Standard Time on the Moon

 The NYTimes has an article on a proposal for establishing a time standard for the moon.  With the number of different nations doing activity there (South Korea?), presumably applying their local time to their work there seems to be a need.

It's further complicated because, as the article notes in passing, clocks run faster on the moon!

I had to ask Chatgpt for an explantion, which is:

"Clocks do not actually run faster on the Moon. However, they do appear to run faster when measured from Earth due to the effects of general relativity. 

According to general relativity, time appears to move slower in the presence of a strong gravitational field. The strength of Earth's gravitational field is greater than that of the Moon's, so time moves more slowly on Earth than on the Moon.

This means that if you were to compare the ticking of two identical clocks, one on Earth and one on the Moon, the clock on the Moon would actually tick slightly slower than the clock on Earth. However, because the Moon is much less massive than Earth, the difference in the strength of the gravitational field between the two is relatively small.

The net effect is that when we measure the ticking of a clock on the Moon from Earth, we observe that it ticks slightly faster than an identical clock on Earth due to the time dilation effects of general relativity. This effect is small, however, and only becomes noticeable with extremely precise measurements."

Why I Envy the Young

 I clicked on this discussion and demonstration of the physics of a ball on a turntable. Though my capacity to absorb the new is limited these days, it's still interesting, just a phenomon--forget the equations.

It's an example of why I envy the young.  There's so much material online to learn from these days.  In the '40's and '50's there were books.  Popular Mechanics might have been the magazine closest to some of the Youtube videos, but still miles and miles away. But with the visual examples and the ability to drill down into subjects, today's world is an autodidact's dream.

There might be tradeoffs--amid all the possibilities and attractions could an autodidact focus enough to contribute to knowledge, but still.. 

False Colors

 Since the Webb telescope has started delivering pictures, I've seen references to their "false colors" or "fake colors".  NASA has used the term:

This false-color mosaic is made of 72 exposures over a 32-hour test. Note: 6-pointed diffraction spikes unique to Webb around the bright stars & a background full of galaxies. Webb will #UnfoldTheUniverse with its first full-color images in just 1 week! https://t.co/LaJjK8v3Bd

— NASA Webb Telescope (@NASAWebb) July 6, 2022

I don't like it.

As I understand it, the Webb captures a much wider portion of the spectrum than do our human eyes. So if the images reflected the spectrum we could see, i.e., were in "real colors", we wouldn't see a lot of the interesting phenomena. So NASA uses what I'd call a translator program to convert all the data the telescope has captured into colors humans can perceive.  The program is true to our perceptions--we see longer light waves as blue, with "ultraviolet" designating the waves which are too long for us to see; we see shorter light waves as red, with "infrared" designating the waves which are too short for us to see. So the results of the translation have the infrared waves showing as red, the ultraviolet as blue.

Whenever we convert phenomena into colors on the printed page, we're dealing in "false colors", not reality.  That's true whether we're dealing with red states and blue states, or starlight.

Just as translators of the Iliad try to be faithful to the original Greek in their presentation of the text in modern American English, so the NASA scientist try to be faithful to the data their telescope has captured in presenting it to us.  In neither case do we get the full richness of the reality, but the best effort of the translators.

Signs of the Times--Regeneron

 Back in my time it was the Westinghouse Science Search but now it's Regeneron (it's a biotech company which I had to look up).

Here's the press release of this year's winners, dominated by Asian-Americans.

Two signs of the times here--Westinghouse going bankrupt, ending its sponsorship of the talent search, and reinventing as nuclear energy company, and the domination of the search by people whose ancestry isn't western European.  

I sort of regret the first--I think nuclear should have a role in moving away from fossil fuels--and applaud the second--the more brains from more areas we have working the better off everyone will be. 

Douthat in the Times

 Ross Douthat had an op-ed which interested me. He argued both conservatives and liberals have divisions, basically along two dimensions: trust in people and trust in expertise.  

Conservatives have over their history distrusted democracy, the mob. That continues today in attempts to limit voting. What's newish is conservative dislike of experts, of science.  Education used to be a conservative force but now both science and education are associated with change.

Liberals have a history of expanding the right to vote, which continues. But since the Progressive era they've developed a belief in educated elites, particularly science and social science.

The tensions on both sides make for instability. 

(The above is what I took from the essay without going back to doublecheck my summary.)

Douthat's analysis works for me as a liberal. I don't agree with some liberal positions, but I maintain my faith in science.

What Constitutes "Race"?

 A question raised by recent reading--what constitutes "race"?   Disregarding the issue of whether or not "race" is real, it seems to me our understanding is historical, lacking background.  Specifically:

• African race is really a concept derived from past experience with slaves.  Although in the early years of slavery I understand that enslavers knew and understood difference in the people they imported from different parts/nations of Africa, as time went on those distinctions faded away into one "African" race.
• Today we easily use "Asian American" as equivalent to a "race".  In part that may be a carryover of history: whites treating the "Orient" as one big confusing place with "Orientals" as the race.  
• Today we have the information and the ability to distinguish between Nigerians and Gambians, and between Bhutanese, Nepalese, and Chinese. But having the ability doesn't mean we use that knowledge in our discussions.  

