Nebton's blog

Giving Mega Shark his due

Nebton — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:14:01 +0000

Recently, it came to my attention that a fellow nerd has gone to the trouble of calculating some statistics behind MegaShark's dramatically captured attack on an airplane. Here's a small version of his info-graphic (I encourage you to visit the blog itself as it has additional details):

As an additional calculation, consider this: ignoring the rather significant drag of the water on MegaShark, using a mass of 34,000 kg (see the comments) and the specified velocity of 709.2 kph, one finds (via Google's units converter) that the kinetic energy (½mv²) of MegaShark at departure of the ocean is about 660 MegaJoules. A ton of TNT has 4184 MegaJoules.

If we now look at the drag on MegaShark right before it leaves the ocean, using 0.001 Pa-s as the dynamic viscosity of water, a cross-sectional diameter of 15 meters for the shark, and the aforementioned velocity of 709.2 kph, we find the drag force to be … about 3 Newtons. OK, that was disappointing, but if we consider that he was traveling for about 1500 meters with this force (the speed was lower initially, of course, but the dynamic viscosity was higher since the water was both denser and colder), we find an additional energy requirement of 4.5 Kill-o-Joules. OK, that was also disappointing. Anyways, my point in all of this is that WKW had better watch his back, if there's anything left of it.

Update: If instead of using the 34,000 kg found in the comments, I use the 240 tons specified in the info-graphic, I find that the kinetic energy is slightly over 4200 MegaJoules. I.e., he slightly outclasses a ton of TNT.

Topics:

Humor & Satire

Series:

Quantum Corner

Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron give away free copies of Origin of Species

Nebton — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:59:25 +0000

In an odd turn of events, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron are giving away free copies of Origin of Species. No, this is not satire. What's the catch? Well, Comfort has added an introduction where he presumably explains why Darwin's theory is all nonsense.

Surprisingly (to me, at least) this has gotten Richard Dawkins (et al.) upset. I've got to say that I just don't see what's to get upset about. If adding this introduction gets Bible-thumpers to actually read the Origin of Species, then that's excellent!

Can any dagbloggers help me understand how this could possibly be a bad thing?

[Update] It's actually happening today, one day earlier than previously announced.

Topics:

Religion

Barbara Boxer shows how it's done

Nebton — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:28:18 +0000

The US Senate has many rules not codified in the Constitution. The most famous of these rules is the fillibuster. As was made clear by the threat of the "nuclear option" when Democrats were threatening to fillibuster judicial appointments, these rules are more guidelines than hard and fast laws. They are usually followed, but they don't have to be.

Barbara Boxer decided that the rule requiring two Republicans to be present in her committee before voting was a rule that could in good conscience be ignored. I hope more Democrats (e.g., Pelosi) follow her lead.

Topics:

Politics

When is sexual discrimination wrong?

Nebton — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:24:53 +0000

I know, your first thought is ALWAYS. Bear with me, however, as I examine the edge cases. What qualifies as an edge case will vary from person to person, I imagine.

Starting with the most extreme case that is so extreme it's hard to imagine it being labeled as discrimination, consider our dating choices. Most of us (literally) discriminate on the basis of sex in those conditions, and almost no one would consider it wrong.

Moving slightly along this chain, we reach beauty contests. Some people have challenged sexual discrimination in these as well, but not too many find a problem with the sexual discrimation aspect inherent in almost all beauty contests. (That's not to say that they don't have other flaws being picked over.)

Next in my chain comes sport contests. As the recent issues with Caster Semenya remind us, there's a reason why sexual discrimination is used here, as well. Of course, in her case, it's even harder to reconcile, but for sake of argument let's stick with the unwarranted assumption that we can always tell males from females. In almost every test of physical speed, strength, and endurance, the elite men operate at a level significantly superior to the elite women. (A noticeable exception is in ultramarathons. Once the race distance gets to about 100 miles, psychological strength dominates and women can be the overall winners.) So, the reason for sexual discrimination in these cases is to give women a chance to win. That does seem a tad paternalistic, but it's also understandable, IMO. Waters get muddied by cases where women want to play with or compete against the men. There seem to be more of these cases every day.

Next, let's consider insurance costs. Women pay more in health insurance, men pay more in car insurance (at least young men do - since my wife and I share insurance, I haven't really kept track of such differences any more). Is this fair? If not, how should it be rectified? If insurance was government run, rectifying the inequities wouldn't be too hard, but with private companies, we tend to want to be cautious of asking them to foot the bill for such rectification.

Next, let's consider the political sphere. Men still dominate here, as well. Two reasons for this come to my mind: (1) we're less likely to vote for female politicians (for numerous reasons, such as them being considered b*tchy where men are considered strong, etc.), (2) women are less likely to run for public office in the first place (for numerous reasons, but #1 above would be one such reason, I imagine). I can't really imagine a legal challenge to this type of discrimination, but an activist approach should help.

