Katharine M. J. Osborne's Blog
Posted by Katharine M. J. Osborne
I recently found this video of a spoon and fork resting incredibly on the end of a toothpick which in turn was resting on the rim of a drinking glass. The free end of the toothpick was then burned until it reached the edge of the glass, and it looked as if the the utensils should have dropped, considering the counterweight of the toothpick had been removed. This one was actually new to me, and it was quite intriguing.
Well, it took me a few minutes to figure why the fork and spoon didn't fall. I replicated the set-up, and realized that the toothpick couldn't of its own accord supply enough weight to counterbalance the the utensils. But I did see that it is was in fact stiction (static friction) that counter-acted the weight of the utensils (and to be fair, the utensils were turned towards the glass altering the center of mass of the system). The end of the toothpick was "stuck" to the rim of the glass, and it helped that the rim was curved upward (most all drinking glasses have this feature so you don't cut your mouth when you drink).
I also filmed a response video.
Posted by Katharine M. J. Osborne
Yesterday, the Phoenix, a robotic lander mission to the Martian arctic region, launched successfully. The lander is scheduled to reach Mars in May of 2008.
When deployed, the lander will probe the arctic looking for enviroments that might be suitable for microbes. The lander was re-engineered from parts of a previously canceled Mars mission from 2001. Still, the price tag was $325 million for the spacecraft - cheaper than many previous missions. NASA has replaced expensive missions with "cheaper, better, faster" Scout missions. The project was multinational, but headed up by the University of Arizona Lunar and Planetary Sciences Laboratory in Tuscon Arizona.
Included on the lander is a DVD produced by the Planetary Society, containing multimedia files about Mars (like Orson Welles' panic inducing radio broadcast of 'War of the Worlds') and names of Mars supporters gathered from the internet. The DVD is made out of silica to withstand Martian weather for thousands of years and is intended to be a historical artifact of interest to any future human colonizers (if/when we get there, I bet we will no longer have the right codecs or equipment to play it).
Posted by Katharine M. J. Osborne
The Simpsons' have always been slightly surreal, and since the series is animated, the creators can get away with pretty much anything, in the sense that they depict many violations of physics. This is normal and expected of this artform (yeah, I said it - I have high regard for sequential art).
What is still sometimes surprising, is how aware the writers are of actual physics. In seasons past, Homer explored the 3rd dimension (in a bizarre cross-over of Flatland and Poltergeist), Stephen Hawking made a guest appearance, and Bart observed a (rather doomsday) comet.
In the movie, there is a scene where Homer is stuck to a wrecking ball, being swung between a large rock and a "Hard Place". The segment plays with our commonsense knowledge of physics. The ball slowly stop swinging, then suddenly swings again! This is funny precisely because it is unexpected - pendulums in motion slowly come to rest, and cannot, of their own accord start swinging again.
In another segment, Lisa advises her father to gun the engine of a motorbike he is trying to ride around inside a small spherical cage. Lisa knows that increasing his forward speed will help him drive upside in the cage. The same trick is attempted later in the film (don't want to spoil it too much if you haven't gone to see it yet), but seems rather ludicrous. As an audience we can forgive this, because it wasn't the action that was important, but rather, where that brought the characters in the story.
Posted by Katharine M. J. Osborne
Iran hosted this year's 38th annual International Physics Olympiad (IPhO), running from July 13th through the 22nd. A total of 73 countries participated, with 327 competitors. The absolute winner (the one with the highest score) this year was Youngjoon Choi from the Republic of Korea.
Originating in 1967 in Poland, the first Olympiad hosted teams from 5 Eastern Bloc countries. Now it is a truly global competition, and countries vie to host it (which isn't anywhere near as expensive as many other competitions).
The competition is held on two separate days with a period of rest. There are three theoretical questions, and one experimental. Teams consist of five students and two supervisors. First place can be gained with a score of 90% or more, second place a score of 78% or higher, third place is 65% or higher, and an honorable mention is gained with 50% or higher.
