I can get along very well without such a program

Computers are so commonplace nowadays, many people do not understand why they are so useful.

Here is the rub, computers understand nothing but two numbers, a “1” and a “0”. They are just, when all said and done, a bunch of switches that are either “on” (a “1”) or “off” (a “0”).l

Humans do not see this level, All we see are games, photos, movies, etc.

But the real reason computers work is that these very zeroes and ones can be looked upon in more than one way.

It is similar to the USE-MENTION distinction in English. To elaborate, the word “bubblegum” is a word. I don’t chew it. I just look at the word. However, I DO chew bubblegum. The quotation marks signify the “mention” of the word, as without them, the word is actually “used” in the sentence – I chew bubblegum. It describes an action.

“bubblegum” describes the word. Bubblegum describes the product.

Computers understand the 1s and 0s in at least four different ways, in the same way that bubblegum above is understood in two ways.

Here is a short computer program in the computer language AKIKOKAKOLA to do the sum 1 + 1 = 2:

0001 PROGRAM STUPID
0002 INTEGER x, y, z
0003 x = 0
0004 y = 0
0005 z = 0
0006 PRINT “Hi, this program adds 1 and 1”
0007 INPUT “Please type in 1”, x
0008 INPUT “Please type in 1 again”, y
0009 IF ((x = 1).AND.( y = 1 ))THEN CONTINUE ELSE GOTO 0002
0010 PRINT “Thank you for your input”
0011 z = x + y
0012 PRINT “The answer is “, z
0013 PRINT “Congratulations!”

Line 1 is the program name (STUPID because it just does 1 + 1 )

Line 2 introduces x, y and z.

Lines 3 – 5 starts them off at zero.

PRINT outputs text to the screen. INPUT does the same but accepts numbers as well. Lines 7 and 8 ask you to type in “1”

Line 9 is the most important, It is a test to make sure you have typed in the two “1”s. If you did, the program CONTINUEs. If you didn’t, it makes a jump back to line 2, and starts again.

The last two lines give the result, 2.

All the words above are represented inside the computer as 1’s and 0’s. Here is where the USE-MENTION distinction comes in, only with computers, there are more than two meanings to the 1’s and 0’s.

The “x”, etc are regarded as data, i.e. information (numbers). INPUT, PRINT, GOTO, etc are “commands”, i.e. instructions. The 0001, 0002, etc are locations in logical steps to be done one after the other.

The most important aspect of computers is in line 0009. The 1’s and 0’s that are in the computer are here to be regarded as “locations” to be “jumped” to, depending on if the “data” inside the “x” and “y” is correct or not. It is this capability to “jump” unique to computers, as opposed to calculators, that enables more complex calculations to be performed (such as 2 + 2 = 4)

The point is that a sequence of 1’s and 0’s can be regarded as representing a number (1), a character (i.e. letter), an instruction (GOTO) or a location (0002 or 0010).

That’s four, so to revert back to our English language analogy, it could be termed the NUMBER-CHARACTER-INSTRUCTION-LOCATION distinction.

This is the sole reason why computers are so powerful.

Incidentally, there is no such computer language as AKIKOKAKOLA, I made it up, but the program principles raised here can be implemented in FORTRAN, PASCAL, BASIC, LISP, and even COBOL (in COBOL, there would be at least 70 lines, as opposed to my thirteen)

The age of writing bespoke computer programs is largely dead now, for the simple reason ICL implemented a package in the late 1980’s called “Quickbuild”, which wrote it’s own programs.

Writing programs is now limited to scientists who need to design simulations based on the latest models of how something works, be it galaxy evolution, black hole physics, or even something as humble as quantum mechanics.

It’s the Attraction

Many people do not understand electric charge. Maybe because it is enshrouded inside Physics. However, it is quite easy to explain.

There are two bits, and they are opposite to each other. If two of these which are the same are near each other, they push the other one away. If they are different, they clutch each other vehemently.

That is the basis of “Electrostatics”.

Having noticed that this happens, it was a logical step to find out how much they pushed each other away, or clutched each other (vehemently).

So the “push” or “pull” was measured with “pushing and pulling” measuring devices (“springs”).

For want of better names, we called each bit “positive” and “negative”. I think that “ding” and “dong”, or “Laurel” and “Hardy”, are much more interesting. I will stick with the latter because it is more fun.

So, Laurel-Laurel and Hardy-Hardy push each other away, and Laurel-Hardy love each other dearly.

But how much?

A Law emerged. It is named after two different scientists, depending on the certification.

Coulomb’s Law for the kids ( PG rating), and Gauss’ Law for the adults (18 rating).

