , , on October 11, 2011 by telescoper

Taking refuge in my office this lunchtime for a sandwich and a cup of coffee I turned to the latest edition of Physics World and came across an funny little story about a physicist (who is completely new to me) with the splendid name of Fritz Hasenöhrl.

The news story relates to a paper on the arXiv, part of the abstract of which I’ve copied below:

In 1904 Austrian physicist Fritz Hasenohrl (1874-1915) examined blackbody radiation in a reflecting cavity. By calculating the work necessary to keep the cavity moving at a constant velocity against the radiation pressure he concluded that to a moving observer the energy of the radiation would appear to increase by an amount E=(3/8)mc^2, which in early 1905 he corrected to E=(3/4)mc^2

Since I’ve been doing a bit of dimensional analysis with first-year students, I’m a bit surprised that the authors of this paper read so much into the fact that Hasenöhrl’s formula bears a superficial resemblance to Einstein’s most famous formula E=mc^2, probably the best known and at the same time worst understood equation in physics. In fact any physicist worth his or her salt no matter how incorrect their reasoning would have to get something like E =\alpha mc^2, with \alpha some dimensionless number, simply because the answer has to have the correct dimensions to be an energy.

Expressing energy in terms of the basic dimensions mass M, length L and time T is probability easiest to do when you think of mechanical work (force×distance). Since Newton’s laws give a force equal to mass×acceleration, a force has dimensions MLT^{-2}, so work (a form of energy) has dimensions ML^{2}T^{-2}. Now try to make this out of a combination of a mass (M) and a velocity (LT^{-1}) and you’ll find that it has to be mass×velocity2. You can’t get the dimensionless constant this way, but the combination of m and c must be the way it is in Einstein’s formula.

Anyway, all this suddenly reminded me of a day long ago when I appeared on peak-time television in the consumer affairs programme Watchdog, explaining – or, rather, attempting to explain – the physics behind the way gas bills are calculated. Apparently someone had written in to the programme asking why it was that they weren’t just being charged for the volume of gas that had flowed through their meter, but that the cost involved a complicated calculation involving something called the calorific value of the gas.

The answer is fairly obvious, actually. The idea is that to make competition fairer between different forms of energy (particularly gas and electricity) the bills should be for the amount of energy you have used rather than the amount of gas. Since the source of fuel varies from day to day so does its chemical composition and hence the amount of energy that can be extracted from it when it is burned. Gas companies therefore monitor the calorific value, using it to convert the amount of gas you have used into an amount of energy.

On the programme I was confronted by the curmudgeonly Edward Enfield (father of comedian Harry Enfield) who took the line that it was all unnecessarily complicated and that the bill should just be for the amount of gas used, rather in the same way that petrol is sold. When I tried to explain that the way it was done was really fairer, because  it was really the energy that mattered, it quickly became obvious that he didn’t really understand what energy was or how it was defined.  He didn’t even get the difference between energy and power. I suspect that goes for many members of the general public.

It was all a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I enjoyed the sparring. Eventually he came out with a question about why energy was given by E=mc^2 rather than mc^3 or something else. So I launched into an explanation of dimensional analysis and why mc^3 couldn’t be an energy because it has the wrong dimensions. His eyes glazed over. The shoot ended. My splendidly erudite and logically rigorous exposition of dimensional analysis never made it into the broadcast programme.

My brief career on BBC1 was over.

Have you been Drexlered?

Posted in The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , on October 10, 2011 by telescoper

Every time something interesting is announced in astrophysics or cosmology – which is quite often, these days – I get an email from a chap called Jerome Drexler. Last week’s announcement of the 2011 Nobel Prize for Physics  proved to be no exception and this morning I got yet another message.

It’s interesting that Drexler always writes about himself in the third person, e.g.