These are extremely difficult problems, especially for high school students. When I was in high school, I participated in a similar test (in a nationwide search for team candidates). I had no previous preparation, and scored 33% - the highest score ever achieved at that school. It was all the more remarkable to my teachers because I had a low C in my physics class, while the A students scored in the teens or less, so I guess they couldn't figure me out (I knew I was smart, I was just bored with the instruction and hated doing rote problems from the textbook).
Posted by Katharine M. J. Osborne
I've never been a fan of fireworks, or holidays associated with them. Hawaiians typically go nuts when they have the opportunity to set them off - it's tradition here. I'm not a fan of the noise or the smell, but it is better than in many states where people shoot their guns in the air. Apparently, these individuals are not aware of the fact that bullets are subject to gravity, and what goes up, must come down. Many people have been injured or killed by bullets fired in celebration.
Anyway, I spent the day with a friend at a Borders bookstore near where I live. It was very quiet, and we plunked down in the physics section, both of us with large iced lattes - fuel for the intellect. We browsed the physics books, and she pulled one out written by Richard Feynman.
"I've heard of this name before," she said.
"Yeah. I think Einstein is a little overrated. Feynman was probably the greatest 20th century physicist. I wish more people knew about him." That may be entirely subjective, but Feynman was inarguably a great teacher of physics. I proceeded to tell her lots of interesting Feynman facts, hoping to win a convert.
She also spotted a book on parallel universes, and her eyes lit up. Like many people, especially those not familiar with physics, she thinks the concept of parallel universes is incredibly intriguing. Indeed, the theories surrounding parallel universes are the current rock stars of science - edgy and weird, and threatening to turn our comfortable relationship with reality inside out. I told her about branes and what physicists now think happened before the big bang to make our universe, and how they think they might be able to produce a universe in the lab (if only for a short period of time before it pinches off to be in it's own spacetime - that would really put the last nail in the coffin for literal creationists). Our conversation ran heavily on the philosophical and speculative sides, but it did make me realize just how fertile a time this is for physics. Gosh, I can't wait to see what wondrous things unravel in the next fifty years!
Posted by Katharine M. J. Osborne
Several days ago I went to have lunch at a friend's apartment in a skyscraper. He offered us canned soda, and I opened mine to get a mess of the sticky stuff all over my hands. My immediate thought was that the can had been dropped or shaken.
My friend was very apologetic, and said in an annoyed tone, that it always happened with the soda cans and he didn't know why. Then it occurred to me: pressure! He lives on the 31st floor of a skyscraper, so when he brings the cans up from what is essentially sea-level to at least 500ft above in a rapid span of time, the pressure builds and the carbon dioxide is ready to escape.
I don't know for sure though, but there is an easy experiment to confirm. By taking cans from the same batch (manufacturer), and taking half up the skyscraper, and opening both sets at the same time, my friend and I could confirm if it is the journey up the skyscraper that is causing the pressure build-up.
Posted by Katharine M. J. Osborne
There were many reasons I was excited about moving to Hawaii, but one in particular was particularly interesting. I'm waving my science nerd flag here! When I moved from the mainland in January, I thought about how I could fulfill a childhood dream - standing directly beneath the Sun.
The Tropic of Cancer cuts through the state of Hawaii, so I knew I would be able to experience the Sun directly overhead sometime near the solstice. For several days, a little after noon, I've gone outside and just looked at the shadows. What few there are, are directly beneath trees and cars. Everything seems so illuminated - it really is quite beautiful. It isn't something I think most people think about, since we are so exposed to unnatural light that comes from directly above, but if you get the chance, stop and take a look for a moment.
Posted by Katharine M. J. Osborne
Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland has recently been made infamous by the book and movie "The Da Vinci Code". In the conspiracy circles there is a lot of speculation about whether or not the chapel was built by the Knights Templar in secret, and whether it contains the Holy Grail - whatever that might be.
What peaked my interest about the chapel lately is that a composer familiar with cymatics (the visualization of sound) has "decoded" the images on a series of boxes carved into the pillars in the chapel. The images are simple, curving, symmetrical patterns. They could just be abstract embellishment. The composer has matched the patterns on the boxes to cymatic patterns (technically Chladni patterns) to find a corresponding frequency, and then composed music using the sequence (10 notes I think). See an explanatory video.
