Terahertz

“Evolution isn’t true because clocks never spontaneously evolve,” well if you make them alive and breed them in a computer simulation you can have clocks form from a pile of gears.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0]

This is one of those things that has been stirring in the back of my mind for a while and I’ve been trying to figure out how it could be realized.

The simple thing is: democracy doesn’t work anymore.

I say anymore because of how society has changed since the ancient Greeks. In their times it was easy for the voting population to remain informed on the issues in an election, and to participate in direct democracy. Although even that may be arguable since many Greeks lacked the right to vote (women, slaves), and about a sixth of their voting population regularly exercised that right (reference).

Regardless, my main issue with modern democracy is a combination of voter apathy and voter ignorance. Apathy bothers me less if the people are not voting because they don’t understand the issues, but what does is people who do vote, but don’t have knowledge of the candidates, their stances, and the issues. This issue is compounded when elections become about image, advertising, and money (to spread the message). Although one might argue that the failure of Alnoor Kassam, the mayoral candidate in Calgary’s recent election, despite a million dollar civic campaign, is a point against me, I respond that he just had a poor image, and people need to be really pissed at the current mayor to elect a different one (since they never really paid attention to what was done or could have been done during his or her term).

The major issue I see is that people who are voting are not taking the time to become informed as to the issues in the election, and are more voting with their gut (or how their peers voted etc.). The conservative Cato Institute even has a fairly nicely written article here outlining the very same issues I am attempting to articulate – note that this mainly uses American examples, but I think the results can be extended to Canada. The solution posed by the Cato Institute is naturally smaller government, but I’m not sure that would be enough.

Ideally an oligarchy of intellectual elites could rule a country, but “absolute power corrupts absolutely” would assure that a system like that would fall into a dictatorship very quickly.  So I can’t really say that is the right way to go.

I’ve thought that a simple current events quiz before voting could help, but such a test would always fall to bias and discrimination of some sort.

Perhaps electoral reforms to preferential ballots would help (each persons vote would be worth something) and/or proportional representation would help in killing some apathy, and hey, if you get to rank candidates you’re probably going to care about more than just one of them (I really hope).

Regardless, I don’t see much changing in Alberta or Canada for a while – at least not until a government in power wants to change it (which they wouldn’t want to since it takes the current system to get unfair majorities).

This is one of those things that has been stirring in the back of my mind for a while and I’ve been trying to figure out how it could be realized.

The simple thing is: democracy doesn’t work anymore.

I say anymore because of how society has changed since the ancient Greeks. In their times it was easy for the voting population to remain informed on the issues in an election, and to participate in direct democracy. Although even that may be arguable since many Greeks lacked the right to vote (women, slaves), and about a sixth of their voting population regularly exercised that right (reference).

Regardless, my main issue with modern democracy is a combination of voter apathy and voter ignorance. Apathy bothers me less if the people are not voting because they don’t understand the issues, but what does is people who do vote, but don’t have knowledge of the candidates, their stances, and the issues. This issue is compounded when elections become about image, advertising, and money (to spread the message). Although one might argue that the failure of Alnoor Kassam, the mayoral candidate in Calgary’s recent election, despite a million dollar civic campaign, is a point against me, I respond that he just had a poor image, and people need to be really pissed at the current mayor to elect a different one (since they never really paid attention to what was done or could have been done during his or her term).

The major issue I see is that people who are voting are not taking the time to become informed as to the issues in the election, and are more voting with their gut (or how their peers voted etc.). The conservative Cato Institute even has a fairly nicely written article here outlining the very same issues I am attempting to articulate – note that this mainly uses American examples, but I think the results can be extended to Canada. The solution posed by the Cato Institute is naturally smaller government, but I’m not sure that would be enough.

Ideally an oligarchy of intellectual elites could rule a country, but “absolute power corrupts absolutely” would assure that a system like that would fall into a dictatorship very quickly.  So I can’t really say that is the right way to go.

I’ve thought that a simple current events quiz before voting could help, but such a test would always fall to bias and discrimination of some sort.

