Science

Skin Deep

I’m always impressed with the ingenuity scientists display when coming up with names for natural phenomena.  When introduced to the public, abstract mathematical concepts are presented with extremely evocative, almost emotional names that manage to cut to the heart of the math: black hole, big bang, the special theory of relativity.

Okay, so not always.  But enough of the time that it’s impressive — a way to directly connect science to intuition.  One of my favorite examples is a phenomena in electromagnetism called the skin effect, which describes how alternating current is carried in wires.  The skin effect is particularly interesting to me because it’s also a pretty direct analogy for a lot of the interactions I have with casual acquaintances.  I don’t think it’s often that the fields of social science and, well, science science intersect so perfectly — not only on a nomenclature and imagery level, but in the behaviors they describe.  I’ll start, as always, with physics.

The skin effect occurs all around us.  (It is notably distinct from the article in this month’s Cosmo with the same title.)  When electric wires carry alternating current — i.e. the stuff that comes out of the wall and/or one half of a legendary Australian rock band — most of the current never actually penetrates all the way through to the center of the wire, instead skirting along on the surface, creating a kind of electric sheath or skin along the wire.  This is a big break from the orthodoxy of how electromagnetism is usually taught in school, where it’s a common analogy to think of electricity racing along wires like water flowing though pipes.  While true for direct current (DC), this breaks down with AC — you’ll never see a water pipe with a hollow center and water rushing along the edges.

The difference mostly comes from the key distinction between AC and DC current, and is what makes AC so devilish to work with without an assload of math behind it.  Alternating current is called “alternating” because it switches back and forth, constantly, from positive voltages to negative voltages.  It rolls in and out of your wall like the tides at the beach, pushing electrons in and then dragging them back out to sea.  This inexorable changing of the electronic tides creates magnetic fields that similarly expand and collapse as the voltage changes, but these magnetic fields are always strongest in the center of the wire.  If you want to go back to the water analogy, magnetism here acts like a rock in the stream, pushing the flow of electrons around it and forcing the electricity to hug the banks of the stream, so that the vast majority of the current is carried along the outer skin of the wire.

I’ve always thought that the beauty of electricity and magnetism are their complexity: changing currents cause changing magnetic fields, changing magnetic fields cause changing currents, and the process constantly ebbs and flows in harmony, a symphony of the invisible as fields burst into life then dissipate into void, over and over and over again.

But that has nothing to do with friendship — and, in fact, I think if you start spouting that stuff at parties you may find yourself with a lot fewer friends by the end of the night.  So back to the main point here: the AC current carried in a wire — whether a transmission cable along the side of the road or the extension cord in your garage — only penetrates a fraction of the way into the wire.  This is called skin depth, designated δ.  Formally, skin depth is the depth into a conductor where the current carried falls to 1/e, or about 37%, of its value at the surface.  For AC frequencies in the realm of everyday experience — think the 60Hz that goes into your iPhone charger — skin depth is a function only of the material the wire is made from and the frequency of the current:

skin depth

Here ρ is the resistivity of the wire, f is the frequency of the current flowing through it, and the μs are something called magnetic permeability, which is a measure of how susceptible a material is to magnetic fields.  Something like iron, which can be made into a magnet, has a very high permeability; the permeability for wood or glass is very low.

For a current coming out of the wall and into copper wire, the skin depth is:

Screen Shot 2016-03-13 at 3.01.15 PM

For your phone charger, this means nothing — the wire is way smaller than 17mm in diameter.  But imagine the transmission lines used to send electricity from the power plant to your house: those cables that hang from wooden poles along the side of the road are much bigger, and that means when it comes to electricity they’re essentially hollow.  All of the power is running along the skin, never reaching the heart of the cable.

As the frequency of the current, f, gets bigger and bigger, the skin depth shrinks — as the electricity switches back and forth from positive to negative voltages faster and faster, the current penetrates into the wire less and less.  AC current switching at 150,000Hz penetrates into copper wire just 170 microns, or about the diameter of a human hair.  It will never see the copper’s core.

This is where my social circle enters the equation.  I have — and I assume you have, too — a lot of what I call skin effect friends.  (Though admittedly, I’m probably the only one of us who calls them that.)  These are the people that I’ve met casually and who circle the nucleus of my close friends in fast but erratic orbits.  They show up across the room at parties; I see them walking down the street in San Francisco.  Maybe I remember their names, maybe I don’t.  I usually don’t have their phone numbers or know their email addresses.  But every time we see each other, these skin effect friends and me, we say hello, because the world is a big and scary and sometimes lonely place, and finding a familiar face in an unexpected setting is a beautiful thing.

Yet when I talk to these people, I never actually have a conversation with them.  We only ever hit the topics that are skin-deep: how are you, where’re you living, how’s work these days.  And it seems that the more frequently I see them, the shallower the topics become, just like current skirting around the outside of a wire.  We never get to the heart of anything.