The resulting composition is quite beautiful, but since it is based on such a short sequence of notes I wonder whether it is just a coincidence. For that matter, what makes a series of sounds into a tune in the human mind?
A few years ago PBS produced an ad for itself featuring a composer frustrated at his piano. He turns and looks out the window to see several birds landing on the power lines outside. He becomes inspired and uses the sequence of the landing birds to compose a song. Beauty can be found in randomness.
What do you think?
Posted by Katharine M. J. Osborne
If you have the misfortune of being exposed to a vacuum, for instance, if you are a character in a science fiction story, your body will not explode, but your blood and other fluids may boil, given a long enough exposure. Frost will form in your mouth as your saliva rapidly evaporates. Your ears will pop. Eventually you will die of asphyxiation, if you haven't already had a heart attack from panic.
You have about a minute and a half to get to safety. Before exposure, or immediately after initial exposure, you should exhale and remove all the air from your lungs. Otherwise, the air pressure will rupture the delicate alveoli, the air sacs, in your lungs. That is not an injury that's easy to recover from. There is not much else you can do.
The only accurate depiction of vacuum exposure in fiction can be found in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. In the movie the main character is exposed very briefly, and handles the situation well.
Posted by Katharine M. J. Osborne
Rainbows are the product of light scattering through raindrops. The raindrops have a semi-spherical shape that spreads white light out into its constituent colors, producing a prism. A raimbow will always appear 180 degrees from the direction of the Sun or other light source.
Rainbows are particularly prevalent here in Hawaii due to the very localized weather systems (it can be sunny on one side of the island of Oahu, and pouring on the other, or even from town to town). I've even noticed rain clouds that nearly sweep over the ground! Very bizarre.
In Hawaii, rainbows are called Anuenue.
Posted by Katharine M. J. Osborne
I just happened to come across a trailer of the movie on YouTube, and though I have yet to see it, I am glad that someone has finally adapted the novel "Flatland". I think every child should be exposed to the ideas in Flatland, it would certainly improve math literacy. Flatland helped me to understand the concept of dimensions, and opened my imagination to thinking about how things might be in higher dimensions.
The film has a website here.
Posted by Katharine M. J. Osborne
It was a very interesting event (and I'm still recovering from the bad sunburn from my hours-long stint in the bleachers without sunscreen), but what really struck me was how literate the Dalai Lama was when it came to science.
I've read some books by the Dalai Lama, and am relatively familiar with Tibetan Buddhism. I was also aware that Buddhists have been actively participating in brain studies of how the mind works. Even so, I was impressed that the Dalai Lama spoke effortlessly, and accurately, about certain aspects in science. Normally when I listen to or interact with individuals primarily concerned with religion or spirituality I am prepared to cringe at a misspoken fact or even an outright hatred for science. Partly that reflects my limited experience with people of religion, as I am sure not everyone is like that, but I also think that the Dalai Lama is just careful and conscientious in all his thinking.
At one point, as he was speaking in Tibetan (when he felt he couldn't express himself clearly he would switch from English and a translator translated), and as I was listening I heard the phrase "Big Bang" in amongst the rhythmic blur of Tibetan syllables. It turned out that he was talking about the chain of cause and effect in events back to the origin of our universe. He didn't name it specifically, but he was describing the concept of emergence. Later on he talked about how there is no center to the mind, but that it arises from the interactions of billions of neurons, another example of emergence. The Dalai Lama also referred accurately to the age of the Earth, as well as timeline for the development of religion in India.
I would have loved to corner him into a one-on-one conversation about his thoughts on M-Theory, but alas the Dalai Lama is too high profile to interact that way with the public (the mix of Homeland Security personnel and Buddhist monks was slightly comical).
He wasn't hesitant to say that he was unsure of the exact details of a fact - which I just have a lot of respect for. One of the issues that divides science and religion so deeply is the tendency (or at least perceived tendency) for leaders in organized religion to demand that their concepts are the absolute truth and questions are essentially irrelevant. This just rankles science-minded people no end, who value asking questions, and believe that we nowhere close to knowing the absolute truth about reality. Figuring it all out is what physics helps with.