Beginning in 2002, Bell Labs-educated (under a three year
fellowship) applied physicist Jerome Drexler utilized this same astronomical set of non-homogeneous-expansion-rate data in conjunction with his dark matter cosmology to find a compatible explanation for the accelerating expansion of our universe. The compatible explanation he discovered did not use either Friedmann’s solutions or the General Theory of Relativity, which rely entirely on gravitational forces. The successful results from his endeavor are reported in Chapter 21 of Drexler’s March 2008 paperback book entitled “Discovering Postmodern Cosmology” and in Chapter F of his October 2009 paperback book “Our Universe via Drexler Dark Matter.”

Indeed, having read a few of Drexler’s publications – none of which has actually appeared in an authentic scientific journal – it seems that his output will be of much greater interest to psychologists than physicists. Drexler, you see, insists that the dark matter, whose presence astronomers have inferred from the dynamics of self-gravitating systems, exists in the form of highly relativistic protons.

There are many problems with this suggestion, most of which will be obvious to anyone with first-year undergraduate knowledge of physics. Most important of all is the fact that protons are charged and therefore accelerate in the presence of a magnetic field. Protons accelerating in the Milky Way’s magnetic field would produce copious electromagnetic radiation and would not therefore be at all dark! Still, we don’t want a little bit of basic physics get in the way of a mania for self-promotion.

Incidentally, it’s not a crazy idea that dark matter could be charged but, if it is, it must consist of particles with mass many thousands of times greater than that of a proton. That way their inertia will keep their acceleration low and restrict the radiation they produce.

I’ve often thought that it might be an interestingly novel way of teaching physics to get students to unpick contributions like this. I’ve got a filing cabinet full of similar “alternative” theories of the Universe and from time to time give one to a student to find fault with. Usually it doesn’t take long. Sometimes they’re wrong, sometimes they’re not even that. I’ll therefore leave it to my highly educated and knowledgeable readership to suggest other failings of the Drexler Universe.

I don’t know what I did to deserve the honour of being placed on Drexler’s mailing list and in any case suspect that I’m just one among many recipients of his missives. I’m sure others have tried to convince him that his model doesn’t make any sense from the point of view of physics, but I’m sure that their attempts have fallen on stony ground. It’s another aspect of the psychology of such individuals that it is inconceivable to them (a) that they could be wrong about anything and (b) that anyone else might know more than they do. Real scientists have quite the opposite attitude.

Here’s how Jerome Drexler describes himself on his email:

Jerome Drexler is a former member of the technical staff and group supervisor at Bell Labs, former research professor in physics at New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT), founder and former Chairman and chief scientist of LaserCard Corp. (Nasdaq: LCRD). He has been awarded 76 U.S. patents (see Google Scholar), honorary Doctor of Science degrees from NJIT and Upsala College, a degree of Honorary Fellow of Israel’s Technion, an Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship at Stanford University, a three-year Bell Labs graduate study fellowship in applied physics, the 1990 “Inventor of the Year Award” for Silicon Valley and recognition as the original inventor in 1978 of the now widely-used digital optical disk “Laser Optical Storage System” and the LaserCard(R) nanotech data memory used in six countries. He is a member of the Board of Overseers of New Jersey Institute of Technology and an Honorary Life Member of the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology Board of Governors.

Anyone know any more about Professor Doctor Mr Drexler? If so, the comments box awaits your contribution…

Astronomy Look-alikes, No. 65

Posted in Astronomy Lookalikes with tags , on October 9, 2011 by telescoper

Chairing a PhD examination last week I noticed that the external examiner bore a striking resemblance to the late Steve Jobs (except for the “late” bit of course). To cap it all, I even found pictures of them both wearing the same headgear…

Steve Jobs

Toby Moore

The VHC that wasn’t….