This isn’t a critique or a complaint — I can’t be best friends with everyone, and I’m misanthropic enough to not want to try.  I enjoy having a wide circle of acquaintances, and I enjoy these skin-deep conversations because they show me the surface of worlds I don’t inhabit.  I wish I could dive into those worlds, wish I could be deeply connected to everyone I’ve ever met, but just like a wire, there’s only so much current I can carry before I catch on fire / have a total psychotic breakdown.  So if you’re reading this and thinking to yourself wait a minute that bastard is talking about me, it’s not a bad thing.  Next time we run into each other, let’s grab a beer.  We’ll talk about sports.

And even though I like all these skin effect friends, they also make me acknowledge that those friends I have where our conversations do penetrate — those friends where, even if we don’t see each other very frequently, we can pick up right where we left off, or those friends who I feel like I really connect with — are something remarkable, almost physics-defying.  It’s DC friendship.

There’s a lot of discussion about a possible unified field theory in physics, but I’m happy stopping at a unified theory of physics and friendship.  Einstein, eat your heart out.

Compressing

There’s something magical, in the Arthur C. Clarke sense of the word, about compression algorithms — take something that’s too big for a box, and squeeze it into that box regardless.

But, of course, not everything can simply be squeezed smaller.  Some coworkers and I were talking this week about needing to extract the information in an image from a range of wavelengths about a nanometer wide, and how that wouldn’t really just work by filtering an optical image repeatedly (the range of light visible to humans is about 300 nm).  Encoding enough information in the original image so that filtering it down is actually useful — and so that the original image doesn’t take up a server farm worth of digital storage — would probably take a huge amount of compression, ratios of 1000 or 10,000 to 1.  To put that in a little bit of perspective, an uncompressed song file would be maybe 50 MB, while an .mp3 of the same song could be as little as 3.5 MB — a 14:1 ratio.  So thousands-to-one is a lot.

This is when one of the PhDs who started this conversation compared this task to trying to represent The Iliad as a limerick.

Well, challenge accepted.

It varies by translation, but The Iliad is about 150,000 words long.  A limerick, in its classic form, is two lines of two anapests (those are the ones that go “da-da-DUM”) sandwiched between three lines of three anapests for a total of 39 syllables.  It was surprisingly hard to find a good answer for the average number of syllables in an English word, but 1.3 seems to be a good guess.  (If you’re interested, you can look at this paper or use this online calculator, which I dropped some public domain works into: The Time Machine, Huckleberry Finn, and The Picture of Dorian Gray.  You can also look at this Wikipedia list, which is mostly unrelated but fantastic.)  That means 39 syllables is approximately 30 words, and turning Homer’s epic poem into a form more widely know for New Englander autofellatio jokes is about a 5000:1 compression — an impressively accurate off-the-cuff analogy for what we were talking about.

Here’s my shot at The Iliad in limerick form:

With abduction of Helen the source,
Menelaus responded with force
So the Greeks sailed for Troy
Set to burn and destroy
But just eked out a win with a horse

And why stop there?

How about the Old Testament in haiku, or taking 600,000 words down to 17 syllables (13 words-ish)?

Birth of light, then man
Wandered until given rules:
Be nice, no bacon

I’m open to suggestions for future compression here.  Will update this post as I have more ideas.

NASAing of Teeth

Buckle up, boys and girls, because it’s three weeks into 2015 and I am already fucking livid.

I know that I’ve gone off before on science in politics — or, agonizingly predictably, lack thereof — but I have to do it one more time.  I have to, really, because we just put Ted Cruz in charge of NASA.

Okay, so not exactly in charge.  To be precise, the midterm election turnover in the Senate means Cruz now chairs the Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness (Oxford comma officially omitted, but added here out of compunction), which oversees NASA, the NIST, the NSF, the OSTP, and apparently about 30% of all acronyms.

Why is this bad news?  By all accounts, Ted Cruz is a smart dude.  He was his high school valedictorian, went to Princeton and Harvard Law.  He should be the best of the best of what America can offer up, the upper crust of elite erudition that decides to apply itself to solving the country’s problems and propelling it into the next generation stronger, smarter, better than it was before.

Instead, Ted Cruz says shit like this:

My view of climate science is the same as that of many climate scientists.  We need a much better understanding of the climate before making policy choices that would impose substantial economic costs on our Nation.

Hi, Ted?  I have NASA on the line here.  You know, that science agency you’re about to be responsible for.  Lots of glasses and calculators and pocket protectors and weird-looking mohawks.  Anyway, they just wanted to make sure you’re aware that NINETY-FUCKING-SEVEN PERCENT OF ALL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS believe they have a handle on what’s going on, and that we need to do something about it.

