Einstein’s special theory of relativity differs from ordinary Galilean relativity in that the scientist who ended up looking like a beat poet made the assumption that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames.  That and the key word “inertial” makes the theory “special,” as opposed to “general.”  (This is an over-simplification—the general theory is really a non-quantum theory of gravity, generalizing Newtonian gravity).  Back in September, physicists associated with the Italian Opera experiment shook the world in announcing that Einstein’s assumption was incorrect.  A sensor detected CERN-emitted neutrinos 453 miles away—the distance divided by the time lag gives a velocity.

Scientists hit the hooch, refusing to believe the results.  As an ex-scientist, I did too.  Over a century of experiments had confirmed Einstein’s assumption (it’s still true in the general theory, by the way).  I had a number of people ask me about the experiment.  Some even said, “Wow, Einstein was wrong!”  My response was, “Let’s wait and see.”  One experiment doesn’t overturn a theory—repeated experimental confirmation is required.  The lesson learned here is that, whether he was right or wrong, Eisnstein was just a very able theoretician.  Experiments determine the physics and the scientific method always prevails—theories have to be tested.  In this case, the disbelief spurred experimentalists to check the Opera results.

(more…)

The media has become fixated on spontaneous symmetry breaking and the Higgs boson (the so-called “God particle,” a name that would surely make Mr. Higgs cringe).  The Higgs mechanism (i.e. the spontaneous symmetry breaking) is necessary to give mass to some of the vector bosons in the electroweak or weak and electromagnetic interaction theory.  Forgotten in all this media hoopla is the theory that led to the idea of quarks and gluons, the Eightfold Way of symmetries popularized by Mr. Gell-Mann.  (Note that I refrain from using the term “discovered.”  In theoretical physics, the math is “out there.”  You just have to figure out what math matches up to the experimental data.  Experimental physics is where “discoveries” are made.)

Now that I’ve had some fun imagining your eyes glazing over as if you’d just had tequila mixed with sleeping pills, let me say that this post is not about physics.  (My eyes are glazed too, because the above is hardcore physics, and I’ve been sipping my Jameson’s while writing like a madman.)  The Eightfold Way I consider here is the shining path that leads you to a finished novel that someone might want to read. It’s my distillation of rules for writing a novel—a distillation that is not the quality of a fine Irish whiskey, but I’ve put some thought to it and would like to share (I’d like to share the Jameson’s too, but the internet hasn’t discovered e-drinking yet).

(more…)

On Tuesday, I received an “urgent alert to the APS membership:  funding cuts to NSF, NIST.”  Let me translate the acronymese.  APS is the American Physical Society.  I’m a member.  Although I am now a full-time writer, I used to be a physicist, among other things (people have called me many things, in fact).  NSF, of course, is the National Science Foundation.  NIST is the lesser known National Institute of Standards and Technology (the name is a late addition, probably to get more funding—it used to be called National Bureau of Standards).  The issue is that the Senate Appropriations Committee, that august body of mostly senile and small-minded thinkers who often sit in the Senate for a lifetime, has proposed cuts to both NSF and NIST in its FY 2012 budget for Commerce, Justice and Science agencies.  (Since NIH, the National Institutes of Health, does research for the drug companies, I’m not sure whether they’re a commerce or science agency, but they weren’t mentioned by APS.)

(more…)

(Philip Yaffe, Science for the Concerned Citizen, eBook, ASIN B005G0JH2G)

This pleasant and educational little book is a potpourri of tidbits about science and scientists.  Mr. Yaffe’s motivation for writing it is commendable:  there are many popular misconceptions about and outright hostility to science among many laypersons.  None of this is healthy.  His reason is the same as mine, but I’ll state it more strongly:  If society’s average knowledge level is only that of a technological savage (a person that uses gizmos without understanding anything about how they work), society can only through pure damn luck find smart and ethical solutions to global warming, cloning, alternative energy, water usage, and so forth.  In other words, we have a moral imperative to learn enough science to vote wisely.  In a representative democracy, this also goes for the representatives of the people (their ignorance sometimes is frightening).

(more…)

First off, let me advise my readers right up front that I love Broadway.  I’d much rather go see a bad Broadway or even off-Broadway play than watch any reality (far from it) show on TV.  In fact, if I were rich and had the energy, I’d be in NYC every week.  Both cost and energy keep my attendance down, whereas I won’t watch reality TV even if you paid me to do it (well, I suppose I do have my price—something like the last Megamillions jackpot would be nice).  I even enjoy regurgitated Disney schlock like Mary Poppins and The Lion King. My favorite show was the off-Broadway classic The Fantasticks, although I saw Phantom twice, once in NYC and once in Boston.

That said, last Friday I was struck by a segment of ABC’s Good Morning America where they had the cast from the revival of Cole Porter’s Anything Goes doing the musical number “Anything Goes.”  This music is so old that I played it in dance band in high school.  Right after or just before there was an ad for the new Broadway show The Book of Mormon, written by the South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone, with music by Robert Lopez.  This is new, very new.

(more…)

I’ll give retrograde conservatives credit—they always seem to be more focused than liberal progressives.  In fact, the general fickleness of liberal progressives is often amusing.  Already they are screaming “Chernobyl!” and “Three-Mile Island!”  and “Down with Nuclear Power!” when just months ago they were wringing hands about the oil spill BP caused in the Gulf of Mexico.  You can’t have it both ways, folks.  One example taken from Dave Lindorff, Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist, says it all—his ThisCantBeHappening.net article is titled “The Idiocy and Hubris of Engineers” and comes down hard on GE and their reactors.  Mind you, Mr. Lindorff has no scientific or engineering training and quotes only so-called experts that support his agenda—apparently idiocy and hubris are contagious?

(more…)

(Review of Steven Manly’s Visions of the Multiverse, New Page Books, 2011, ISBN 978-1-60163-129-9)

Visions of the Multiverse is a very readable introduction to some very strange concepts in physics.  Its advantage is that it’s short and requires no math expertise from the lay reader, even though much of it is really about mathematics.  However, it does require you to think about things.  Its disadvantage is that it’s short and requires no math expertise—in other words, you may arrive at the end somewhat dissatisfied by your lack of understanding of these topics.  If that’s the case, bless your soul, there are more meaty tomes (also with little or no mathematics) that expand on the ideas contained in this book.  (I’ll mention some of them below.)

(more…)

Like three hundred million other Americans, I was moved by the untimely and senseless death of Christina-Taylor Green, the nine-year-old victim of the Arizona shooter.  Perhaps the syrupy media attention and Mr. Obama’s moving words, which dominated his eulogy of the victims and praise for the heroes, is just what we need to pull this nation back together.  However, the rational part of me, not the emotional, tells me that this is an impossible task unless we come to some consensus based on cold logic and unemotional compromise.

(more…)