Showing posts with label wording. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wording. Show all posts

Friday, June 19, 2009

Some really small things

From The Graveyard Book by Neil Gaiman, nominated for the Hugo Award for best novel:

“What’s particle physics?” asked Bod.

Scarlett shrugged. “Well,” she said. “There’s atoms, which is things that is too small to see, that’s what we’re all made of. And there’s things that’s smaller than atoms, and that’s particle physics.”

Bod nodded and decided that Scarlett’s father was prob-
ably interested in imaginary things.


That reminded me about this old, but still good, post about the physics of imaginary things.

And in other news, I now have a baby boy. And I'm considering to revive this blog, maybe. I'll not make any promises, but just see if I find time and inspiration to write here.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Science fiction as myth

Via Locus Online (their "blinks" in the left column) I found the article Sci-Fi's Brave New World, about science fiction as mythmaking. This is a topic that interests me, as you might know if you have followed my blog. I have written about this here for example.

The article is written by a James A. Herrick, a name that didn't tell me anything (I'm not so good at remembering names). I liked some parts in the beginning, for example this:

The culture-shaping force of science fiction storytellers may be more significant and more widespread than we imagine. That's because they trade in myth. By myth, I mean a transcendent story that helps us make sense of our place in the cosmos.


I'm always astonished that people in the science fiction field are not aware of this important function of their literature: to shape our idea of the meaning and significance of science, of the future, and of our place in the world. Of course, it works just as well if you are not aware of it.

Anyway, it quickly becomes obvious that the writer of the article, Herrick, is not happy about this. He likes only one fixed set of stories, despite the fact that they are not universally helpful when it comes to interpreting the world around us.

This is where i suddenly remembered that I have read about this Herrick person recently, in the Internet Review of Science Fiction under the headline Wrong on Religion; Wrong on Science Fiction. I must say that I'm on the same side as Gabriel Mckee here: science fiction is a good medium for discussing important matters, and therefore for shaping our interpretation of things. I'm not surprised to see that Mckee also has commented the article on his blog.

It's also worth noting, again, that science fiction hardly is a homogeneous canon of ready-made myth. It's an ongoing discussion, mirroring our culture with its dreams and hopes. There are things to agree with, and things to argue against, and that's just the way it should be.

Saturday, February 7, 2009

Elisabeth Vonarburg: In the Mother's Land

To me, it feels really silly to continue reading a book I don't like. Given how many books I have waiting, I don't want to spend any time reading anything just because I have started it.

A few chapters into the novel In the Mother's Land I found that I just was not interested in the story. I got the book from the library just because the author is a guest of honour at the Worldcon, and I was curious about her writing. The story turned out to be told at a very slow pace, and it was a lot about children (well, childreen) trying to figure out where babies come from and what functions boys have at all. Some relationships develop, and there are hints about the world around these kids. I like the idea of discovering the world through the eyes of a young person who does not know anything about it, but there was nothing that made me particularly interested in discovering this particular world.

It's obvious from the beginning that this world has very few boys and men, and this unbalance is of course going to be important. It's expressed in a way I can't help think must work much better in the original French than it does in English: all masculine words are now feminine. You are not an explorer, but an explora. Even words that to me feel neutral (in English) are feminine, if they describe a person or an animal, like the use of "childe" instead of "child", "catte" instead of "cat". This surely makes the gender issue stand out more, but it also slows down the reading for me.

Even "animal wifery" instead of "husbandry". This one does not work for me at all -- doesn't the English language have any word for the female head of a houshold, rather than just a word that means woman? Swedish has at least two: hustru (translated: "the lady of the house" perhaps -- although nowadays it's just a word for wife, in the meaning of a woman a man is married to. Hmm, it's probably etymologically exactly parallel to "husband".) and matmor ("food mother"), should there not be any better word in the word rich English?

After putting the book away for a day or two I decided to read until page 100 before I gave up. Still nothing much has happened, but I know a little bit more about how this future world works. It's a long time since a disaster that changed the earth and introduced lots of mutations. There is the Malady, which kills many children. And there is a sometimes problematic social structure, which nevertheless seems to work fairly well so far. The protagonist, Lisbeï, is now 13, and it looks like she might get some personal problems that might force her out in the world, and she is special in other ways as well that might be important for the future of her society.

But I'm still not caught by the story, or especially interested in any of the hints of conflict. Should I read on, or give up?

I looked at some plot summaries on the web (the one on Wikipedia is short but spoiler rich), and indeed it seems like Lisbeï is going to do big and important things. It might be interesting.

I don't know. I will put the book away for a while, and if I notice that I still think about it I will take it up again later. Maybe I was just not in the right mood for this story now.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

The Guardian SF book meme

Via SF Signal: Guardian's Science Fiction & Fantasy Novels Everyone Must Read: The Meme.