Oh, but “[the] data are not supporting what the advocates are arguing”?  For a guy who knows how to use “data” correctly in a sentence, that’s not a very smart thing to say.  Here’s this thing we scientists like to call a “graph”:

I JUST.  CAN’T.  EVEN.

So the truculent Ted Cruz, who is either so brilliant he knows something the rest of us don’t or so willfully ignorant he refuses to acknowledge something the rest of us see as self-evident, is going to watch over our nation’s science policy.  I feel about as comfortable with that as I do leaving my future children at Mikey Jackson’s Daycare Center and Used Needle Emporium.

I realize that it’s maybe unfair of me to extend Cruz’s views on climate change to the rest of his scientific thinking.  But I have to.  I have to, really, because you don’t trust heart surgery to someone who believes in the healing power of leeching.  You don’t trust bridge building to someone who doesn’t know a truss from a trull.  You don’t trust polymer science to someone who believes in alchemy.

So why — why — are we trusting the future of scientific research to someone who doesn’t believe in scientific research about the future?

And I know these are criticisms that have been leveled against Cruz before; I’m not unique in my fulmination.  But I have to fulminate.  I have to, really, because 2014 was, unsurprisingly, the hottest year we’ve ever experienced — and that’s not a reference to any Kardashianic attempts to break the internet.  Just our species’ repeated attempts to break the planet.

Yet the people with guiding hands in our scientific policies choose to ignore that.  I’m not just talking about Cruz, though he makes an exceptional example.  His colleague Marco Rubio, who once said of climate change “I don’t think there’s the scientific evidence to justify it”, will be taking over leadership of the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and the Coast Guard.

OCEANS.

ATMOSPHERE.

FISHERIES.

AND THE GODDAMN COAST GUARD.

Rubio, who refuses to acknowledge that climate change, anthropogenic or not, could have catastrophic effects on the oceans and atmosphere (ironically threatening the Rubio’s hand-battered fish taco especial) is now presiding over the agencies responsible for the oceans and atmosphere.  How is this supposed to give me faith in the government’s ability to safeguard our country’s natural resources?  Our planet’s?

I can only point out the absurdity of the whole situation — no, I have to point out the absurdity of the whole situation.  I have to.  Really.  Because our country’s scientists deserve better than overseers who deny basic science.

The United States of America was arguably in the vanguard of every major technical innovation of the twentieth century.  We built, we flew, we coded.  We cracked the atom, conquered the moon, colonized the internet.  And we did these things with the help of our government, with the help of federal research money and the aid of the United States Congress.

What path do we have forward in the twenty-first century if scientific progress is held hostage by non-believers?

The Eagle Has Landed

This weekend marked the 45th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing, the first mission that successfully landed human beings on a thing that wasn’t the thing on which every human being ever in the entire history of humanity has lived.

That we as a species pulled this off is still staggering to me.

We put three living humans into a small metal tube perched on six million pounds of concentrated liquid explosion, shot them straight up into the air until they reached a point where they are so high up there is literally no more air, then guided the metal tube to a piece of space rock hurtling through the void almost 240,000 miles away from the Kennedy Space Center, and did it with less computing power than I carry around in my pocket today.

(I use that computing power, by the way, to look at cat videos. To reiterate, NASA used it to send three men — three normal, terrestrial people who cannot fly and who must breath air — to THE GODDAMN MOON.)

The sheer audacity of the US space program’s goal — to send living, breathing people to the moon and then bring them back still living and breathing — is incredible. Beyond the technical challenges this had to pose to 1960s-era scientists and engineers who were still marveling at the hand calculator, beyond the funding that had to be found by politicians who had chilly wars to fight, beyond the undoubtedly bowel-loosening terror that had to be faced by the men in the Apollo capsule as they careened wildly through the firmament towards a tiny chunk of rock floating in an endless sea of nothing, one simple fact remains: the moon is really, really, really far away.

A case study: Apollo 11 launched from the Kennedy Space Center in Orlando. The closest Taco Bell to Kennedy is 13.2 miles away. The astronauts that left Kennedy to go to the moon could have traveled round-trip to that Taco Bell more than nine thousand times and not covered the same amount of distance. That’s beefy five-layer burritos for breakfast, lunch, and dinner for more than eight fucking years.

Or they could have driven from the launch site to Washington, D.C. and back 140 times, a trip that would take 146 days of non-stop driving. Or to San Francisco and back 50 times. To Fairbanks, Alaska and back 25 times. They could have gotten in a plane and circumnavigated the globe almost ten times (no great circles here — I’m talking circumference) before reaching the moon.

My point being the moon is really, really, REALLY far away, guys. It’s cold and it’s alien and it’s distant and we’ve been there. Forty-five years later, the moon landing remains one of the most impressive things accomplished by mankind. It is, of course, a testament to what we can do when we put our minds to it, work together, follow through on some third sports movie cliché, and decide there’s no way those goddamn red-loving commie bastards are getting there first.