Perhaps electoral reforms to preferential ballots would help (each persons vote would be worth something) and/or proportional representation would help in killing some apathy, and hey, if you get to rank candidates you’re probably going to care about more than just one of them (I really hope).

Regardless, I don’t see much changing in Alberta or Canada for a while – at least not until a government in power wants to change it (which they wouldn’t want to since it takes the current system to get unfair majorities).

This is one of those things that has been stirring in the back of my mind for a while and I’ve been trying to figure out how it could be realized.

The simple thing is: democracy doesn’t work anymore.

I say anymore because of how society has changed since the ancient Greeks. In their times it was easy for the voting population to remain informed on the issues in an election, and to participate in direct democracy. Although even that may be arguable since many Greeks lacked the right to vote (women, slaves), and about a sixth of their voting population regularly exercised that right (reference).

Regardless, my main issue with modern democracy is a combination of voter apathy and voter ignorance. Apathy bothers me less if the people are not voting because they don’t understand the issues, but what does is people who do vote, but don’t have knowledge of the candidates, their stances, and the issues. This issue is compounded when elections become about image, advertising, and money (to spread the message). Although one might argue that the failure of Alnoor Kassam, the mayoral candidate in Calgary’s recent election, despite a million dollar civic campaign, is a point against me, I respond that he just had a poor image, and people need to be really pissed at the current mayor to elect a different one (since they never really paid attention to what was done or could have been done during his or her term).

The major issue I see is that people who are voting are not taking the time to become informed as to the issues in the election, and are more voting with their gut (or how their peers voted etc.). The conservative Cato Institute even has a fairly nicely written article here outlining the very same issues I am attempting to articulate – note that this mainly uses American examples, but I think the results can be extended to Canada. The solution posed by the Cato Institute is naturally smaller government, but I’m not sure that would be enough.

Ideally an oligarchy of intellectual elites could rule a country, but “absolute power corrupts absolutely” would assure that a system like that would fall into a dictatorship very quickly.  So I can’t really say that is the right way to go.

I’ve thought that a simple current events quiz before voting could help, but such a test would always fall to bias and discrimination of some sort.

Perhaps electoral reforms to preferential ballots would help (each persons vote would be worth something) and/or proportional representation would help in killing some apathy, and hey, if you get to rank candidates you’re probably going to care about more than just one of them (I really hope).

Regardless, I don’t see much changing in Alberta or Canada for a while – at least not until a government in power wants to change it (which they wouldn’t want to since it takes the current system to get unfair majorities).

I just read an amazing article about a better way to explain or illustrate the concepts of evolution to people it may be unfamiliar to entitled “Evolution and the Wisdom of Crowds.”  He uses the examples of Wikipedia, prediction markets, and the Netflix recommendation system to explain how evolution can produce things which seem intelligently designed, but don’t have to be.

Do yourself a favour and read the article.

A little bit of quantum mechanics is a dangerous thing to learn.

Basically every particle, energy, light, etc. in the known universe can be described by a wavefunction ?. This kind of (as in the square of the wavefunction is proportional to the probability) represents the probability of finding a particle (photon, virtual particle, whatever), in a certain state (position, energy level, velocity, whatever). When an observer (this is a tough term to define), directly or indirectly observes the particle it’s wavefunction collapses to some defined value and it behaves normally/classically (until that point it kind of doesn’t exist in any specific state, but can still interact with other things). This overall explanation gives all matter a sort of wave-like parameter that some people equate to a particle-wave duality of nature.

All of this is defined by this beautiful, but complex (literally and mathematically) formula, known as the Schroedinger Equation:

where H(t) usually isn’t very pretty.

Solving this equation requires third to forth-year university physics and math (or at least training in partial differential equations – lots of calculus).

Unfortunately, most people don’t continue physics past grade 10, let alone to that level, so this creates a problem, because the results are so unusual that people want to interpret them.

Another issue is the thing deBroglie discovered, known as the deBroglie wavelength:

where a particle has mass m, velocity v, and h is Planck’s constant. So a 60kg person travelling at mach 1 has a wavelength of 3.7 x 10^-31 metres (for comparison the radius of hydrogen is 5 x 10^-11 meters.