I think I have to go back to the original list to understand the selection of works, because it seems a bit odd to me. Definitely different from most compilations of the "most important sf works" and similar. Some of them I also don't understand exactly why they ended up in the SF/F subset, but definitions of genre boundaries is something you can argue about endlessly. Nevertheless, I like these lists, and I like this one because I have actually read not so few of them: 47 out of 149, that's nearly a third!

So, the ones I have read are in bold, and the ones on my reading list (sort of) are marked with an *asterisk.


  1. Douglas Adams: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (1979)

  2. Brian W Aldiss: Non-Stop (1958)

  3. Isaac Asimov: Foundation (1951)

  4. Margaret Atwood: The Blind Assassin (2000)

  5. *Margaret Atwood: The Handmaid's Tale (1985)

  6. Paul Auster: In the Country of Last Things (1987)

  7. J.G. Ballard: The Drowned World (1962)

  8. J.G. Ballard: Crash (1973)

  9. J.G. Ballard: Millennium People (2003)

  10. *Iain Banks: The Wasp Factory (1984)

  11. Iain M Banks: Consider Phlebas (1987)

  12. Clive Barker: Weaveworld (1987)

  13. Nicola Barker: Darkmans (2007)

  14. Stephen Baxter: The Time Ships (1995)

  15. *Greg Bear: Darwin's Radio (1999)

  16. William Beckford: Vathek (1786)

  17. Alfred Bester: The Stars My Destination (1956)

  18. Ray Bradbury: Fahrenheit 451 (1953)

  19. Poppy Z Brite: Lost Souls (1992)

  20. Charles Brockden Brown: Wieland (1798)

  21. Algis Budrys: Rogue Moon (1960)

  22. Mikhail Bulgakov: The Master and Margarita (1966)

  23. Edward Bulwer-Lytton: The Coming Race (1871)

  24. Anthony Burgess: A Clockwork Orange (1960)

  25. Anthony Burgess: The End of the World News (1982)

  26. Edgar Rice Burroughs: A Princess of Mars (1912)

  27. William Burroughs: Naked Lunch (1959)

  28. Octavia Butler: Kindred (1979)

  29. Samuel Butler: Erewhon (1872)

  30. Italo Calvino: The Baron in the Trees (1957)

  31. Ramsey Campbell: The Influence (1988)

  32. Lewis Carroll: Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1865)

  33. Lewis Carroll: Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There (1871)

  34. Angela Carter: Nights at the Circus (1984)

  35. Angela Carter: The Passion of New Eve (1977)

  36. Michael Chabon: The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay (2000)

  37. Arthur C Clarke: Childhood's End (1953)

  38. GK Chesterton: The Man Who Was Thursday (1908)

  39. *Susanna Clarke: Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell (2004)

  40. Michael G Coney: Hello Summer, Goodbye (1975)

  41. Douglas Coupland: Girlfriend in a Coma (1998)

  42. Mark Danielewski: House of Leaves (2000)

  43. Marie Darrieussecq: Pig Tales (1996)

  44. Samuel R Delaney: The Einstein Intersection (1967)

  45. Philip K Dick: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (1968)

  46. Philip K Dick: The Man in the High Castle (1962)

  47. Thomas M Disch: Camp Concentration (1968)

  48. Umberto Eco: Foucault's Pendulum (1988)

  49. Michel Faber: Under the Skin (2000)

  50. John Fowles: The Magus (1966)

  51. Neil Gaiman: American Gods (2001)

  52. Alan Garner: Red Shift (1973)

  53. William Gibson: Neuromancer (1984)

  54. Charlotte Perkins Gilman: Herland (1915)

  55. William Golding: Lord of the Flies (1954)

  56. Joe Haldeman: The Forever War (1974)

  57. M John Harrison: Light (2002)

  58. Nathaniel Hawthorne: The House of the Seven Gables (1851)

  59. Robert A Heinlein: Stranger in a Strange Land (1961)

  60. Frank Herbert: Dune (1965)

  61. Hermann Hesse: The Glass Bead Game (1943)

  62. Russell Hoban: Riddley Walker (1980)

  63. James Hogg: The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner (1824)

  64. Michel Houellebecq: Atomised (1998)

  65. Aldous Huxley: Brave New World (1932)

  66. Kazuo Ishiguro: The Unconsoled (1995)

  67. Shirley Jackson: The Haunting of Hill House (1959)

  68. Henry James: The Turn of the Screw (1898)

  69. PD James: The Children of Men (1992)

  70. Richard Jefferies: After London; Or, Wild England (1885)

  71. Gwyneth Jones: Bold as Love (2001)

  72. Franz Kafka: The Trial (1925)

  73. Daniel Keyes: Flowers for Algernon (1966)

  74. Stephen King: The Shining (1977)

  75. Marghanita Laski: The Victorian Chaise-longue (1953)

  76. CS Lewis: The Chronicles of Narnia (1950-56) (Book 1 at least)

  77. Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu: Uncle Silas (1864)