Posted in Crosswords with tags , , , on October 9, 2011 by telescoper

I was delighted to see, when I turned to the Azed Crossword in last week’s Observer, my name  among the list of those awarded a VHC (“Very Highly Commended”) for Azed No. 2049. A VHC is a sort of consolation prize for clues judged by Azed to be not quite good enough to win one of the three main prizes. Although I enjoy solving the puzzles I know I’m not very good at setting my own clues. I therefore find the monthly competition exercises me considerably and am usually more than happy to get a VHC! Also, these score points in the annual league table in which I did pretty well last year, finishing in joint 15th place – my highest every position

However, my delight turned to frustration when I found out that my name and the clue I submitted (for the word PARTY-POOPER) did not appear on the corresponding Azed Slip, a monthly report on the entries for the competition crossword. I’ve therefore not been credited with a VHC in the league table to go with the one I got the previous month in Azed No. 2045. Worse still, I didn’t keep a copy of the clue I submitted and now, over a month later on, I can’t remember what it was. I imagine Azed throws away the original entries so he probably doesn’t have it either.

It may be that my name was put in the Observer list by accident and the Azed slip is actually correct. The other possibility is that Azed forwarded the correct list to the newspaper but inadvertently skipped my name when compiling the slip. I did try emailing about this, but haven’t had a reply so I suppose I’ll have to give up on it. It doesn’t matter very much in the great cosmic scheme of things, so I suppose I shouldn’t be bitter…

A Sonnet in Autumn

Posted in Poetry with tags , , on October 8, 2011 by telescoper

What lips my lips have kissed, and where, and why,
I have forgotten, and what arms have lain
Under my head till morning; but the rain
Is full of ghosts tonight, that tap and sigh
Upon the glass and listen for reply,
And in my heart there stirs a quiet pain
For unremembered lads that not again
Will turn to me at midnight with a cry.

Thus in winter stands the lonely tree,
Nor knows what birds have vanished one by one,
Yet knows its boughs more silent than before:
I cannot say what loves have come and gone,
I only know that summer sang in me
A little while, that in me sings no more.

Sonnet No. XLIII by Edna St. Vincent Millay (1892-1950)

Honeysuckle Rose

Posted in Jazz with tags , , , on October 8, 2011 by telescoper

I’m in a vegetative mood today and the old energy levels aren’t high enough to post anything demanding, so I thought I’d put up a piece of music for your entertainment and edification. This was recorded in Paris, on April 28th 1937 and it revolves around a lengthy  tenor saxophone solo by the great Coleman Hawkins. Inspired by his sojourn in Europe, Hawkins returned to New York to record probably the most famous tenor solo ever, on the classic ballad Body and Soul, but this shows a side to his playing that was more familiar to swing era jazz fans. Listen to the drive that he injects into this performance combined with that “heavy” tenor tone, and you’ll understand why he was regarded as the pre-eminent tenor soloist of the 30s.

Other members of the band include Benny Carter who plays the alto solo near the end and who obviously did the arrangement for the four saxophones – nobody else in jazz history has ever managed to get such a biting sound out of small saxophone section as Benny Carter. And if that weren’t enough there’s a bonus in the unmistakeable form of  Django Reinhardt‘s guitar. Enjoy!

Astronomy (and Particle Physics) Look-alikes, No. 64

Posted in Astronomy Lookalikes with tags , , on October 7, 2011 by telescoper

Not related in any way to rumours which probably don’t exist and which even if they did I’d have to deny for legal reasons let me just mention that John Womersley of the Science and Technology Facilities Council reminds me quite a lot of Christopher Biggins:

Biggins

Womersley

The Invaders

Posted in Poetry with tags , , on October 7, 2011 by telescoper

Coming by night, furtively, one by one
They infiltrate according to the Plan,
Their orders memorized and their disguise
Impenetrable. With the rising sun
Our citizens welcome them. Nobody can
Think that such charming creatures might be spies.

So feeble, so helpless, no one could suspect
They come to make this commonwealth their prey;
So few, they pose no threat; their cohort grows
So imperceptibly that we neglect
To notice how it musters day by day
And, unalarmed, we watch as they impose

Themselves, make friends in all directions, take
Impressions of all keys. They gain access
To all our secrets; learn to speak our tongue
Like natives; profit by each false move we make;
Work on our weaknesses; observe and guess
The sources of power and study them to be strong.