So what does all this mean?

First. Quantum mechanics has ABSOLUTELY NO relevance at macroscopic scales.

Second. The results of quantum mechanics fall out of the advanced mathematics required to solve the Schroedinger’s Equation, and loose pseudo-physics interpretations are almost always wrong.

But what I really want to get to is the idea I’ve heard that quantum mechanics means that perhaps there is an intelligent observer (god) who is needed to collapse the wavefunction of the universe (or all of us in it).

I think this argument is pretty invalid because of those length scales first, and second because as far as all of our experiments have shown, we are as intelligent observers as necessary to collapse the wavefunction of particles, so there is nothing really necessary outside of the universe to collapse us.  It’s kind of like Schroedinger’s cat knows damn well whether it’s alive or not, even if we cannot know until opening the box.

So the moral of the story: “Do not bastardize quantum mechanics by implying that it has shit all to do with your crazy theories.”

How dare Dakwin’s insult astrology in his documentary Enemies of Reason.  He has not spent years studying astrology, he does not know the exact meaning of each of the planets and what it means for Uranus to oppose Venus, or the significance of each equinox.  Why it’s as though one would think he’d have the gusto to insult religion without being a trained theologian.

My point here is pretty obvious (I hope), it’s about as appropriate to say someone cannot criticize religion without being a trained theologian as one cannot criticize astrology without being a trained astrologer. I realized this one evening in bed, but later realized that it was a repeat with a different punchline (and not as eloquent) as PZ Myers spoof.

Here’s a brief reference of articles (from this great anti-astronomical pseudo-science resource) that discredit those who believe astrology is something more and may disagree with me (these of course tend to be scientists published in science journals, and if you have a problem with that relearn the scientific method as it stands today):

Abell, G. “Astrology — Its Principles and Relation and Nonrelation to Science” in The Science Teacher, Dec. 1974, p. 9. An early debunking article.

Bok, B., et al. “Objections to Astrology” in The Humanist, Sep/Oct. 1975. A special issue devoted in large part to this subject.

Carlson, S. “Astrology” in Experientia, vol. 44, p. 290 (1988). A clear review.

Carlson, S. “A Double Blind Test of Astrology” in Nature, vol. 318, p. 419 (5 Dec. 1985). A technical paper describing a good experiment examining whether astrology works.

Dean, G. “Does Astrology Need to be True?” in Skeptical Inquirer, Winter 86-87, p. 116; Spring 1987, p. 257. An important examination of tests about astrology.

Dean, G. & Kelly, I. “Does Astrology Work: Astrology and Skepticism 1975-2000″ in Kurtz, Paul, ed. Skeptical Odysseys. 2001, Prometheus Books.

Dean, G., et al. “The Guardian Astrology Study: A Critique and Reanalysis” in The Skeptical Inquirer, Summer 1985, p. 327.

Dean, G., et al. “Astrology” in Gordon Stein, ed. The Encyclopedia of the Paranormal. 1996, Prometheus Books, p. 47-96. Long readable introduction.

Fraknoi, A. “Your Astrology Defense Kit” in Sky & Telescope, Aug. 1989, p. 146. An introductory article with some basic skeptical questions about astrology. (Available on the web at:
http://www.astrosociety.org/education/astro/act3/
astrology3.html#defense)

Fraknoi, A. “Astrology Versus Astronomy” in Astronomy, Jan. 1999, p. 102. Concise note.

Kelly, I. “Modern Astrology: A Critique” in Psychological Reports, vol. 81, p. 1035 (1997). An excellent review. (An expanded version can be found on the first web site recommended below.)

Kelly, I.” Why Astrology Doesn’t Work” in Psychological Reports, vol. 82, p. 527 (1998).

Kelly, I. “The Scientific Case Against Astrology” in Mercury, Nov/Dec. 1980, p. 135.

Kelly, I. “Astrology and Science: A Critical Examination” in Psychological Reports, vol. 44, p. 1231 (1979).

Kruglak, H. & O’Bryan, M. “Astrology in the Astronomy Classroom” in Mercury, Nov/Dec 1977, p. 18.