  78. Stanislaw Lem: Solaris (1961)

  79. Ursula K Le Guin: The Earthsea series (1968-1990)

  80. Ursula K Le Guin: The Left Hand of Darkness (1969)

  81. Doris Lessing: Memoirs of a Survivor (1974)

  82. MG Lewis: The Monk (1796)

  83. David Lindsay: A Voyage to Arcturus (1920)

  84. Ken MacLeod: The Night Sessions (2008)

  85. Hilary Mantel: Beyond Black (2005)

  86. Michael Marshall Smith: Only Forward (1994)

  87. Richard Matheson: I Am Legend (1954)

  88. Charles Maturin: Melmoth the Wanderer (1820)

  89. Patrick McCabe: The Butcher Boy (1992)

  90. Cormac McCarthy: The Road (2006)

  91. Jed Mercurio: Ascent (2007)

  92. *China Miéville: The Scar (2002)

  93. Andrew Miller: Ingenious Pain (1997)

  94. Walter M Miller Jr: A Canticle for Leibowitz (1960)

  95. David Mitchell: Cloud Atlas (2004)

  96. Michael Moorcock: Mother London (1988)

  97. William Morris: News From Nowhere (1890)

  98. Toni Morrison: Beloved (1987)

  99. Haruki Murakami: The Wind-up Bird Chronicle (1995)

  100. Vladimir Nabokov: Ada or Ardor (1969)

  101. Audrey Niffenegger: The Time Traveler's Wife (2003)

  102. Larry Niven: Ringworld (1970)

  103. Jeff Noon: Vurt (1993)

  104. Flann O'Brien: The Third Policeman (1967)

  105. Ben Okri: The Famished Road (1991)

  106. George Orwell: Nineteen Eighty-four (1949)

  107. Chuck Palahniuk: Fight Club (1996)

  108. Thomas Love Peacock: Nightmare Abbey (1818)

  109. Mervyn Peake: Titus Groan (1946)

  110. Frederik Pohl & CM Kornbluth: The Space Merchants (1953)

  111. John Cowper Powys: A Glastonbury Romance (1932)

  112. Terry Pratchett: The Discworld series (1983- ) (I have only read the first)

  113. *Christopher Priest: The Prestige (1995)

  114. Philip Pullman: His Dark Materials (1995-2000)

  115. François Rabelais: Gargantua and Pantagruel (1532-34)

  116. Ann Radcliffe: The Mysteries of Udolpho (1794)

  117. Alastair Reynolds: Revelation Space (2000)

  118. Kim Stanley Robinson: The Years of Rice and Salt (2002)

  119. JK Rowling: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (1997)

  120. *Geoff Ryman: Air (2005)

  121. Salman Rushdie: The Satanic Verses (1988)

  122. Joanna Russ: The Female Man (1975)

  123. Antoine de Sainte-Exupéry: The Little Prince (1943)

  124. José Saramago: Blindness (1995)

  125. Will Self: How the Dead Live (2000)

  126. Mary Shelley: Frankenstein (1818)

  127. Dan Simmons: Hyperion (1989)

  128. Olaf Stapledon: Star Maker (1937)

  129. Neal Stephenson: Snow Crash (1992)

  130. Robert Louis Stevenson: The Strange Case of Doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde (1886)

  131. Bram Stoker: Dracula (1897)

  132. Rupert Thomson: The Insult (1996)

  133. JRR Tolkien: The Hobbit (1937)

  134. JRR Tolkien: The Lord of the Rings (1954-55)

  135. Mark Twain: A Connecticut Yankee at King Arthur's Court (1889)

  136. Kurt Vonnegut: Sirens of Titan (1959)

  137. Horace Walpole: The Castle of Otranto (1764)

  138. Robert Walser: Institute Benjamenta (1909)

  139. Sylvia Townsend Warner: Lolly Willowes (1926)

  140. Sarah Waters: Affinity (1999)

  141. HG Wells: The Time Machine (1895)

  142. HG Wells: The War of the Worlds (1898)

  143. TH White: The Sword in the Stone (1938)

  144. Angus Wilson: The Old Men at the Zoo (1961)

  145. Gene Wolfe: The Book of the New Sun (1980-83)

  146. Virginia Woolf: Orlando (1928)

  147. John Wyndham: Day of the Triffids (1951)

  148. John Wyndham: The Midwich Cuckoos (1957)

  149. Yevgeny Zamyatin: We (1924)

Monday, January 26, 2009

“Imagination is at the heart of both artistic and scientific endeavours”

The quote comes from Robert Sawyer, who is going to be writer-in-residence at the Canadian Light Source.