Finally, the job market. Almost all Americans (and presumably all dagbloggers) would agree with "equal pay for equal work" in theory, but once you leave theory, some quickly find ways to pick at this as well. First of all, how do we define "equal work"? There are male dominated fields and female dominated fields, and male dominated fields pay more money (even for females in those fields). Secondly, are employers allowed to consider experience? Most people think they can, but how do we resolve the problem that women are more likely to take time off from their careers to help raise a family? (Not all women, of course, but enough that it'll affect the averages significantly.) Even after controlling for these variables, women still tend to earn less, and I think at least part of that might be due to men feeling more free to be assertive in asking for raises (see #1 in the political discussion above for why that might be true). Finally, some bosses are just pricks. See Ledbetter for an example of that. For the last case, we can imagine a way to address it, but what about for the other cases?

Although I realize this is now quite long, my primary purpose in writing this is to generate discussion, so I return to my original question as a starting point: When is sexual discrimination wrong?

Topics:

Politics

Social Justice

Quantum Corner: Introduction

Nebton — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:52:35 +0000

I'm hoping to start a fairly regular set of postings on Quantum Mechanics and/or other weird science that fascinates me. However, if there's no interest (after all, it's outside the normal scope of all things dagblog), I'll drop it. With that in mind, I thought I'd start with an overview of Quantum Mechanics, talk about how it's really weird, and give my interpretation of it, all without delving into math or jargon. Well, I'll try to at least save any such delving for the comments section.

For those who find QM confusing, I offer up these quotes:

Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it. - Niels Bohr

If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it. - John Wheeler

It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. - Richard Feynman

Quantum mechanics makes absolutely no sense. - Roger Penrose

Now, for the two-cent tour of one of the simplest experiments that demonstrate the weirdness of quantum mechanics, the double slit experiment:

The experimental setup is quite simple. There's a light (or other particle) source, a card with two slits in it, and a detector. If you cover up one of the slits, you find that the majority of photons (or other particles) lands along the line connecting the source and the slit, with a predictable fall off the further you get from the intersection of that line and the detector. Do that with the other slit, and you find the same, simple, pattern, but moved as one would expect relative to that slit's location. So far, so good. Now, if you uncover both slits, you get what's known as an interference pattern. That is, you get a series of ripples (far more than just two), with alterations between a higher probability of finding a particle and a lower probability of finding a particle. As it stands so far, if we're just talking about light, this is not a new experiment. It's what led to the understanding (before Einstein's photoelectric effect experiment suggested otherwise) that light is a wave. If you've ever watched two sets of waves interact, you get this same sort of interference, so that's a nice, simple explanation. The only problem is, the explanation is wrong (or at least incomplete).

Let's switch the discussion from light (photons) to electrons. You get the same results. Now, the simplest explanation (and one that was posited) is that electrons passing through one slit are somehow interacting with electrons going through the other slit, and that interaction is responsible for the interference pattern. However, it's possible to send one electron through at a time. An electron can only go through one slit or the other, right? Well, you'd think so. However, if you do this experiment, one electron at a time, you still get that same interference pattern.

Bizarre, right? Well, how can we explain it?

That's where QM comes into play. It posits that these electrons have probability waves that describe their probable locations, and that these waves can interact with each other, even when they're describing a single particle. So, there's a probability the electron went through one slit, and a probability that it went through the other slit, and these probablities actually interact with each other!

But... What if we get creative and try to determine which slit the electron actually went through? Several ingenious experiments have been set up to do just that. Here's the catch, however: any experiment that reveals which slit the electron actually traveled through destroys the interference pattern on the detector end. In jargon (OK, so there's a little bit), we say it collapses the electron's probability wave. (Schrödinger's cat, see also.)

Now we're going to stray a bit from the world of physics into the world of metaphysics, because we're going to ask "what really happens"? Here's where there's a lot of disagreement (most of it amicable, however). For a sample of what I mean, check out this Wikipedia article. Personally, I'm keen on the many worlds interpretation, or maybe the many minds interpretation. Why? Well, essentially, this collapsing I just mentioned is caused by so-called "conscious observers" making an observation (or measurement). However, I'm not keen on putting consciousness in a special box with a pretty bow around it (as if the rest of quantum mechanics makes any sense!), so I've struggled with how it is that consciousness has the effect it does. I then considered the anthropic principle, which states that the universe is the way it is because otherwise we wouldn't be here to observe it. Let's put that another way: if you flip a fair coin 100 times, you're going to get a particular sequence of heads and tails. The odds of getting that particular sequence is 1:2^100, or (very) approximately 1:1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Yet, that's the sequence you got! Amazing, right? OK, not really, because any other sequence would've had the same odds, and you had to get one of them. Anyways, that's kinda-sorta the idea behind the anthropic principle. How does that relate to conscious observers collapsing probability waves? Well, it turns out that maybe we're not collapsing them, but we're uncollapsing ourselves (or, more technically, we're coupling our future experiences with that electron). I.e., when we make an observation of an electron, the self that might have had the electron going through slit A is decoupled from the self that might have had the electron going through slit B. Confused? Reread those quotes again.