Posted by Katharine M. J. Osborne
A dream of astronomers and space enthusiasts has finally been fulfilled. We don't know much about Gliese 581 C yet, other that it is somewhat larger than Earth and it's year is 13 of ours. It could be a frozen water planet like Europa, or it could be clement planet not much hotter or colder than Earth.
581 C orbits a red dwarf star, a type of star that burns cooler but longer than our own. 581 C is so close to it's star that it would dominate the skyline. 581 C may not rotate fast enough to have a day.
The proximity of 581 C to Earth may open up the possibility of sending a probe there in the future (though it could take many decades to reach the planet, and signals traveling back would take 20.5 years to reach us). Even more promising is that most stars close to Earth are red dwarfs. 581 C may indicate that red dwarfs are especially hospitable to the formation of terrestrial planets, and we can turn a critical eye to all the systems close to us.
The fact that we have found an extra-solar planet so quickly in our search (the planet finding technique used in this case has been around for less than a decade), may mean that terrestrial planets are more abundant that we once thought.
Posted by Katharine M. J. Osborne
A few weeks ago I was walking in Ewa, a town near where I live in Hawaii. I was passed by a man standing on a three wheeled vehicle, gracefully sliding back and forth across the pavement. I was so entranced by the elegance of the motion that I didn't think to ask him what he was riding.
For weeks I wondered what it could possibly be, and scoured the internet for clues. I couldn't find anything until I happened to be at the post office a few days go (mailing off my Arizona tax return), and saw a women mailing a box with one of the vehicles depicted on the side. I couldn't believe my eyes - there it was, with a name to go along - Trikke (pronounced trike).
I checked out the website for Trikke, and found out how it could be propelled without pedals like a bike or pushing off from the pavement with feet like a skateboard. The Trikke uses angular momentum. By leaning side to side, a rider can move forward, much like skating, skiing, or swinging on a swing. It's remarkably simple.
They've been around for a couple of years it seems, and have several models. There is even a Skki for skiing down snow.
If you go the website, be sure to check out the videos to see the graceful movement.
I've also noticed kids in my neighborhood tooling around on snakeboards, a new articulated skateboard that similarily does not require pushing off the pavement. The device only has two wheels, so to me it looks a little dangerous! I'm not brave enough to try one, but I'll definitely check out the Trikke when I get a chance. I've wanted to take up cycling for a couple of years, but this would be much less painful than those "ergonomic" bicycle seats.
Posted by Katharine M. J. Osborne
I always thought that dogs hated vacuum cleaners because they somehow resembled a mysterious animal they feared. However, while I was doing the research for my latest article on buzzing power lines, I learned that it actually has to do with sound.
Dog hearing is significantly better than human hearing, and they can hear in the ultrasonic range - very high frequency sounds inaudible to humans (remember those dog whistles that never seemed to work? Same principle).
Vacuum cleaners tend to put out loud ultrasonic sounds that are irritating and frightening to dogs. They attack the vacuum because they just want it to shut up. So if you have a dog, it might be kind to put him or her outside or in another room with the door closed while you vacuum. At the very least, you'll spare your vacuum cleaner some teethmarks.
Posted by Katharine M. J. Osborne
When I first saw the posters for "The Last Mimzy" I was a little underwhelmed. Then I saw the trailer and spotted of all people, Brian Greene, physicist and author of "The Elegant Universe" and "The Fabric of the Cosmos".
I automatically thought that he would be cameoing as himself, and it led me to believe that this movie would rise above all others in terms of respect for physics. I was excited (though the fact that Rainn Wilson from "The Office" was in it as well may have played a part but that's a whole other story).
In fact, Greene played a representative from Intel, and the movie was more science fantasy than science fiction. The movie was reasonably good, but I just set myself up for disappointment. I checked on IMDB to see if it was him and not just someone who looked similar, and found out that he's acted in another movie, and was consultant on the films "Frequency" and "Deja Vu" (kudos to the producers for hiring a physics consultant).