Jeff Cutler, Director of Industrial Science at the Canadian Light Source explains:

"A common thread in Rob’s work – the role that science plays in our humanity and how we understand the universe – is echoed in our focus on discovery, innovation and progress. The residency is an excellent opportunity to have a world-leading author share in the life of a world-leading science facility."


Again, the whole media relase is here.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Reality is interesting

One thing that happened to me when I started reading science fiction at an age of 13 or so, was that I found that the world and society around me got more interesting. At least partly it actually was a result of reading SF. When you take two steps back from the ordinary and imagine other possible worlds, then you find that the world around you is also a world, with a lot of special and curious characteristics. There are all of the wonderful things that people build and do -- and the frightening things. And you live in the middle of it, and have first hand knowledge that would not be obvious to a time traveller from another era, or a visitor from another planet. You can shift your perspective, and see things with new eyes, and suddenly much of what you took for granted and boring is extremely relevant and maybe even exciting.

With this kind of experience, I loved the following, from Coraline by Neil Gaiman. This is when Coraline returns from her adventure. Remember that she goes exploring because she likes exploring, but also because her everyday life does not seem interesting at all.

Coraline could see trees and, beyond the trees, green hills, which faded on the horizon into purples and grays. The sky had never seemed so sky, the world had never seemed so world.
[...]
Nothing, she thought, had ever been so interesting.


Today's exercise: find something interesting! (I know I will.)

Physics silliness

It's well known that physicists like making up extremely contrived acronyms to name their equipment or theories or so. There are also examples like the famous paper by Alpher and Gamow, where Bethe was added as the second author to make the author list similar to the first letters of the greek alphabet (stories like this are told all the time to undergrads). And I will just mention the penguin plot (some of you might know what I'm talking about).

The attitude to these things varies in the community. A quote from Dark Cosmos, by Dan Hooper, mentioned in a previous post (in case you don't remember: MACHO stands for massive compact halo object):

Neutrinos are an example of a dark matter candidate we call a weakly interacting massive particle, or a WIMP. Just like MACHOs, WIMPs are not a single type, but a class of objects. (And just like the name MACHO, the name WIMP is a prime example of the all-too-common physicist's habit of using incredibly childish language to describe their ideas.)


Compare this to how a rather famous physicist describes it, when he mentions the same words as a result of "physicists wonderful sense of whimsy".

When is it funny, when is it "incredibly childish"? Think of it what you want, this is still a part of physics culture that you have to live with. I actually rather like it, usually (although some of the acronyms are a little bit too much).

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Reading popular science

I'm reading Dark Cosmos: In Search of Our Universe's Missing Mass and Energy by Dan Hooper. In the preface the author writes about reading popular science:


/.../I still read popular physics books. I don't read them to learn new things about physics anymore, however. I read them for inspiration. It is easy to forget how exciting and incredible modern science truly is. Scientific articles found in academic journals very rarely capture the sense of wonder and awe that originally motivated me to become a physicist.


This made me think. Why do I read popular science books? Of course, if it's not about physics I'm still reading them to learn new things. I'm curious about the world, as much as ever, and I don't want to limit myself to only knowing one field.

If I read popular physics books, it's usually to remind myself of things that I would not otherwise often think about, or to see things I once learned from a different angle. Sometimes it's not mostly for the physics itself, but for the context -- I read The Physics of Star Trek not to learn about physics, but actually to learn about how physics is treated in Star Trek. I read Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics for the anecdotes about how physics is treated by Hollywood.

This particular book, Dark Cosmos is of course exactly about the field I work in, and that I'm reading the academic journal articles from. Still, I didn't buy it to hold on to some sense of wonder, but specifically for inspiration of how to explain the topic. I already know the data, and I know most of the anecdotes, but I want to get better at explaining it and telling others about it. By reading and listening to how my colleagues do it, I hope to catch some tricks of the trade. (The sense of wonder is also a good thing, of course!)

The quote above also made me think about what it was that motivated me to become a physicist. What was it, really? Sometimes it feels mostly like a series of coincidences, but I think I definitely was heading in this general direction from a relatively early age. Still, it's fun to think about what actually inspired me in science when I was still in school. I hope to return to this in later blog posts!