In thinking about how to close this post, I was tempted to point to the moon landing as proof that government-sponsored science works, that it’s important, that’s it needs to continue. I believe that’s all true, but I don’t want to use this anniversary to harp on that message too much. Because when it comes down to it, forty-five years ago mankind — essentially a troop of slightly-evolved and overly-opinionated monkeys — shoved three of its own in a can, blasted them into outer space, and took that first small step into the giant universe beyond our world.

And that’s just really, really cool.

Cosmopolitan

I watched the first episode of Fox’s new edition of “Cosmos” this week.  I was surprised, though maybe I shouldn’t have been — surprised to see such an unapologetic paean to science on primetime American television.  It captured beautifully the power and wonder of the scientific method, of humanity’s quest to explain its place in the universe.  It waxed elegantly about data-driven decision making and hypothesis testing, about critical reasoning and status-quo questioning.  And having Neil deGrasse Tyson at the helm didn’t hurt.

I’m always struck by two thoughts, always in the same order, whenever something like “Cosmos” gets me thinking about the universe.  The first is how incalculably small and insignificant I am — how incalculably small and insignificant we all are, here on this warm ball of rock in the cold void of space.  There are galaxies beyond galaxies pressing on the feeble curtain of Earth’s atmosphere, infinities of nothing on our doorstep that swallow the planets and the moons and the stars.  I will never see the Virgo supercluster, let alone the Milky Way.  I’ll see Mars in images and X-ray diffraction patterns.  I won’t even see all of Earth.  The billions of planets in our corner of the universe are still too few, too far between, too spread and scattered through a field of black interstellar velvet, impossible to traverse.  What can anything I hope to do matter, when something like only four percent of the universe is matter?  If I was to conquer the Earth and carve my likeness in every mountain and write my name in every desert and blaze my way into every book and song and poem mankind could concoct — it would still be fleeting and immeasurable when compared to the humming of the planets and the singing of the stars.  There’s just so much space out in space, a kind of cold, insufferable beauty that makes me marvel at the grandness of creation and shrink into my own inconsequence at the same time.  I don’t know if I’ve managed to capture in words here the enormity — the primordiality — of this feeling.  I feel like I’m both adrift and confined, floating unmoored and yet suffocated by the sea.  I feel as if the sheer amounts of nothing surrounding the earth are bearing down on me like a weight, impossibly heavy, and crushing me with the realization that I will die with the mysteries of the universe unknown and gnawing at my soul.  That I will die, and the universe will continue.  That I will die, and in the entirety of my life I will have experienced the smallest fraction of a fraction of what the cosmos have to offer — and I could live a thousand lifetimes more, on a thousand different planets, around a thousand different stars, and the same thought would still be true.

Then, slowly, the second thought boils up from deep within the first.  It starts, usually, by thinking about life instead of death.  About how there must be life out there — somewhere — and how statistics can’t be so wrong that more than a billion billion planets wouldn’t manage to pull off what Earth has done.  I think this, but the thought is usually quashed by Fermi’s paradox, which brings me back out into the unquenchable abyss, into that endless maw of loneliness, spiraling along the spirals of our galaxy until I’ve spun all the way back out into nothing.  And it is here, always here, right at the event horizon before I fall alone into that endless astral gulf, when the second thought blossoms into being:

We live in an infinity of nothings, and yet a universe of everything.

Everything is out there, waiting for us to discover it.  That’s why talking about the scientific method is so important: the joy of discovery.  It’s a primal emotion that has driven mankind onto two legs, across oceans, up to the moon.  We’re not crushed by the realization that there’s too much in the cosmos to comprehend.  We’re driven to comprehend as much of it as possible while we’re around.  “Cosmos” (and, really, anything in the same vein) hit on that joy of discovery in me, and hopefully in millions of other children and young adults throughout the country and the world.  The world needs — and deserves — more thinkers and fewer dogmatists.

But the thought goes deeper than that.  Tyson used a line in that first episode of “Cosmos” that I really liked: that we are made of “star stuff”.  Our bodies’ iron, carbon, calcium — our blood, our flesh, our bones — were formed, unfathomable ages ago, in the heart of a star.  We have the heavens within us, written not in our DNA but in our very molecules and atoms, and we carry this celestial signature about every extraordinary (and every mundane) minute of our lives.  We are the universe.  The universe is us.

