The Half Baked Lunatic

  My eleven year old son has been fascinated with large numbers lately.  He’s asking all the typical thought provoking questions that eleven year olds tend to ask, like “how many stars are there in the universe?” and “how long would it take to walk to Alpha Centauri?” And of course, the number Googol is always a great benchmark, as in “Are there more than a Googol water molecules in the ocean?” So, how big is a Googol? I came up with the following example to explain to him how big a Googol really is. (And yes, the number Googol (10 to the 100th power) is spelled differently from the search engine, Google). In scientific notation, a Googol is typically displayed as 1×10100. Written out, this is a “one” with 100 “zeros” behind it, as such: 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 One interesting thing about our ability to use symbolic notation to represent and manipulate numbers is that we really don’t have to think about all the intermediate numbers when performing math problems.  For example, we can add 2,500 and 1,200 in our heads and come up with a sum of 3,700.  That’s easy.  And in doing so, we don’t need to think of – or even be aware of – the number 2,942, for example (or any of the other numbers in between).  If we had started from 2,500 and added 1,200 by counting, we would have had to go through each integer number, so that every number in between touches our consciousness – if even for the briefest instant. (And I specifically say “integer” to limit the exercise to whole numbers – we’re not even going to touch on the subject of irrational numbers!) This ability to use symbolic notation to represent and easily manipulate quantitative numbers is very powerful, and a big time saver – but it can be a bit of a crutch, as it allows us to compute VERY big numbers without having to really think about their absolute magnitude.  Co... [More]

Here’s an old high school physics puzzle, let’s see if you can get the right answer: You have perfectly insulated room (i.e., no heat can escape).  Inside the room is a refrigerator, plugged in and running – but the refrigerator door is left wide open. As the refrigerator runs, does the room: A – get colder B – get warmer C – stay the same temperature Think about it for a minute ... (and yes, I first heard this from my high school science teacher back in the late 70’s) The answer is ... (drum roll please!) ... “B” – the room will get warmer.  In fact, the room will get hot. So hot that the refrigerator will likely catch fire and the insulation will melt off the walls. Why? Because a refrigerator doesn’t “create” a cool environment, it just transfers heat from the inside chamber to the outside environment. And since it’s not 100% efficient, it actually creates substantial heat while doing this.  (Don’t worry, I didn’t get it right the first time either). Another way to look at it – you have energy going INTO the room (in the form of electricity) but because the room is perfectly insulated, no energy (in the form of heat) can ever escape FROM the room. I was thinking about this puzzle the other day while reading a report on global warming, and I thought of a follow up question: lets say that instead of having the refrigerator plugged into an outlet, you have a big bank of car batteries in the room – which are strong enough to power the refrigerator for some reasonable amount of time. Now, the energy is already IN the room from the beginning. Hmmm. As long as the fridge is not connected to the batteries, the temperature in the room will stay the same, of course. But as soon as you connect the batteries and the refrigerator starts running, heat will be generated. Batteries that store electricity are said to have “potential” energy; the energy isn’t actually activated until a circuit is made. Coal and oil in the ground have a s... [More]

I consider my family to be a fairly “healthy” eaters.  We consume a lot of fresh fruits and vegetables and eat very little fast food (only a few times a year). My kids are never allowed to drink soda, except when they are at a party or some function where there are no alternatives.  We eat a lot of fish and pasta.  And although I love beef, lamb, pork, and chicken, we limit our portion sizes and try to stick to lower fat recipes. However, I have mixed opinions about the “organic” food movement. I admit it’s important to openly discuss better/safer/healthier/environmentally friendly ways of feeding our growing population, and there are many organic products and processes I agree with wholeheartedly – but many of the organic guidelines are based on emotion rather than facts and real data. The use of synthetic fertilizers, for example, is one of the hottest topics. I liken the use of fertilizers to indoor plumbing. In the 1800’s, many people thought that the idea of defecating inside your own home was disgusting and unsanitary. Early toilets and sinks routinely backed up and would make a big mess.  And most importantly, the pipes were initially made of lead – which leached into the water supply. But eventually, these problems were worked out, and no one in the world can deny the benefits of indoor plumbing today. Instead of halting the use of synthetic fertilizers, as the organic community proposes, I think we need to admit that they have benefits – but continue to improve them and fix the problems.  In reality, “organic” farming methods are not always healthiest or the most environmentally friendly.  More water is required for organic farming, which means more runoff – and the runoff created from cow manure is just as harmful to lakes and streams as synthetic fertilizers. Since you can not grow nearly as many crops per acre of land using organic methods, you need more land – which means that more “natural” land and forests need to be... [More]