Monday, January 5, 2009

Another view of science and science fiction

Those of you who liked my little series of interviews about science and science fiction might be interested in the following little note from the latest Ansible:


As Science Sees Us. In a profile of the life-extension researcher Mark Roth, Tom Junod notes that Roth has 'got a lot of ideas, for a scientist, and some of them come from unusual sources, like tabloidy news reports and science fiction.' He continues: 'It's a weird thing about scientists -- you would think that they would love science fiction. But they don't. To admit that you get your ideas from science fiction, if you're a scientist, that's like, career-threatening, man.' (Esquire, December) [MMW]

Friday, November 28, 2008

Zombies and vampires

Horror fiction is not exactly my thing, usually. There is so little fantastic fiction published in Swedish that I have actually read some things John Ajvide Lindqvist anyway just because it was there. And now the movie based on his first book, Låt den rätte komma in gets a really good review at SciFi.com. And it's going to come to a movie theatre here in Kingston on December 12. I want to go!

And once again I ask myself why there is any need for a remake in English. Having grown up with subtitled movies and television, I really cannot understand why people could not just see the original. I guess it's just a matter of perspective, and what you are used to.

Sometimes I feel bad for being listed in blogrolls for physics blogs, when I have long periods when I don't write anything about physics. I like to relax with thinking about other things, like science fiction and stuff like that. Anyway, just because John Ajvide Lindqvist also wrote a good zombie novel (yes, it was good, despite the zombies), I'll post a link to Better Zombies Through Physics at Tor.com, where we see yet another example of how the gedankenexperiment by Schrödinger about the cat in the box inspires popular culture. I'm not sure it actually ever teaches anyone anything much about quantum physics, but it's one of the things that make people in general aware that such thought experiments exists. Physics is part of our culture too, sometimes very much so, and the separation of the two cultures is perhaps not always so wide.

(It's Friday night and want to go home, but I promised a student to test some analysis code first. It's taking forever to execute. Good that it's weekend now.)

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

How the world works

Patrick Nielsen Hayden, quoted in this article about anti-authoritarian ideas in science fiction:

“Young people read fiction to figure out how the world works,” he says, “and science fiction is an extremely effective, quick way of testing your views of how the world works.”


This is exactly what I often try to say.

I think not only young people go to fiction to figure out how the world works. We think and understand things to large extent in the form of stories, and get our role models from stories. Science fiction is very powerful, giving tools in the form of story pieces to reflect and make sense of things. Especially if you deal with lots of changes in the world around you.

Friday, November 14, 2008

Rereading

Neil Gaiman wrote an essay for the program book of the 2002 World Horror Convention, about how to read Gene Wolfe (this I just learned from the introduction of the Wolfe story in the Wastelands anthology). His third point in this essay was: "Reread. It's better the second time."

Sometimes I miss the kind of reading I used to practice as a child and teenager: I would devour tons of books, and find some favourites. The favourites I would then read again and again, always coming back to them. Sometimes thinking about them between readings too.

I don't really do that anymore. Have I lost something? I'm afraid I have. I never make close friends among books anymore, only acquaintances.

I have been thinking about this for a couple of days (especially today, drowsy and unfocussed on anything productive after staying awake half the night to take care of and clean up around my sick child), since the SF signal Mind Meld about books worth reading twice. Which books are there that I would like to read again?

This is not very thought through, just my first inspiration. Here's the list anyway. Some books that made a large impression when I first read them, and that would be fun to take a closer look at again.


  • Kim Stanley Robinson: The Mars trilogy. And the Three Californias.

  • Neal Stephenson: Snow Crash

  • Ted Chiang: Stories of Your Life and Other's

  • Dan Simmons: Hyperion (only the first book of the Cantos)

  • China Mieville: Perdido Street Station

  • John Crowley: Engine Summer



Do you have any books you still reread, or that you would like to read again? (I shouldn't ask questions at the end of a blog post, because I always get disappointed when I get no answers. Anyway. It seemed to belong here.)

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

New Scientist on science fiction

Apparently there is going to be a special edition of New Scientist coming out on Saturday, about the future of science fiction. I'm going to buy this, read it, and tell you what I think.

I found out via Cheryl Morgan, who suspects "the main result of this will be a whole lot of people who don’t know much about SF (or sci-fi) pontificating learnedly on the subject and earning themselves spots in Dave Langford’s 'as others see us' collection."

We'll see. I'm interested enough to take a look.

Thursday, October 2, 2008

Stan Robinson is a "Hero of the Environment"

My favourite author (if I can still call him that, I haven't read anything by him since Sixty Days and Counting showed up in the bookstores) is among the "Heroes of the Environment 2008" in Time.

In a genre full of environmental warnings, Robinson's gift is a vision that uses the environment and its complexity as the focus of all that happens, rather than merely as grim set dressing or allegorical overlay. And that vision is optimistic about what could, with sufficient will, be brought about. He sees creating utopias as a technical challenge to his craft — they're hard to do convincingly and interestingly. But he also sees them as an empty ecological niche in the imagination; if only to maximise cultural biodiversity, he wants that niche filled.