If you’ll allow me a tangent that will eventually reconnect with this thought, let me to take you on a journey through time and space, albeit a bit shorter in both dimensions than Tyson’s.  The year is 2007, the place is William S. Hart High School, and I am reading (or am being forced to read, who knows) James Joyce’s A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.  I wish I could tell you I remembered what the book was about at its core, but I really only remember it in slivers and images.  One of those slivers is from the very end of the book, a diary entry where the main character (Stephen Dedalus, the titular Artist as a Young Man) talks about his drive to be great writer/poet/artist/whatever it’s been awhile since I read this.  I apologize for quoting James Joyce for what I promise is the first, last, and only time in this blog:

I go to encounter for the millionth time the reality of experience and to forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race.

I read this as Dedalus’ desire to bring his own individual perspective into the greater fabric of humanity’s story — how to be great, the artist must be able to turn his or her individual perspective into something universal and beyond oneself, something that speaks to what it means to be human, not what it means to be Stephen Dedalus… though you can’t lose the Stephen Dedalus in the process.

“Cosmos” and Tyson, an innovator (Daedalus?) in his own right, are saying something similar: that we are forged in the smithy of the stars, and this is the conscience of our race.  We are a part of the universe, and it is our nature to question and explore it, but only through our own minds and thoughts and deeds does this cold sea of galactic whorls and stellar eddies have a meaning, a warmth, a light, and a life.  The universe is grand and impressive and will outlast us all, and our goal as a species should be to understand the universe as a whole, not just ourselves.  But all of that tremendous amount of nothing is just that — nothing — without our everything within it.

So keep learning, keep thinking, keep questioning.  It illuminates the darkness, one neuron — one nebula — at a time.

die Sonne

An observation, which comes from a vacation I just took to Germany:

When you happen to find yourself on a train traveling from Munich, Germany to Salzburg, Austria, you have a lot of idyllic landscape to inhale.  But the stunning thing is that as you travel from one perfectly bucolic farm to the next, each rustically charming farmhouse (German: Farmhaus) you pass has one thing in common with its predecessors: a solar panel array on the most south-facing part of the roof.

Germany is a paragon of renewable power, to say the least.  It’s amazing what the right tax credits and incentives can do.  But the kicker lies in these two maps.

Pvgis_Europe-solar_opt_publication

NREL_USA_PV_map_hi-res_2008

These are equivalent maps — both show the total incident solar energy on a square meter solar panel tilted optimally towards the sun — but unfortunately, the colors don’t quite match up.  The map of Europe is in kWh/m²/year and the U.S. is in kWh/m²/day (hey, but at least it’s not hp/ft²/day, right?).  Multiplying the U.S.’s scale by 365.25 means the darkest red should be about 2447 kWh/m²/year — more than the darkest red of the Europe map.  The part of Germany I was traveling through on train is pretty solidly mindaro-colored, equivalent to about 1350 kWh/m²/year.  That works out to 3.70 kWh/m²/day, or a nice shade of emerald.

You know, emerald.  The same color as SEATTLE.

Pictured: our solar-powered future.

Atom and Evening

Ramble starting: Like probably every poem I write (there are not many of these, and even fewer good passable ones), this started out as some sort of melancholic, nostalgic reminiscence about an ex.  It is, um, no longer about that.  Which is good.  I think the title should probably be “Trinity” but the “Atom and Evening” pun was too good so I had to keep it somewhere.  Ramble over.

\ \ \ Trinity \ \ \

In the morning the atoms all sparkled and flared
A new sun in the desert, a garden of glass
When the dust of the ground formed a cloud in the air.

With a crash heard for miles, the soil was bared
And Earth knew it was nude but knew not what had passed
In the morning the atoms all sparkled and flared.

Then the heat and the light—they swelled up like a prayer,
Conflagrations to preach supercritical mass
When the dust of the ground formed a cloud in the air.

Congregations were watching, as close as they dared
For orations of fire and moral morass
In the morning the atoms all sparkled and flared.

With the sermon uncertain, men gave to their heirs
Broken bonds, a charred sky, and a bright ghostly blast
When the dust of the ground formed a cloud in the air.

The horns heralded progress, a new age declared—
While by evening the future already was past,
In the morning the atoms all sparkled and flared
When the dust of the ground formed a cloud in the air.

Litmus Testing

A follow up to my polemic on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, to hopefully further illustrate my point that, in the most scientifically advanced civilization in the history of history, the people making policy decisions about science have no clue what they’re doing.

Not to say that everyone on this committee doesn’t deserve to be.  I understand the committee is large, and it would be unreasonable to expect everyone to have a background in science — and it would probably be unwise, as well, as scientists tend to be (myself included) an excitable and erratic bunch and it’s nice to have some lawyers and CPAs to reign us in and tether us to physical and fiscal reality.  But take a look at this list of all the members on the science committee, and ask yourself if we maybe can do better.

I maintain that I’d like to see committees in the House and Senate have a basic literacy test to determine whether you are allowed to serve on them — I know I, for example, would have no clue what to do if placed on, say, the agriculture committee.