  I met with James Cameron a few times when I worked in the Windows Media Division at Microsoft.  Mr. Cameron had just finished the 3D IMAX documentary “Ghosts of the Abyss” and was looking at different technologies to use in an upcoming “big budget 3D production”. This was back in 2003 or so. In the first meeting, we just provided a broad overview of the technologies that Microsoft was working on, and had a general discussion on what he was looking for.  I must say, I was exceedingly impressed with Jim’s technical knowledge. Most “Writer/Director” types I’ve interacted with are great on the creative side but fairly light on the technical side. I pointed out that the digital camera that they used for the “Ghosts of the Abyss” had a subsampled horizontal resolution, and he jumped right in and told me how they solved that problem ... by tapping into the actual image sensor itself, bypassing the rest of the storage capabilities of the camera, they were able to capture the higher resolution image which the sensor was capable of, and store it directly to hard drives. I knew about this solution, but he had all the exact specs right off the top of his head and was able to describe, in perfect detail, how it worked. I scored some points with him as well, and he was in complete agreement with my opinion that full chroma resolution, known in the industry as 4:4:4, is absolutely critical for matting, chroma keying, and compositing special effects during production. But no one will ever see a difference between 4:4:4 and 4:2:2 (where the chroma information is subsampled by half) in a final distribution copy – even if it’s projected on a big screen in a movie theater. At the time, we (Microsoft) had just finished developing the Windows Media 9 Series Professional Video Codec (known as WMV9, which was later standardized as SMPTE specification VC-1). I was demonstrating the differences betwee... [More]

The year was 1996.  My wife had graduated from Medical School a few years earlier, and she was in her second year of residency at a large university medical center. The time was about 1:45 in the morning. And we were Wrestling the Anaconda. Ok, I need to back up a little bit.  My wife did her residency in Pathology.  She studied in both Anatomic and Clinical Pathology – but this particular year was strictly clinical work.  Although most people think that pathologists primarily perform autopsies (which is the “Anatomic” branch of the specialty), the majority of pathologists are actually on the “Clinical” side of the business.  Clinical pathologists run all the hospital lab functions – blood banks, specimen analysis, frozen sections, lab tests, etc.  During surgery for example, if a doctor is removing a cancerous cyst, they will send the specimen to the lab to have the margins checked.  The pathologist needs to analyze the lump, diagnose it while the patient is still under anesthesia, and make sure that the surgeon has cut into “clean” tissue all the way around.  If not, the surgeon needs to cut a little more. Most of these specimens are pretty small – typically a few millimeters up to a few centimeters.  But not the Anaconda. That was different. Years earlier, I had done some work as a lab tech so I was experienced enough to help out in the lab and was able to finagle a “volunteer” work badge – it wasn’t hard to get, they were always glad to have more volunteers.  When my wife was on call for the night shift, I would occasionally come to the hospital and help prepare slides, set up the microscopes, monitor equipment, log test results, anything I could do to help out. My wife was supposed to be off work at 11:00 on that fateful night.  But she called and said there was an emergency – a patient was just going in to surgery, a... [More]

All the data we have at this point says that the universe that is just under 13 billion years old.  The universe exploded from a big bang and after a brief period of inflation, it has been expanding steadily at the speed of light. Although there are still some unanswered details, most cosmologists agree on these basic points. From here, however, there are numerous opinions and conflicting theories on the basic nature of the universe. There are a few different mathematical models that show it’s possible that we can be living in an “open” universe which will continue to exponentially expand forever, a “flat” universe where the expansion will slow down and eventually stop at a certain size, or a “closed” universe that will reverse direction and eventually contract into a “big crunch” – presumably to explode again in another big bang (and with multiple series of “big bang/big crunch” cycles, we have an “oscillating universe”).  While all of these are mathematically feasible (and yes, I’m leaving out a few other good theories), the current data strongly suggests that we are in the “open” model, where the universe will continue to expand forever, until all the stars burn through their remaining fuel and all that’s left is ashes and space dust. Of course, there are many unanswered questions – such as, “what is the universe expanding into?” Some models, especially with a “closed” description, suggest an actual gravitational edge to the universe, where light and energy that hits the edge of the universe will curve around and end up coming in from the other side. In this view, there is nothing else – space doesn’t go on to infinity.  Euclidian geometry wraps around itself and we are trapped inside a bubble of energy and matter and there is nothing on the outside. Other models are more pragmatic: the edge of t... [More]