The PG goes like this –

The amount of push (or pull) is found by multiplying together the number of all the Laurels and all the Hardys, and dividing the answer by how much distance there is between them. There ARE mitigating circumstances (such as you have to multiply this distance by itself before dividing, and then multiplying this very answer by something else which never changes), but in essence, this is Coulomb’s Law.

In Symbols, it becomes:


Where q1 and q2 are how many Laurels and Hardys there are respectively, and r is the distance between them.

Because Laurel and Hardy are opposite, we need to put a “minus” (“-“) sign in front of one of the numbers (it does not matter which). Then, because of the physics and math at work, the “push” answer is a number greater than zero, and the “pull” answer is a number less than zero.

That’s it! From these simple observations, all electricity began. Without this knowledge, there would be no lighting, music, television, computers, satnav, or even cars ( I will leave you to work the last one out).

All That Tedious Mucking About…..

…in Hyperspace.

Much is made of “hyperspace”, but just what is it? Many science fiction writers have used the idea as a means to travel great distances easily.

There have been many ways in science fiction to overcome the fact that to travel to even the nearest galaxy would take 2 million years even at the speed of light.

In Star Trek, it was the “warp” drive”.

In Dune, the spice Melange gave travellers the ability to “fold” space and to “travel without moving”.

In The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, it is the Infinite Improbability Drive.

But most writers, especially in Star Wars, use “hyperspace” as a means to solve the problem.

This usually involves some way which space itself is manipulated so that a “tunnel” is created to take the traveller to another part of the Universe – a “short cut”.

The only feasible way to do this, in realistic physics, is to somehow harness the power of a black hole and its enormous gravitational pull. Way back when we were just getting used to General Relativity, Einstein and Rosen speculated that if a black hole’s gravity was strong enough to punch a hole in spacetime, might the “hole” not open up somewhere else in spacetime?

Indeed the “Einstein – Rosen Bridge” was the basis of a whole TV series called “Sliders”, starring Jerry O’Connell.The problem with this “bridge” was the black hole in the middle of it. Hit that and you are dead, and gravity will always suck you to it.

Roger Penrose in the 1960’s thought that a rotating black hole might have the form of a donut, so if you are skilful enough to fly through its centre, you would come out, MAYBE, 10,000 million light years from where you started, in real time.

The way to visualise it is like this:













If we regard the four dimensions of spacetime as only two, then the Universe would appear to be as a flat rubber sheet, with depressions caused by the stars due to their gravity. A black hole has enough gravity to create an infinitely deep depression, or maybe even to tear a hole in the “sheet”. Imagine, as the diagram suggests, that the sheet is “folded”, and the black hole can “come out” on another part of the “sheet”. It is obvious that the time to travel this short distance is far less than travelling “the long way round”, on normal spacetime. (Sort of begs the question as to what “abnormal” spacetime is, but then again…)

This “space” between the “sheets” was subsequently named “hyperspace”, and the amazing thing is that physics does not rule it out. Lest we forget, we are talking about black hole manipulation here, and as such, requires enormous engineering effort, but the main idea is absolutely NOT forbidden by physics.

In a very real sense, then, physics is actually constrained by its own applications.

It has even been speculated that should such an “Einstein-Rosen” bridge exist, it may not even take the traveller to the same universe, and recalling that spacetime involves “time”, there will be absolutely no guarantee that the traveller will even emerge just after he travelled through the bridge – he could actually end up a million years BC, or 2.414 trillion years AD.

The Beauty of Nature

"There once was an Ugly Duckling, whose..."

As Danny Kaye would have said.

Nature says different.

Has anyone ever wondered why a rectangle is more pleasing to see than a square?

Or that doors are rectangular rather than any other shape?

Letterboxes are not not circular?

Sidewalk slabs are not round?

Bricks are brick-shaped?

There is a natural number OTHER than "e", that figures in all of this. It's name is "Phi", (yawn), yes another Greek letter. It's value is about 1.618033988.

It is the only number that becomes it's own reciprocal by subtracting unity. (to those unfamiliar with these terms, let me just say that 0.618033988 is the same number as 1/1.618033988)

This writer's first encounter was when she used arithmetic series and geometric series. The first is where each number is the result of adding another number to the same one all the time, for example 1,3,5,7,9,11,13 thus adding two to each. The second is where you multiply instead, 1,3,9,27,81,243,729 etc multiplying them all by three. I chose the first two numbers 1 and 3 as an example.

The first is governed by a "common difference", the second by a "common ratio". The first has common difference of 2, the second, a common ratio of 3.

My question to myself when I was 13 (and a half) was "What is the algebra for the case when "common ratio" is the same as "common difference" ?"

The answer was a simple quadratic equation, the solutions of which were 1.618033988..... and 0.618033988...