It's a good short introduction to Kim Stanley Robinson and his books.

I think I will have to reread the Mars-books soon.

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Cherenkov blue

I have been digging around in all the "draft" posts, things that I have written for this blog and never actually posted. The following was written in spring. I think I refrained from posting it because I thought it was silly to pick apart one little thing from a story, in this way. Now that I have read it again I think it's kind of OK anyway -- I just take the story as a starting point for discussing some physics which has nothing much to do with the story itself. Take it as it is-




I have read a good story with a not-so-catchy title ("The Sky that Wraps the World Round, Past the Blue and Into the Black") by Jay Lake, in Clarkesworld Magazine.

I really liked this story. I'm not going to write a review, just use it as a starting point for some thoughts (as I often do). But first, I want to quote one line that I just love:

A billion billion years from now, even General Relativity might have been demoted to a mere Captain.


Go read the story. And then, come back here again if you want to talk about details and physics.

You see, I'm going to show my geeky side again. I have nothing against taking some poetical liberties in fiction, but some things just make me itch to tell someone how it really is. Anyone. It's not that I think it has to be straightened out, it's just that I get enthusiastic when I notice that I have some expert knowledge. Therefore: Cherenkov light. But first the paragraph that got me started:

I've been told the specks of light are the excitation trails of neutrinos passing through the aqueous humor of the human eye. They used to bury water tanks in Antarctic caves to see those things, back before orbit got cheap enough to push astronomy and physics into space where those sciences belong. These days, all you have to do is go for a walk outside the planet's magnetosphere and be patient.


Can you see blue flashes from neutrinos in your eyes, if you go outside the magnetosphere? Well, hmm, almost. Neutrinos themselves are not ionizing -- they don't leave "excitation trails" -- but if they happen to interact with matter (a rare event, most neutrinos just pass through without caring the slightest about any matter around it) an electrically charged particle can be created. This particle will kick the electrons in the atoms it passes and disturb them: the atoms might be excited or ionized.

The flash of blue the author is talking about is Cherenkov light. A charged particle is a source of an electric field, and when it's moving through matter it will will be like a ripple in the electric potential the electrons experience. The atomic electrons will wobble a little as the particle passes by, and that electon motion will create a little electromagnetic wave -- light. Every wobbling electron is like a tiny antenna emitting a wave front. If the material is transparent to light, and if the particle happens to move faster than the electromagnetic wavefronts from all of the disturbed electrons, the crests of all the little waves will coincide and build up to a stronger wave. This wave is the visible Cherenkov light, the spooky radiation glow that you might have seen from the water around nuclear reactors or storage of radioactive materials. (As people like to point out Cherenkov radiation is analogous to a sonic boom, but I suspect most people don't think enough about sonic booms for this to be very helpful.)

That thing about water tanks in Antarctic caves is not entirely true either, but almost. Neutrino detectors are located underground to sheild them from cosmic rays. The thing about Antarctica is not the caves, but the ice -- so a neutrino detector in Antarctica is of course using the natural ice as a detector medium. And shielding. Why not use it, when it's three kilometers thick?

The interesting question is now: if all humans close their eyes and watch for blue flashes, could we detect neutrinos? Yes, it's not theoretically impossible, but we would detect far more cosmic rays than anything else so we would never be able to tell the neutrino induced flashes from everything else.

Because we do have cosmic rays (particles moving fast) inside atmosphere, even though the magnetic field is protecting the earth from part of the flux. Among them we have lots and lots of muons, a particle which is like a heavy electron. The muons are very penetrating, and it's mainly because of them we have to hide the neutrino detectors (and dark matter detectors) underground. The muons are actually created in the atmosphere, when cosmic rays in the form of for example protons collide with atoms in the air. They have a short life, which actually demonstrates time dilation in special relativity -- if this effect did not exist, they would decay before reaching the ground.

So, as you can understand, if we could take all human eyes and take note of all the flashes we can see, almost all of them would be caused by muons from cosmic rays.

Another inconvenient aspect of the human eye as a neutrino detector is of course that with 6.7 billion separately operated detectors it would be hard work to interpret the data!

Thursday, September 4, 2008

Links on parade

Coilhouse Magazine: "A love letter to alternative culture, written in a culture where alt culture no longer exists". They have a mission statement quoting William Gibson. Looks interesting!

Astronomy Cast: a podcast about astronomy, and some relevant physics to go with it. There are transcripts for some of them. The little I have seen and heard so far makes me want to recommend it to anyone interested in these things. Beginner friendly, and with science fiction relevance: there is for example a three part series about the colonization of Mars.