Oh, and when you get to Jerry McNerney, pause and ask yourself how he’s managed to refrain from murdering everyone he works with out of frustration.

Without further ado — the entire composition of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in the 112th Congress is as follows (all information courtesy of Wikipedia, take with a grain of salt):

(more…)

Quantum of Promise

Cool blog post yesterday from Wired on the future of quantum teleportation — and whether the U.S. is going to be a part of it (I’ll go ahead and link to my own thoughts on the government sponsoring science, but rest assured I think it’s a shame the funding got cut).  The blog’s got a pretty great explanation of the science behind quantum teleportation, but I thought I’d take a crack at explaining it and what it could mean.  And why Scotty won’t be beaming me anywhere anytime soon.

(more…)

The Bicameral Distribution

At this point, I don’t think I’m breaking any news by mentioning Todd Akin’s comments about pregnancy (or lack thereof) in the face of “legitimate” rape.  What I do want to point out, though, is what really, really bothers me about this story — more than Akin’s twelfth-century views on both women’s rights and biology:

In his apology, Akin said he “misspoke.”

No.  Misspeaking is referencing a wrong date, or getting a tax percentage wrong, or saying “was” instead of “were.”  Misspeaking is a slip of the tongue, a mispronounced word, a stumble in a speech.  Hell, I’ll even grant you a racial epithet that “just slipped in” to your talking points as misspeaking.

But what Akin said — that’s not misspeaking.  He has a fundamental misunderstanding of literally everything involving the human reproductive system.  But instead of admitting that — instead of admitting he had been mis-taught or just assumed incorrectly or plain forgot — he just claimed he goofed.

Ha ha.

Now, I’d be ready to dismiss this as another misinformed policymaker (Akin is a member of the House) going off about science they don’t understand, but two things won’t allow me to do so: 1) the science Akin is completely ignorant of is human anatomy, which he presumably  has had intimate experience with over the course of his sixty-five years of being a human; and 2) oh right, Todd Akin is a member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

I’m going to pause here TO LET THAT LAST REASON SINK IN.

This man is in charge of science policy in arguably the most scientifically advanced country in human history, and either he doesn’t know, well, anything about basic human physiology or he’s been listening to and agreeing with the wrong so-called experts.  I can’t decide which is more frightening.

Because if Akin is so wrong about pregnancy and biology, I’m terrified to hear his views on gravity.  The problem here is that Akin, like many of our members of Congress, is the type of person who is fooled by chain emails about deadly dihydrogen monoxide.  I quote from a very interesting article in the New York Times a couple of years ago about the three physicists in the House (now down to one — one!), including nuclear physicist Vern Ehlers, who often stopped colleagues from disastrous votes based on complete misunderstandings:

Once it was game theory.  The person seeking the cut did not seem to realize that game theory had to do with interactions in economics, behavior, and other social sciences, not sports, Mr. Ehlers recounted.

Then there was the time he rose to defend ATM research against a colleague who thought it should be left to the banking industry.  In this case the initials stood for asynchronous transfer mode, a protocol for fiber-optic data transfer.

I’m not calling for a revolution here, engineers taking to the street with ergonomically designed and perfectly weighted pitchforks.  I think it’s important for lawyers and careers politicians to be in Congress — knowing how government works, why the Constitution was written, what life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness mean is crucial to the country’s governance.  But equally important is a 21st century understanding of 21st century issues and technology that government is tasked with regulating.  That could take many forms: convincing more scientists to run for seats in Congress (currently the 112th Congress’ 541 members, including territorial representatives, contain seventeen doctors, two ophthalmologists, two dentists, a psychiatrist, an optometrist, two veterinarians, six nurses, one physicist, one chemist, six engineers, one microbiologist, and a single astronaut; this contributes to a grand — and, I believe, rather taxonomically generous — total of 7.6% scientists), or maybe a dedicated science advisor assigned to every member by the AAAS, or even a basic science literacy test for any member, like Todd Akin, placed onto a scientifically themed committee.  If lawyers have to prove they know the law in order to practice it, why don’t congress members have to prove they know science in order to legislate it?

At the very least, it would mean science gets funded — but only if it’s legitimate.  I think even Akin can support that.

Super Science

I am impressed with the science in “The Avengers.”

This is not something I ever thought I’d say, considering that in “Iron Man 2” Robert Downey Jr. BUILDS A PARTICLE ACCELERATOR IN HIS LIVING ROOM. And then manages to synthesize an entirely new element.  Which is stable for longer than nanoseconds.  And non-radioactive.  And manages to magically cure the “palladium poisoning” that was turning his veins into a game of Tron.

And it’s not to say I go see comic book movies for realism.  There’s a willing suspension of disbelief that has to be associated with Scarlett Johansson’s form-fitting yet functional leather jumpsuit.  But it’s nice to see the writers cared enough to try to get the science (vaguely) right.