There once was an Ugly duckl.... no, there once was a guy named Fibonacci, whose numbers were stuffy and frowned (upon) .

They were...

1, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34 55, 88.... etc

Get outta town!!

Every number was the sum of the two before.

I advise you to get a calculator out at this point and point it at two numbers that are side-by-side in that sequence, no, no! , continue the sequence by adding the last two together. Divide them. You will will either get 1.618033988... or 0.618033988... depending on which was the denominator.

The "Fibonacci Sequence" obeys the same rules as the "Common" differences and ratios as mentioned previously.

It is also present in sunflowers, the way trees branch, fractals, and all sundry items nature intended us to find it in.

I would advise the reader to go check out "Golden rectangles" and logarithmic spirals.

What happens when you intersect three golden rectangles in the three planes?

Either the Ether is Wrong, or the Light is Right

Everyone, since the Dawn of Man, has been able to see.

What do we see with? Our eyes. This thing called "light" is produced somewhere (most often "The Sun", and this "light" bounces off stuff and zaps right into our eyes, hitting the back of the eye to produce electrical signals which the brain interprets as "pictures".

But just what IS it that causes all this?

It has long been known that light exhibits wave properties, like ripples on a pond. Einstein showed that sometimes it can behave like a stream of particles. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for his explanation of the photoelectric effect in 1921.

However, let's backtrack a bit, to the early 1800's. Light was thought to be well-known, but thinkers thunked about it a little more. IF it was a wave and it was passing through empty space from the Sun to the Earth, what was it that was "waving"?

Waves in water need water, waves in air (sound) need air. What does light need?

Light is part of a bigger picture called "The Electromagnetic Spectrum", which includes infrared, ultraviolet, superradio and megaTV. All of the same thing except wavelength.

But what was waving? A-Ha! It must be something that permeates all space that only light can wave in! Of course! Let's give it a name - "The Ether"! So in 1896, Mr Michelson and Mr Morley decided to try and track the flow of "The Ether" as the Earth passed through it. The method was simple - have a beam of light interfere with itself and the passage of the Earth through "The Ether" would show itself as a change in the pattern. So they set up a scenario of two perpendicular interference patterns from the same light source, with the idea that they should differ in the same way that a boat has to be pointed differently when crossing a fast-flowing river, (partially upstream), as opposed to straight when there is no current.

They stood, the waited, and waited.

...and waited, and waited....

There was no difference. Either the Ether didn't exist, or we did not understand light.

It might be of help here to mention that in 1865 a man named James Clark Maxwell actually predicted that light did not actually need anything to "wave" in, from electricity calculations alone, but that didn't deter Mr Michelson nor Mr Morley.

To this day, this experiment is the most successful failure (or should that be "unsuccessful success"?) of all time, and because of this, Einstein went on to prove that light indeed did not need anything to "wave" in, leading him to prove that black IS actually white, turning his hair color appropriately , and subsequently being run over on a zebra crossing.

The salient facts are: Light is no more nor less than a moving electric and magnetic field, which of course, when static, need nothing to wave in because they are not waving. (DOH)

The premise is simple: A growing magnetic field, such as the one when you switch on an electromagnet, just grows into empty space at the speed of light and then stays there. However, under the right conditions, This "growing" magnetic field, because of the well-known laws of induction, gives rise to a growing electric field, which generates another magnetic field, and so on. Eventually, these fields shrink down to nothing (distant stars ARE fainter, after all) because the fields expand into an ever increasingly large sphere, and as the source has the same power, there is less of it to spread across the whole sphere.

In short, because light is actually "electric", there is no need for an "Ether", neither was there a need for either Mr Michelson, or Mr Morley.

Devil in the Dark

A physics qualification needs more than a love of the subject. A broader knowledge is needed, for instance, maths is essential. By-products include astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, and chemistry.

There are three types of chemistry, physical, inorganic and organic.

The first involves stuff like how to accelerate chemical reactions, how much stuff is actually in there, and how much heat is given out/taken in to do it.

The second involves the actual chemical reactions, except for those of carbon.

The third ONLY involves those of carbon.

The reason why carbon is given so much leeway is two-fold. Without carbon, life would not exist, PLUS, carbon is the element that produces the most abundant amount of molecules (collections of atoms), not only on earth, but in the universe itself.

A simple example would suffice. Carbon makes fuel for cars. A phrase often used is “high octane”. This used to mean a more efficient fuel than normal, but is actually a reference to the number of carbon atoms in the molecule – eight. You can also get “heptane” (with seven), or even “Hexane” (with six atoms).

The group are collectively known as the “Alkanes”.

Starting with one carbon atom, methane, it goes like this....
























...with hexane, heptane and octane to follow.