I thought it was a bit odd, though I was the only person in the entire theatre who ooo'd when Greene came onscreen. Besides, I'm one of the last people who should judge someone for being a jack of all trades.
Posted by Katharine M. J. Osborne
The BBC has an article describing how physics is being effectively and ineffectively taught in Britain:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6467887.stm
Basically, they outline some research that has been done, and the conclusions are that physics can be taught more effectively when:
- It is not integrated with other sciences or disciplines so that students develop an understanding of physics on its own merits
- Involving toys and fun exercises to teach physics helps to spark interest
I think these strategies make sense. There has been a trend in education to integrate subjects across disciplines. I think this makes sense in certain cases, especially writing which seems tedious to most students just on it's own, but I can also see where it would hurt physics which is often less obvious as a distinct subject.
Personally I am very concerned about scientific literacy in the general population. Science is extremely important to our civilization, culture, and future progress. I think the general population has a feeling that science (and especially physics) is difficult to learn and understand, that it is best left to the experts. Frankly, it really isn't anymore difficult than most other areas of knowledge (heck, I haven't a clue about football - it's completely nonsensical to me). Teaching physics is a matter of generating interest and sparking the imaginations of the students so that they want to learn. What do you think?
Posted by Katharine M. J. Osborne
The Standard Model describes the number and type of particles, and relationships between them. This experiment at the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC) gives researchers more information that will hopefully illuminate whether or not the Standard Model is adequate to explain matter in it's fundamental constituents. The results of the research can be found here.
Posted by Katharine M. J. Osborne
This article from NorthJersey describes how some schools are requiring that students take physics as a graduation requirement.
While I think everyone can benefit from learning about physics, I don't think it is suitable for everyone, at least in high school. I think that everyone has the capacity to understand physics, but in high school and college it is often taught with a stifling rigidity. Corralling all students through a physics class puts a strain on teachers as they try to teach to students that just aren't interested.
I think that education is a deeply personal pursuit. You have to want to learn something in order to develop passion and skill. Making cookie cutter kids in an assembly line education process won't necessarily help industry. However, fostering passion and openness towards science early in a child's education might make children more receptive and interested in science later on. Personally, I think that this can start at a preschool age, when a child is actively and naturally learning about the physical rules around him. This was certainly the case in my own childhood, and even overcame the negative effects of a stultifying grade 12 physics course that had me staring out the window watching birds peck at the ground and grass sway in the breeze (other kids further from the distraction of the window spent the class sleeping).
What do you think?
Posted by Katharine M. J. Osborne
Those of us who advocate space exploration have reason to envy Germany. Angela Merkel, the current German Chancellor (head of state), happens to also be a physicist. No wonder then that Germany is going ahead with plans for an unmanned Moon mission by 2013.
There is some controversy because Germany was the first country to successfully use rockets as intercontinental weapons during World War II. I don't think it is really relevant to dredge that up at this point - Germany has since proven itself to be a stable democracy, and we have other countries with rockets to worry about.
What is more concerning, is that this marks a departure from total focus on the European Space Agency (ESA). If Germany begins it's own exploration program in earnest, this could undermine the efforts of the ESA. Hopefully, this won't be the case, and both programs will flourish in tandem.
Another implication is that along with China and the United States, this ramps up the new space race developing around lunar exploration and, possibly, colonization. The United States has already annouced plans for a permanent Moon base.
The orbiter will map the Moon for 4 years, and a robotic lander will follow to take samples of the regolith (Moon dirt).
Posted by Katharine M. J. Osborne
Richard Branson, the iconoclastic British tycoon, is sponsoring Stephen Hawking for a flight into space. I think this is fantastic for Hawking (who is definitly cashing in on his fame), but is also significant for people with disabilities. If Hawking's flight is successful, and it probably will be, spaceflight will finally prove to be available to everyone. Of course, the main beneficiary will be Branson. What better way to advertise the safety, comfort, and care of the nascent service?
Hawking is also scheduled for a free ride on a "vomit comet", an atmospheric flight that mimics zero gravity.