Case in point:  The scene where Downey Jr.’s genius/billionaire/playboy/engineer Tony Stark and Mark Ruffalo’s genius/derelict/rage monster/physicist Bruce Banner geek out about using thermonuclear fusion to open a wormhole while Captain America thinks about monkeys.  The conversation goes something like this:

Banner:  Dr. Selvig would have to heat the cube to 120 million Kelvin just to break through the Coulomb barrier.

Stark: Unless he’s figured out how to stabilize the quantum tunneling effect.

Banner:  Well, if he could do that he could achieve heavy ion fusion at any reactor on the planet.

You hear that?  SCIENCE!  And while when the banter gets flying this just sounds like nerdy buzzwords that Joss Whedon remembered hearing in some TED talk once and decided to pepper his script with, he’s closer to the truth than you might think.  Let’s break it down.

Fusion.  Nuclear fusion is process of combining two light elements into one heavier one.  Generally, the two light atoms together have more mass than the heavier atom they combine to form, and the excess mass is released as energy (E, after all, equals mc2).  How much energy?  Well, the only really successful manmade fusion device to date are bombs — the first of which, codenamed Ivy Mike, erupted in a fireball more than three miles in diameter and vaporized an entire island.  So yeah, why not, fusion could create enough energy to make a wormhole.

The Coulomb barrier.  It takes a lot of energy to get a fusion reaction started, though — the only way a fusion bomb works is by setting off a traditional nuclear fission bomb (think Hiroshima) and using it to start the fusion process.  A large part of the reason for this is, in fact, what’s called the Coulomb barrier.  Atomic nuclei can be thought of as a lump of positively charged protons and neutral neutrons — and if you remember your high school physics, two positively charged things don’t like to be brought close to each other (maybe a more intuitive example is two magnetic north poles; this is analogous enough). The strength of the repulsive force between two charges is known as Coulomb’s law, and it states:

Where F is the resultant force, q is the strength of each charge, k is Coulomb’s constant, and r is the distance between the center of the two nuclei.  This is an example of what we call an “inverse-square” law in physics, because it is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between two objects — and they crop up everywhere (gravity, power radiation, sound, etc.).  The key characteristic of an inverse-square law is that the left side of the equals sign rises dramatically as the distance decreases, e.g. it’s really hard to push together two atoms because eventually the Coulomb force becomes massive.  As you might have guessed, atoms need to be really, really close for fusion to occur.

So how do we add energy to the atoms?  Well, one way would be to heat them up.  Temperature (described here, as any good physicist should, in Kelvin) is just a measure of how fast, on average, the atoms in a gas/liquid/solid are moving.  And 120 million Kelvin is hot.  Like, really hot.  Like, the corona of the sun is just one million Kelvin.  For hydrogen gas, 120 million Kelvin clocks the hydrogen atoms at almost four million miles per hour.  So you can see why HULK SKEPTICAL OF PUNY HUMAN’S ABILITY TO IMPART MASSIVE QUANTITIES OF ENERGY TO SYSTEM.

Quantum tunneling.  But, once again, quantum mechanics to the rescue.  One of the coolest (read: weirdest) aspects of quantum mechanics, tunneling is the tendency for particles to overcome potential barriers they classically could never climb — essentially, a spontaneous decrease in the energy required to accomplish something.  Here’s a useful analogy: imagine a ball sitting in a valley.  If you want to roll the ball into the next valley, you have to kick it with enough energy to get it up and over the hill between the two.

What tunneling is saying is that sometimes, when you kick this ball with only enough energy to make it halfway, or a third of the way, or a quarter of the way up the hill, it will still show up on the other side.  Effectively, it has “tunneled” through the potential energy barrier (a barrier, in this analogy, courtesy of gravity).  Weird, right?

And what Stark is saying is that, if you could ensure tunneling at high probabilities, the overall energy you’d need to initiate the fusion process — the temperature you’d need — drops substantially.  A little hand-wavey, but that’s pretty solid science.

Not that Whedon has figured how to initiate fusion or anything… but not bad for a movie where a flying Norse god shoots lightning bolts out of a hammer at invading extradimensional aliens riding hover jet skis through Manhattan, huh?

* * *

EDIT 5/16/12: This is a relevant find from “Iron Man 2.”  While I applaud the guy in charge of props for this assiduous attention to detail (seriously impressive), I stand by my statement that the science in the movie still blows.  And now they’ve gone and marginalized physicist Johannes Stark by attributing his Nobel-prize winning discovery to a fictional scientist.

Although the real Stark was kind of a dick (“dick” here is a polite euphemism for “asshat Nazi doucherocket”), so nice job prop department?

Everything Up Here is Wonderful

[A stab at fiction, based on the MARS-500 mission/simulation that ended last year and a general infatuation with well-spoken astrophysicists.]