I strongly welcome any comments, whether it's about what I've written, how I've written it, or how some other interpretation is even better.

Topics:

Technology

Series:

Quantum Corner

The right to choose death

Nebton — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:01:05 +0000

Most of us here at Dagblog probably support a sane person's right to choose to terminate his/her life (although we would likely try to talk a friend/family member out of it if no sufferering was involved). What about those of questionable sanity?

I've always been against the death penalty because I think it demeans us (not to mention that innocent people are sometimes executed), but the case of the holocaust museum shooter, made me pause to question the duty of his lawyer. Clearly, this guy does not want to be represented as insane. Should his lawyer respect that wish (realizing that most insane people don't think they're insane), or should he do whatever it takes to save this guy from death? I don't know the answer, so I welcome all opinions (especially Articleman's, although I understand if he feels he can't express his opinion on this).

Don't get me wrong: I think this guy is insane, but doesn't that pretty much apply to anyone who commits murder for reasons other than self-or other-defense? Heck, if you buy into his worldview (which I don't think technically qualifies you as insane), he's fighting a noble war (i.e., engaging in other-defense).

So, should his lawyer respect his wishes, or not?

Topics:

Social Justice

Cataloging political species

Nebton — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 14:53:46 +0000

As much as I hate the over-simplification of the liberal/conservative dichotomy (which feeds into the "with us or against us" mentality), a discussion I had recently with a friend left me thinking about how we often not only use those distinctions, but also use finer grained distinctions that are equally misleading. (Specifically we were talking about how the free trade vs. protectionism discussions combines disparate camps from both sides.)

So, as an interesting exercise, I thought I'd try to create a list of political species within the liberal/conservative genera. For purposes of this discussion, I'm defining liberal as someone who tends to vote Democratic (including those who don't vote Democratic because they're not ideologically pure enough, but if truly forced to choose would choose Democrats over Republicans) and conservative as someone who tends to vote Republican (including those who don't vote Republican because they're not ideologically pure enough). In order to add a challenge, I'm requiring myself to create an equal number of species for each genus.

Liberals:

Bleeding heart: Tend to be strong pacifists, pro-environment, anti-death penalty, save the poor. Includes socialists, many of the intelligentsia, and many other subspecies.
Unionist: Place a priority on helping the working class, buying American, and keeping unions strong.
Libertarian: Place a priority on keeping the government out of our private lives. Pro-drug legalization, anti-involvement in foreign affairs, supports gay marriage (or anti-marriage altogether in the sense that the government has no place in it).

Conservatives:

Libertarian: Place a priority on keeping the goverment out of our private lives. Anti-regulation of any kind. Probably don't care about gay marriage, but don't think the government has any place telling people who they can marry. Big fans of "the invisible hand".
Moral majority: Place a priority on getting our country right with an imaginary being God. Don't want gays to marry, but probably think we should forgive Republicans who cheat on their wives. OK, so I'm not being that even handed with this particular species.
I-hate-taxes: Really, really hate taxes. Think they know how to spend their money better than the government does. Might be very generous with charities, but want to be able to choose which charities they support with their money, if any at all.

Reader participation time. What species would you create in these genera? I encourage you to be as even handed as possible (unlike me in #2 of the Conservatives above). Where do you see yourself in those species or in mine? I consider myself to be primarily a bleeding heart liberal above. I have my guesses about where other regular dagbloggers would fall in my classification, but I'll keep silent about my guesses unless asked (and I'll only answer my opinion of the person asking). I will say that I think most of my fellow dagbloggers also fall into the bleeding heart classification, though.

Topics:

Politics

Null fish

Nebton — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:24:18 +0000

A while ago, a friend of mine introduced me to the concept of the "null fish". It's the atheists response to the Jesus fish. I know what you're thinking - don't we already have the FSM "fish", the Darwin fish, and the Evolve fish? Well, first of all the FSM fish technically advocates belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and I don't think you can be an atheist and believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I'm pretty sure s/he qualifies as supernatural. As for the Darwin/Evolve fishes, they're not really particular to atheists, are they? I mean, several Christians et al. (and probably all regular Dagblog posters, regardless of religion) believe in evolution, don't they?

OK, so your next question will no doubt be: what is this null fish? It's simple. The null fish is the absence of a Jesus fish. I've got hundreds on my car right now. I've even got several dozen of them on my windshield (try that with Jesus fish if you're a truly devout believer!), and I've got one hovering right now below my neck on a non-existent necklace. Now, I know what some of you atheistic hooligans might be thinking, but you don't need to remove Jesus fish from other people's cars to vandalize them with these null fish. Just stick one on top of the Jesus fish! You can do it with your mind from a safe distance, and you're guaranteed not to be caught.

I won't say who put it there, but the Pope even has one on his back, as does Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Suggestions for other places to put them are welcome, but keep it polite.

Attachment	Size
null-fish.png	1.29 KB

Topics:

Religion