And when it happens, there will be no fuss,
No streets running with blood, no barricade.
We shall simply wake one morning to discover,
As those who ruled this city before us
Found by each door a headstone and a spade,
That a new generation has taken over.

by A. D. Hope (1907-2000).

Bayes in the Dock

Posted in Bad Statistics with tags , , , , on October 6, 2011 by telescoper

A few days ago John Peacock sent me a link to an interesting story about the use of Bayes’ theorem in legal proceedings and I’ve been meaning to post about it but haven’t had the time. I get the distinct feeling that John, who is of the frequentist persuasion,  feels a certain amount of delight that the beastly Bayesians have got their comeuppance at last.

The story in question concerns an erroneous argument given during a trial about the significance of a match found between a footprint found at a crime scene and footwear belonging to a suspect.  The judge took exception to the fact that the figures being used were not known sufficiently accurately to make a reliable assessment, and thus decided that Bayes’ theorem shouldn’t be used in court unless the data involved in its application were “firm”.

If you read the Guardian article you will see that there’s a lot of reaction from the legal establishment and statisticians about this, focussing on the forensic use of probabilistic reasoning. This all reminds me of the tragedy of the Sally Clark case and what a disgrace it is that nothing has been done since then to improve the misrepresentation of statistical arguments in trials. Some of my Bayesian colleagues have expressed dismay at the judge’s opinion, which no doubt pleases Professor Peacock no end.

My reaction to this affair is more muted than you would probably expect. First thing to say is that this is really not an issue relating to the Bayesian versus frequentist debate at all. It’s about a straightforward application of Bayes’ theorem which, as its name suggests, is a theorem; actually it’s just a straightforward consequence of the sum and product laws of the calculus of probabilities. No-one, not even the most die-hard frequentist, would argue that Bayes’ theorem is false. What happened in this case is that an “expert” applied Bayes’ theorem to unreliable data and by so doing obtained misleading results. The  issue is not Bayes’ theorem per se, but the application of it to inaccurate data. Garbage in, garbage out. There’s no place for garbage in the courtroom, so in my opinion the judge was quite right to throw this particular argument out.

But while I’m on the subject of using Bayesian logic in the courts, let me add a few wider comments. First, I think that Bayesian reasoning provides a rigorous mathematical foundation for the process of assessing quantitatively the extent to which evidence supports a given theory or interpretation. As such it describes accurately how scientific investigations proceed by updating probabilities in the light of new data. It also describes how a criminal investigation works too.

What Bayesian inference is not good at is achieving closure in the form of a definite verdict. There are two sides to this. One is that the maxim “innocent until proven guilty” cannot be incorporated in Bayesian reasoning. If one assigns a zero prior probability of guilt then no amount of evidence will be able to change this into a non-zero posterior probability; the required burden is infinite. On the other hand, there is the problem that the jury must decide guilt in a criminal trial “beyond reasonable doubt”. But how much doubt is reasonable, exactly? And will a jury understand a probabilistic argument anyway?

In pure science we never really need to achieve this kind of closure, collapsing the broad range of probability into a simple “true” or “false”, because this is a process of continual investigation. It’s a reasonable inference, for example, based on Supernovae and other observations that the Universe is accelerating. But is it proven that this is so? I’d say “no”,  and don’t think my doubts are at all unreasonable…

So what I’d say is that while statistical arguments are extremely important for investigating crimes – narrowing down the field of suspects, assessing the reliability of evidence, establishing lines of inquiry, and so on – I don’t think they should ever play a central role once the case has been brought to court unless there’s much clearer guidance given to juries on how to use it and stricter monitoring of so-called “expert” witnesses.

I’m sure various readers will wish to express diverse opinions on this case so, as usual, please feel free to contribute through the box below!