The Lab Leak Possibility

 For what it's worth, which is nothing, my memory is that early on the theories of the origin of the virus were the wet markets in Wuhan and a weaponized virus from the Wuhan lab, a theory according to something I read this week which was being pushed by Bannon. 

So when I read the Vanity Fair article, this passage strikes me as off:

 But on April 30, 2020, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence put out an ambiguous statement whose apparent goal was to suppress a growing furor around the lab-leak theory. It said that the intelligence community “concurs with the wide scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not manmade or genetically modified” but would continue to assess “whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals or if it was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan.”

Seems to me the ODNI was trying to suppress the Bannon--weaponized theory since they left open the lab-leak possibility.  And part of the push-back by US scientists was denying there was evidence in the virus genome of human manipulation, which would be a smoking gun for the lab leak. 

The other aspect was the determination by Trump and politicos after the virus hit the US to tie it to China--"Wuhan virus" etc. There's past precedent for using a location's name to identify a virus, but not for using it to attack the location.    So there were two triggers for Democrats to push back. The push back was perhaps as lacking in nuance as the Bannon/Trump positions.

Now I'll go back to reading the Vanity Fair article.

Our Chaotic Times Are New?

 Seb Falk in "The Light Ages" quotes the fourteenth century poet John Gower"

"For now at this time

men see the world on every side

changed in so many ways

that it well-nigh stands reversed."

I'm just through the first two chapters, and I like it very much.  Particularly enjoyed the explanation of math operations using Roman numerals (turns out to be not that hard with the tools and processes which had been invented). 

The Reality as Humans Perceive It Is Fractal

 What I'm trying to get at is a phenomena I think I see.  Scientific theories, or at least stories, prevail for a time, then get trashed.  But years or centuries later the new theory circles back to the old, at least in some respects. Two examples:

• Lamarckian theory of evolution said changes due to the environment can be passed down to the offspring.  A giraffe would extend its neck reaching for foliage, and the slightly longer neck could be passed on.  With Darwin this was thrown out. But recent genetics seems to have found cases where the first sentence is true.
• An article, I believe in Wired, I read today but didn't get the url.  It was a long piece on aerosol transmission of covid, a story of scientists researching and upsetting a long-established belief that droplets bigger than 5 microns were the key.  The scientists believe that much smaller aerosols are key in many viruses.  They have echoes of the long disdained "miasma" theory of the 19th century--the idea that cholera, yellow fever, etc. were transmitted by "bad air". 

The moral for today might be: take care in totally dismissing established theories--an element of truth may be hiding below the surface.

The Intelligence of Sperm Whales

Apparently sperm whales were intelligent enough to change their living patterns in response to humans hunting them in the 19th century.  Instead of gathering together, they learned to hightail out of Dodge when hunters appear.

It seems to me that one of the gradual changes in culture/science over my lifetime is the erosion of the boundaries between humans and animals.  It used to be a high wall, but these days we more often view humans as animals and animals as intelligent, whether it's sperm whales, ravens and other covids, octopus, etc.

Who Knew: Marine Heat Waves?

Jstor has a short piece on a paper discussing marine heat waves. 

It's disappointing for the layperson because there's no basic explanation--I never thought of such a thing until 2:30pm Nov. 15, 2019.

Turns out NOAA does research into them and there's a whole organization dedicated to them.  From that site:

WHAT IS A MARINE HEATWAVE?
We know that heatwaves occur in the atmosphere. We are all familiar with these extended periods of excessively hot weather. However, heatwaves can also occur in the ocean and these are known as marine heatwaves, or MHWs. These marine heatwaves, when ocean temperatures are extremely warm for an extended period of time can have significant impacts on marine ecosystems and industries.​ Marine heatwaves can occur in summer or winter - they are defined based on differences with expected temperatures for the location and time of year.

It seems that El Nino is a related phenomenon.  And I assume that since the air and the water are both fluids, you could have some of the same sort of variations in temperature occurring in each.

NYTimes Articles

Today the Times had one article on projections of world population.  The projection for max population is lower than before because of falling birth rates.

The Times also had an article on research into new crops, which said it was very important because of the "rapidly growing population." 

I find it a bit inconsistent.

What was interesting in the second article was scientists finding ways to plant and harvest multiple times during the year, up to 6 plant/harvest cycles for wheat.  That permits more rapid development of  new varieties.  Norm Borlaug, father of the Green Revolution, was a pioneer in this, moving to Mexico where he could do two crops of wheat a year. 

The Ants Say: Pareto Was Wrong

I've always believed the Pareto 80/20 rule had broad applicability.  But now scientists report it's even broader than I knew, but Pareto had the numbers wrong--it's really 70/30.  It turns out 70 percent of ants let the others do the digging of tunnels, which is important because otherwise you violate the "too many cooks in the kitchen" rule--the extra workers just run into each other.