Approximately 200 people have signed up for a brief flight into space aboard Virgin Galactic craft. The suborbital flight service could begin as early as the end of 2008.
In case you are wondering, yes, I would go if I had the $200,000 to cover the price of a ticket. I've never been on a rollercoaster, and have no intention of skydiving, but yes, I'd go on a suborbital flight in a heartbeat.
Actually, Mr. Branson, will you sponsor me?
Posted by Katharine M. J. Osborne
The Casimir effect is an odd phenomena that acts to attract bodies together. It occurs at the micro scale and less due to random electromagnetic fluctuations of vacuum (which is everywhere at that scale). These fluctuations give nearby bodies a slight charge, allowing them to attract. The Casimir effect is generally considered a vexing nuisance, as it makes accurate measurements at smaller scales difficult.
Posted by Katharine M. J. Osborne
This new show details how the nature of light was discovered. It airs on the Science Channel on February 25th and 26th. I was only able to catch a brief ad, but it looks informative!
You can find scheduling information here.
Posted by Katharine M. J. Osborne
Since moving to Oahu I've been reading a lot of Hawaiiana, books about Hawaiian culture, and there are a lot of them! I found out that Hawaiian and Polynesian mythology focuses on cosmology and astronomy - not surprising for a culture that successfully navigated vast areas of the pacific ocean using the stars.
What was also notable is that the Polynesian origin myth describes the world originating from darkness. This is a very common theme across many cultures. So, does this derive from a common myth at the very root of humanity as we were migrating out of Africa, is it intuition that eerily describes the Big Bang (something from nothing), or does it merely reflect an innate preference for dualities - opposites?
Personally, I am inclined to the latter idea. Being able to make comparisons effectively is a trademark of intelligence. Perhaps seeing opposites in all things would be natural. What do you think?
Posted by Katharine M. J. Osborne
When I was getting ready to move to Hawaii, I eagerly read through all the Hawaii and Oahu guides I could find. One thing that struck me early on was the unique way of giving directions.
The island of Oahu (where Honolulu and Pearl Harbor are), is roughly quadrilateral, and each side has a name. The south side is Ewa, the west side is leeward, the east side is windward, and the north, well that's the famous north shore (best surfing on the planet). On top of that, the mountains in the middle are called mauna (meaning mountain) and the ocean is mauka. So, if you want to give a direction to something that is closer to the mountains you would say it's mauna. If it is on west coast, you would say leeward.
This week's article is on geomagnetic reversal, and if that happens, the Hawaii way of giving directions would still be valid!
Posted by Katharine M. J. Osborne
Last week I finally moved from Arizona to Hawaii. In the past couple of years I developed a bit of a fear of flying. I think the new security regulations fed into that - it all seems a bit 1984. I hadn't flown since 2001, after a very rocky (but thankfully brief) flight from Phoenix to Las Vegas. There was no remedy for it; if I wanted to get to Hawaii, I needed to take to the air.
Flying as a passenger in an airplane isn't something you should think about too deeply. It still seems nonsensical that a large metal object can travel at high speed through the air. But it doesn't violate the laws of physics. In a sense, flight is representative of a lot of modern physics - there are so many strange things that have been uncovered by physics, so many things that are completely unintuitive, like electromagnetism, or subatomic particles, or the accelerating expansion of the universe. It doesn't seem like that's how the world should function, but it does. And it's wonderful.
Posted by Katharine M. J. Osborne
I first learned about phlogiston when I was about ten or so. I believe my older brother and I were watching the fantastic BBC series, The Day the Universe Changed when we first heard it uttered. It's a great miniseries on the the various events that conspired to give insight to scientists about the true and elusive nature of the universe.
"Phlogiston" immediately stuck in our heads. Our games and conversations became peppered with the word. To this day, if I say the word to my brother, he is sure to chuckle with the inside joke. It is an inherently ridiculous word like "ramekin" or "spool".
Phlogiston is rooted in the Greek - phlogios - it means "to burn", at it was thought that it was mysterious substance released when things were combusted or rusted (essentially the same process - one is fast, one is slow).