Kurtz, P. & Fraknoi, A. “Scientific Tests of Astrology Do Not Support Its Claims” in Skeptical Inquirer, Spring 1985, p. 210.

Kurtz, P., et al. “Astrology and the Presidency” in Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1988, p. 3. A good summary of the controversy concerning astrology in the Reagan White House.

Lovi, G. “Zodiacal Signs Versus Constellations” in Sky & Telescope, Nov. 1987, p.507.

Mc Gervey, J. “A Statistical Test of Sun-sign Astrology” in Skeptical Inquirer, Spring/Summer 1977, p. 49.

Nienhuys, J. “The Mars Effect in Retrospective” in Skeptical Inquirer, Nov/Dec. 1997, p. 24. Good summary of the current research on what seemed to be one lone test confirming astrology. (see also, Dean, G. “Is the Mars Effect a Social Effect” in Skeptical Inquirer, May/June 2002, p. 33.)

Rotton, J. “Astrological Forecasts and the Commodity Market” in Skeptical Inquirer, Summer 1985, p. 339.

Basically my main point here is as follows: “it is entirely fair to discredit something even if you aren’t formally trained in it, so long as you can legitimately question the foundations of the belief.”  Knowing the ins and outs of every verse of the New and Old Testaments can’t demonstrate whether or not god exists, in the same way knowing each of the meanings associated with the planets (or remembering all the “rules of correspondence” for the stars and planets).

So don’t discredit atheist authors for denying god because they aren’t theologians.  If you do want some atheists trained in the bible try Dan Barker, and others.

This past weekend I attended the Canadian Undergraduate Physics Conference at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver (and Burnaby), British Columbia, and it was a hoot!

What tops my list is hearing the talk from Dr. Lene Hau who used Bose-Einstein Condensates to slow, stop, and even transport light!  This has gotten me interested in the entire field of BEC and atom trapping and I’m now in contact with Dr. Kirk Madison at UBC about a potential summer job in his lab next year (and maybe grad school after).

I must complain that the majority of the people I met from the University of Calgary were tremendous douchebags – and I don’t say that out of a school rivalry.  We listened to one of their talks (which wasn’t even that good), and midway through he insulted another university (over a plagiarism scandal that was likely unrelated to the paper he was referencing) and after he muttered that the audience was “boring” when they didn’t ask him any questions.  Another guy from their school was running through the hall on our floor and some chick yelled “you’re a nice guy, I just don’t want to fuck you” (or something to that extent), who also is rumoured to have gotten his funding cut for getting a tattoo when he was supposed to be presenting his poster (which was pretty abhorrent – ie. didn’t present anything expect what sounded like a dreamt up unresearched paradox, handdrawn, with links to pictures).  And even in talking with them they were just not nice.  We did meet one nice UofC Physics guy, so I don’t want to shame them all, just the majority of them.

As for the rest of the conference though, it was fantastic.  We saw TRIUMF and SFU Physics labs.  I presented and was later told by someone that he heard my talk was good – as in someone passed along good words about my talk.  Overall it was a great experience.

Greta Christina posted a great article which pretty much sums up what one can be upset about when being atheist/agnostic/non-religious.  Many of these are reasons organizations like our UofA Atheists and Agnostics have come into existance.

When I say I am an Atheist by Dave Mason

When I say, “I’m an Atheist,” I’m not saying, “There is no god”
All I’m really getting at is faith is just a fraud

When I say, “I’m an Atheist,” I’m not criticizing you
I’m critical of bad beliefs — The things that can’t be true

When I say, “I’m an Atheist,” I sigh and shake my head
I’m the one responsible for things I did and said

When I say, “I’m an Atheist,” I like what can be proven
My feelings do not dictate me — Emotions aren’t that movin’

When I say, “I’m an Atheist,” I believe in evolution
To chalk this up to one great dude is not a good solution

When I say, “I’m an Atheist,” I must treasure every day
This life is all we’ve really got — Can’t let it waste away

When I say, “I’m an Atheist,” I’m not saying that I’m bad
The fact that many think we are is really very sad