The PJ Råsmark Blog: a friend of mine from high school, promising "opinions and thoughts concerning as diverse topics as science, magic, religion, critical thinking, pseudoscience, life, the universe, and everything".

LHC will get first beam on September 10. No comments needed.

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Pop science book meme

This I have to do! It's a book meme version from Coctail Party Physics.

The rules:

  1. Highlight those you've read in full
  2. Asterisk those you intend to read
  3. Add any additional popular science books you think belong on the list
  4. Link back to me (i. e. link to Jennifer, she wants to use the additions and comments to make a top hundred list)


Turns out I'm not doing so well on this one. There are many on the list that I don't recognize at all. There are some that I'm not sure I would classify as popular science at all, like Neuromancer. What is that one doing here? Well, more comments after the list.


  1. Micrographia, Robert Hooke

  2. The Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin

  3. Never at Rest, Richard Westfall

  4. Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman, Richard Feynman

  5. Tesla: Man Out of Time, Margaret Cheney

  6. The Devil's Doctor, Philip Ball

  7. The Making of the Atomic Bomb, Richard Rhodes

  8. Lonely Hearts of the Cosmos, Dennis Overbye

  9. Physics for Entertainment, Yakov Perelman

  10. 1-2-3 Infinity, George Gamow

  11. The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene

  12. Warmth Disperses, Time Passes, Hans Christian von Bayer

  13. Alice in Quantumland, Robert Gilmore

  14. Where Does the Weirdness Go? David Lindley

  15. A Short History of Nearly Everything, Bill Bryson

  16. A Force of Nature, Richard Rhodes

  17. Black Holes and Time Warps, Kip Thorne

  18. A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking

  19. Universal Foam, Sidney Perkowitz

  20. Vermeer's Camera, Philip Steadman

  21. The Code Book, Simon Singh

  22. The Elements of Murder, John Emsley

  23. Soul Made Flesh, Carl Zimmer

  24. Time's Arrow, Martin Amis

  25. The Ten Most Beautiful Experiments, George Johnson

  26. Einstein's Dreams, Alan Lightman

  27. *Godel, Escher, Bach, Douglas Hofstadter

  28. The Curious Life of Robert Hooke, Lisa Jardine

  29. A Matter of Degrees, Gino Segre

  30. The Physics of Star Trek, Lawrence Krauss

  31. E=mc<2>, David Bodanis

  32. Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea, Charles Seife

  33. Absolute Zero: The Conquest of Cold, Tom Shachtman

  34. *A Madman Dreams of Turing Machines, Janna Levin

  35. Warped Passages, Lisa Randall

  36. Apollo's Fire, Michael Sims

  37. Flatland, Edward Abbott

  38. Fermat's Last Theorem, Amir Aczel

  39. Stiff, Mary Roach

  40. Astroturf, M.G. Lord

  41. The Periodic Table, Primo Levi

  42. *Longitude, Dava Sobel

  43. The First Three Minutes, Steven Weinberg

  44. The Mummy Congress, Heather Pringle

  45. The Accelerating Universe, Mario Livio

  46. Math and the Mona Lisa, Bulent Atalay

  47. This is Your Brain on Music, Daniel Levitin

  48. The Executioner's Current, Richard Moran

  49. Krakatoa, Simon Winchester

  50. *Pythagoras' Trousers, Margaret Wertheim

  51. Neuromancer, William Gibson

  52. *The Physics of Superheroes, James Kakalios

  53. The Strange Case of the Broad Street Pump, Sandra Hempel

  54. Another Day in the Frontal Lobe, Katrina Firlik

  55. Einstein's Clocks and Poincare's Maps, Peter Galison

  56. The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan

  57. The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins

  58. The Language Instinct, Steven Pinker

  59. An Instance of the Fingerpost, Iain Pears

  60. Consilience, E.O. Wilson

  61. Wonderful Life, Stephen J. Gould

  62. Teaching a Stone to Talk, Annie Dillard

  63. Fire in the Brain, Ronald K. Siegel

  64. The Life of a Cell, Lewis Thomas

  65. Coming of Age in the Milky Way, Timothy Ferris

  66. Storm World, Chris Mooney

  67. The Carbon Age, Eric Roston

  68. The Black Hole Wars, Leonard Susskind

  69. Copenhagen, Michael Frayn

  70. From the Earth to the Moon, Jules Verne

  71. Gut Symmetries, Jeanette Winterson

  72. Chaos, James Gleick

  73. *Innumeracy, John Allen Paulos

  74. The Physics of NASCAR, Diandra Leslie-Pelecky

  75. Subtle is the Lord, Abraham Pais



Comments:
The Janna Levin book listed here is a novel. I have read her How the Universe Got Its Spots, which was not bad -- maybe I would substitute that one on the list. Instead of Neuromancer I would put a novel with higher science content, for example the latest trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson. I haven't yet read Longitude by Dava Sobel, but I recently finished her Galileo's Daughter which I can recommend. By Stephen Pinker I would be tempted to put How the Mind Works before The Language Instinct, but perhaps that is because I read it more recently.