  For the last twenty years or so, my email signature has included the following:      Workman’s Law: In the movies, the skeptics of supernatural phenomena are always wrong. In real life, the skeptics of supernatural phenomena are always right.  I came up with "Workman's Law" after watching the movie Ghost Busters, somewhere around 1985.  Remember the creepy EPA inspector that wanted to shut down the Ghost Busters? That was the impetus for Workman's Law. He didn't believe in ghosts, he thought the Ghost Busters we're all a bunch of con artists, and everyone from the janitor to the mayor ridiculed him.  In the end, he was horribly slimed by the ghost and the audience applauded and everyone said "WHAT AN IDIOT!" It's a great movie, but it's not real life! Workman's Law has held up pretty well since then, I'm happy to say.  Here's a challenge for everyone: find me a movie where the skeptic turns out to be right (ok, I'll admit there may be a few) AND find me a real life supernatural phenomenon. I'll buy the winner a cheeseburger. Here's a great article posted in The Onion a few months ago: Evolutionists Flock to Darwin-Shaped Wall Stain. I love it!  

Here is one of my favorite math puzzles – commonly known as the “Monty Hall Goat Trick”.  It’s a wonderfully delicious problem that plays with your head. It has a psychological component that makes even the brightest of people swear that the obvious answer is the correct one, but it’s not! The game was a regular feature on “Let’s Make A Deal” – a strangely popular show back in the 70’s with legendary game show host Monty Hall. Pop culture at its finest (well, along with “The Gong Show”, of course).  During the show, some very lucky (and usually crazily dressed) person was selected from the studio audience to play the game, and had the chance to win A BRAND NEW CAR! (this became Monty Hall’s catchphrase). The puzzle has been discussed on hundreds of website, so it’s nothing new, but it's still one of my favorites. Stay with me if you haven’t run across this problem before … Let’s say you are the lucky participant that gets selected to play the game out of the studio audience. The rules of the game are simple: There are three doors.  Behind two doors is a goat and behind one of the three doors is A BRAND NEW CAR! You get to take home either a goat or a car. (Why they used a goat rather than, say, a duck, is beyond me. Goats are just funnier I guess.)  You choose one of the three doors and proudly proclaim your choice of "Door Number One", "Door Number Two", or "Door Number Three". After you’ve made your selection, Monty Hall would open one of the OTHER two other doors to reveal a goat. (out of the two remaining doors, one of them has to have a goat – possibly both of them if you happen to choose the door with the car). You are then asked if you would like to stay with your original sel... [More]

  Here is the second of my two talks that I gave at the Seattle chapter of the Ethical Culture Society, this one is from November 4, 2004. (See yesterday's post for the first ...) * * * * * What do you believe? David Workman   People can be very fervent in their beliefs.  I’m talking about the good old fashioned argument of science versus religion.  By religion, I mean the organizations whose purpose it is to evangelize a monotheistic God. What do you believe in?  Is there a god?  Is there a controlling “force” in the universe?  Is our existence and our future pre-determined for us? Our beliefs are based on our own experiences, what our parents and teachers teach us, what we read, whomever we decide is telling us the truth. And what about our sometimes irrational interpretations of all of the above?  We often choose mentors, consciously or unconsciously, whom we look up to and whose opinion we respect – and they have a great impact on what we believe in.  Sometimes the respect for another person’s opinion is based on a logical presentation of cold hard facts, sometimes on fear, sometimes on the charisma of the presenter. As a parent, I am continually afraid of someone “filling my kids head with a bunch of crap”, if you’ll pardon the popular expression.  Every parent feels this way – but every parent’s idea of “crap” is different.  For many parents, religious opinions are just the tip of the iceberg; you don’t dare talk to their kids about politics, off-color humor, sex education, the right to bear arms, or if the Cubs will win the World Series next year. Ultimately, we need to guide our children in the beliefs, ideals, and ethics we think are important, but let them choose their own path.  Oftentimes, the harder you force a particular point of view, t... [More]