Is Innovation Outstripping Our Imaginations?

Kottke reproduces a list of desired innovations written by Robert Boyle in the 17th century (Boyle was a central figure in the development of British science and the Royal Society).  Turns out we've done many of what he wanted (i.e., flying and plastics).  I wonder, and doubt, whether any one person today could come up with a similar list of innovations which will be implemented in the next 300 years.

Why Igloos Are Parabolic

NYTimes had an article on the vanishing art and science of building an igloo.  It's very interesting--my interest was particularly tweaked by the statement that igloos were not semicircular (or hemispheres) in shape but parabolic.

Why is that?  Google provides the answer:

"The bonded ice crystal structure of sintered snow holds up well under compression; it can bear substantial weight without crumbling. Under tension, however, the same block of snow would easily be torn apart with very little force. For this reason, a cross-section of an igloo more resembles a parabolic arch than a hemisphere" 

Architecture Week

With a semicircle, the portion of the walls which meet the ground are basically vertical, while the vector of the force from gravity is at an angle to the ground, the two are not aligned and the weight of the snow blocks above pushes out.  With a parabola, the portion of the walls next to the ground are aligned with the force pushing down down.

That paragraph was a struggle--too bad I can't go back to high school math to refresh my comprehension of vectors, etc.  
[Edited title]

Sciences: Geology, Economics

Noah Smith has a post discussing whether economics is a science.  Having taken geology as the "gut" course filling my science requirement albeit some 55 years ago, I'll raise my hand and say if geology is a science then economics is a science.  Geology was then a historical science, with some lab work involved.  I assume the lab work has expanded as knowledge has improved (didn't recognize continental drift back then, or was just starting to), but you've a similar problem, figuring out how the application of scientific generalizations over time has resulted in the current state of affairs.

Good and Bad for USDA--ARS

Politico has a piece entitled: "A tour of the government's 'nerd labs': The cutting-edge (and sometimes secret) labs where Washington tries to hatch the future.  ARS (Ag Research Service) is number on the list, after NIST and before DARPA.  That's complimentary.  What isn't so good is the date given for the establishment: 1953.

That's ridiculous; USDA was doing this work back in the 19th century, arguably even before USDA was established.  What they mean, of course, is that the agency was formed under its current name in 1953, but still.

Amish Dust Is Gold (for Asthma)

Two pieces in the NYTimes today on the same scientific research.

Briefly the Amish in Indiana have small dairy farms with barns near the house, the Hutterites have larger farms with bigger barns away from the housing quarters.  First exams of children from the two groups found significant differences in asthma, and in the underlying biology (too complex for me to summarize).  Experiments with dust from the two applied to mice reproduced the same differences in biology.

It's part of a recent theory--children today suffer because their environments are too sterile, while early exposure to a more varied environment can reduce asthma--but significant in that the experiment identifies the chain of biologic events at issue: which dust from which source.

Soon we may see the Amish making more by selling dust from their farms than by selling milk. :-)

I also found the cultural differences between Hutterites and Amish interesting.

Famous People and Breast Cancer

ScholarlyKitchen passes on a 12 minute video of the scientist who found the BRCA1 gene (breast cancer) describing a little bit of what went into that.  For a scientist she tells a funny story.

Messing With Plant Genes: the Fourth Way.

If we're counting, there were three ways for humans to mess with plant genes:

1. the time-honored method of selective breeding, picking the good ones from a crop and reproducing them.  The only way approved of by all.
2. direct genetic manipulation in the laboratory, inserting a gene from one species into the germplasm of another species.  This is called GMO, and it is considered bad by many, particularly in Europe, because it creates "unnatural" combinations of genes.  Many believe people must be given the information that they're eating/using such plants.
3. direct genetic manipulation in the laboratory, using CRISPR to remove genetic material from  germplasm.  Not sure that people have made up their minds about this.

Even before we make up our minds about CRISPR, scientists have come up with another way to mess with genes, using "RNA interference".The appeal is that it offers control over genes without modifying a plant’s genome—that is, without creating a GMO. From the piece:

That means sprays might sidestep much of the controversy around agricultural biotechnology. Or so companies hope. What’s certain is that a way to accomplish the goals of genetic engineering without having to develop a GMO could bring commercial rewards. Sprays might be quickly tailored to do battle with an insect infestation or a new type of virus. Not only could this be faster than creating new GM crops, but the gene-silencing effects of RNA interference last only a few days or weeks. That means you might spray on traits such as drought resistance in times of water shortage without affecting the plant’s performance in times of normal rainfall.

I know I don't understand this but the bottom line to me seems to be that the scientists are advancing faster than society is making rules. It's hard to see how those who object to GMO's (no. 2) could object to this.

[Update: Grist weighs in on RNA interference.  Suggests that Monsanto follow Google and change its name.]