Now to my additions:


  • The Quark and the Jaguar, Murray Gell-Mann

  • The New World of Mr Tompkins, George Gamow and Russell Stannard (updated version of the classic)

  • The Nurture Assumption, Judith Rich Harris

  • Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond

  • *The World Without Us, Alan Weisman

  • *The Physics of the BuffyVerse, Jennifer Ouellette


There are two on the list I haven't read yet. I just started reading The World Without Us, and like it so far. The Physics of the BuffyVerse seems interesting, and I know from the blog that she can write.

I might add more to this if something pops up in my mind today.

(The next chapter about the PICASSO detector will come within a few days.)

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Interesting Little Brother link

Yes, yes, it's obvious: this increased tempo of posting is of course just a procrastination method. Not that I should feel that I'm procrastinating when I try to wind down in the evening, but that's how it is.

Anyway, I just want to link to this interesting post about Cory Doctorow's Little Brother by Henry Jenkins (researcher in the field of media and popular culture).

/.../Alec Resnick wrote me to ask me whether I could think of another book which had been so carefully designed to launch a resistance movement. Certainly science fiction authors have been trying to use the genre as a means of political commentary since before any one thought to call it science fiction. /.../ But I don't know of another book which provides so much detailed information on how to transform its alternative visions into realities. And as such, this may be the most subversive book aimed at young readers in the past decade.


It might not be great literature, but it is a good read -- and with the development we see right now it's probably also a very important book.

(And a question: what was the most subversive book in the previous decade?)

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Circling around the minefield, finding Dracula

Mostly I try to ignore the science vs religion debate in the blogosphere, because it really brings out the worst in people. Now the story about PZ and the communion wafers makes me deeply uneasy (actually really sad). The short version: there is this guy PZ Myers, a scientist with the interesting hobby to make a lot of noise about anything stupid that people say or do in the name of religion (well, actually I think he claims that it is religion itself that is stupid or makes people stupid). Now he reacted to some story involving bread from the communion by asking people to send him samples of the stuff so that he can desecrate it and post videos of it. I might have some detail wrong, but I'm not going to the sources to look into it because I think it would make me upset and destroy my day.

I agree that some people act a little bit strange, maybe even stupid, when it comes to threats to things that they hold holy. Also, sending PZ death threats is a very un-Christian thing to do (other humans should also be seen as sacred, and then there is this whole thing about loving the enemies...). This in itself makes me very sad, but his whole idea of deliberately demonstrating such utter disdain for other's ways of handling and thinking about the sacred is not only distasteful but deeply in-humanistic. I could also call it mean and childish.

About the meaning that communion can have for people I really recommend Take This Bread by Sarah Miles (thank you Elliot, for bringing this book to my attention!), a story that is perfectly readable also for people with no personal connection with any church.

This said, I have to comment on Dracula, the classic by Bram Stoker. In this book the heroes bring communion bread in enormous quantities, and they bury pieces in soil to make it unusable for vampires. I always wondered about that. Getting hold of some wafers is no problem, but not all wafers carry the vampire-smothering power: they need to be consecrated. This means that a priest has to perform a little ritual, involving the reading of the story of the first communion. The wafers that are left over after the ritual, those that are not eaten immediately, are usually locked in a little cabinet (the tabernacle in the church building, or otherwise in some other place, not accessible to the public). I have heard about people stealing consecrated bread for use in witchcraft, but as I understand it they did it by going to communion and then hiding the bread under the tongue until they left the church. How do you get hold of large quantities?

There might be some anglican priests who would do mass-consecration for use in vampire-hunts, but this is not mentionend in Dracula and I have never heard about it from anywhere. I picture a hidden chapel, with mass-production and a small staff of people packing the wafers for shipping together with vials of holy water (the water is usually much easier to find, but why pass on a good package deal?) and crucifixes. Buy the small vampire-package for home use, or the club pack to share with your friends when you travel to Transsylvania! And then little unconspicious ads in newspapers, sharing the space with mail-order companies selling hygienic underwear or pictures of ladies in costume.

Hmm. This is where blogging protocol requires me to write "I digress" and promise to stay on topic in the future. And actually, I really should bring my daughter to daycare now, and get to work.

Sunday, June 15, 2008

Review: Final Theory

My review of the novel I mentioned in my last post is now online at LabLit.com: Where Einstein left off. Go read it, and see why I didn't like the book so much, but also why I still can recommend it.