Obviously there is no limit to the length of the chain.

This ability of carbon to abitrarily extend these chains is known as "polymerisation", and formed the basis of the manufacturing of plastics, with products like Nylon, Polyester, and Styrofoam cups.

The diagrams show only a representation of how the molecule is, but the pictures next to each show what we would see, ie they are not linear.

This is because of the four chemical bonds available in carbon. You can easily work it out yourself why the molecule is bent.

Four available "loose" electrons, which repel each other. How can they get furthest away from each other if attached to a sphere in three dimensions? The easy English answer is a three-legged milking stool, plus another (vertical) leg. The actual angle, in an ideal world, would be about 104 degrees. (104.6, I think)

..and that is just carbon bonding with hydrogen the simplest way. There may be double (Alkenes) and triple (Alkynes) bonds, too.

The first in the chain of the alkynes is probably more well known as "acetylene", as in the oxy-acetylene torch, the one that burns in water.

Magnificent element, carbon.

People (science fiction people) have often wondered "Why carbon?", as silicon, the logical next element, may exhibit similar properties.

Deliverance

Photography has a lot of science in it. I have a Nikon F3, with real film. I recently took this of my cousin Yuko. I am very proud of the way it has turned out, and she loves it.




Reasons why this photo is good: 1. It is black and white (Ilford FP4). Her skin is brown Asian skin, and B/W always shows up that sheen best. 2. I used a centre focus filter (a piece of frosted glass with a clear hole). This I oriented to concentrate on the top left of the photo to focus her hair and eyes. Notice how her lips are not quite in focus, and her hands out of focus. 3. I used a 200 mm lens to throw the background completely out of focus.

The imagery is to portray the innocence of her face, rather than the desperation of the pose, but to suggest both. Also, I asked her to tilt her head further back to expose the vulnerability of her delicate neck, serving a double purpose, as if she is looking to Heaven for deliverance from that same vulnerability.

The exposure was f5.4, at 1/60 second, 100 ASA film, 200 mm lens, Nikon F3, Benbow tripod. Only three attempts needed. Centre focus filter, hand-held in front of the lens (the holder would not allow the selective "top-left" view).

I am very proud of this, as it is as incongruous with Yuko's personality as is a rose among thorns.

Perfection?

There are all different kinds of numbers, in many different classes.

Rational, irrational, trancendental, prime, emirp, hailstone, negative, imaginary, all of interest.

Including the so-called "perfect" numbers.

These numbers just happen to be equal to the sum of all their divisors.

Examples are 6 ( = 1 + 2 + 3) and 28 ( = 1 + 2 + 4 + 7 + 14 )

These perfect numbers are very rare. In fact, less than 30 have ever been found.

It has been conjectured that they do not go on forever like the primes, and that there is actually a highest one of all.

Shine on you Crazy Crescent!

Just a few days ago, this happened....




This is a very rare "conjunction". The photo shows the Moon, Venus and Jupiter, almost side-by-side.

This will not happen again until 2032.

What is interesting is that although the Moon is officially a "crescent", the whole disc is visible.

This is a phenomenon known as "earthshine", often seen on clear frosty days in the daylight in England.

What is happening is this: The Sun is shining on the Earth, and the moon is acting like a very crude mirror, reflecting light back to the earth FROM the earth.

It works like this.... Light from the Sun hits the Earth, bounces to the Moon, bounces off the Moon and back into our eyes.

The upshot is that we can see the unlit side of the moon. It is not lit by the sun, but by the blue-green planet 3/4 of a million miles away.

When I first saw this "earthshine" in the UK at the age of seven, I could not work out how I could "see" the "unseen" side of the Moon.

Yet another example of the wonder of physics.

Nothing is ever Black and White

"Don't you think it's rather fitting to behold?

The Game that came in from the Cold.

Seen for what it is, Religion, plus Finesse.

Countries, Classes, Creeds at one in Love of Chess."

(Chess The Musical)

The game that originated in Persia, they say, was apparently an attempt by a Prince to explain to his mother, the Queen, that a fight between himself and his brother, resulting in the latter's death, was not his fault.

I joined Chess.com a while ago, but admit my game is poor. Then I realised that the screen board, being two-dimensional, was not the best tool to use.

So I bought an actual Chess set, my first for years. Then I got another, and another. I now have five sets, three of them glass, Two wooden, and three Chess computers.

The glass sets, intended as mere ornaments for coffee tables, are elegance itself, and pleasant to use against online opponents.

What surprised me was that the computers play in a completely different style from humans, and it goes without saying, I would never use them to pretend they were me.

Result, the computers teach me, and my game has improved. I even won a game the other week.

This is the Seoul setup (well, half of it, anyway).