**

 

“They think what they are doing is isolating.  This is bullshit.”

Sergei Kholodov is imposing even at eighty-one, his burly six-foot frame filling his small office at the National Research University in Zelenograd.  The office is decorated in an ornate, almost Victorian style—far more lace and filigree than Kholodov’s gravelly voice, Tolstoy beard, and five years of service as a lieutenant in the Soviet Air Defense Forces would suggest.  I haven’t even asked him any questions yet.

“I have been to space.  What they are doing, in that desert, it is not space.”  Kholodov sighs.  He looks tired, and his pale blue eyes—which had been fixed on me intently when he met me in his building’s foyer—are unfocused, staring somewhere far beyond the wall behind me.  “They have put five cosmonauts in a box in the Nevada desert.  And they have made it look like space, feel like space, I know.  But it will not smell like space.  Those cosmonauts know they are not really alone.  They know, one sledgehammer to a cheap wooden wall and they are breathing in Earth’s own oxygen again.”

I’m still scribbling key words in the last sentence down when Kholodov stands up from behind his desk.  “Let’s go for a walk.  In the sun.”  He gestures to the door.  I save my notes and recording on my tablet and head out of Kholodov’s office, but the old lieutenant stops me with a hand on my shoulder.

“I have been to space,” he says, and this time his eyes are boring into mine.  “There is no beauty.  Whatever you are writing, I don’t care.  Just remember what I am saying.  Space is a pit.”

**

Earlier this year, in March, I visited NASA’s simulation site in northeast Nevada.  My guide around the facility—little more than a shantytown of tents surrounding the large geodesic dome that contained the terranauts—was Michael Bloom, a senior NASA communications engineer.  Bloom is slender, with thick-framed glasses and a shaved head, and he was dressed more like an arctic explorer than a laboratory scientist.  There was half an inch of gray, slushy snow on the ground, and a dense sky threatened more overhead.

“I assure you, our five crewmembers are completely isolated,” Bloom said as we walked from my car to the tent that housed all the tools used to communicate with the group inside the dome.  His voice was steady, but he was shivering in the cold.  “We’ve replicated everything.  Everything except weightlessness.  And radiation, but they’re doing that at Ames.”  Bloom opened the flap to the comm tent and ushered me in.

“It’s day two-oh-three, so they’re about forty-five million kilometers out from launch.  Factor in Earth’s orbit and you’re looking at a fifteen, sixteen minute comms delay.  That’s hardwired in—we can’t communicate instantaneously.”  Bloom sat down in a large leather chair in front of a bank of keyboards.  “You can email them from here, but for security we only have them connected to an internal network.  We send them a news digest each week, usually, but nothing too potentially upsetting.  Your emails will, of course, be subject to approval.”  I nodded, and asked about bandwidth, but was assured anything I sent would be fine—if it was text only.  Bloom told me the simulation was scheduled to land in ten days, so I’d better get my questions off to the terranauts quickly.  They were about to get busy.

NASA’s simulation in Nevada is a full mock run of the manned mission planned for five years from now.  Two hundred and thirteen days of travel to the red rock, six months setting up a prefabricated structure on the ersatz Martian surface, and a two hundred day return trip.   If everything goes well, the actual mission gets the green light.  If not, well, back to the drawing board, and NASA once again finds its neck under the sword of senatorial budget subcommittee.  The Nevada dome is designed to mimic the flight completely—the wooden “spaceship” sits on a three-axis motion-simulating carriage, capable of up to four gs to imitate takeoff and landing.  The entire interior of the dome is lined with LED screens depicting where in space the ship should be.  It is, in Bloom’s words, “consummately immersive.”

After Bloom left the comm tent, I sat down to type out my first question to the crew.  The five terranauts consist of one Chinese, one Indian, one Russian, and two American astronauts.  The mission’s captain is Dr. David Ellis, a pilot and aeronautical engineer who’s spent two months onboard China’s space station.  I decided he would be my first target.  My early questions were simple:  Why’d you choose to volunteer?  What’s been the hardest thing so far?  How’s the crew getting along?

An hour later, I had a response from Dr. Ellis—who insisted I call him David.  How could I not volunteer? he wrote, when there’s so much to discover?  David said he was enjoying the mission immensely, though after prodding in future emails he did admit to being upset about missing his daughter’s tenth birthday.  The crew is meshing well, he said.  Yang and Dmitri have taught us how to play Dandu, it’s a good way to spend what we think are Friday nights.

Over the next few hours David and I traded half a dozen messages and a good picture of the captain emerged: affable, sense of humor, and exceedingly excited about the prospect of going to Mars, of moving mankind beyond living on just one planet.  I feel like Columbus, Ericson, Gagarin, he wrote me towards the end of our first exchange.  Sometimes I forget the stars we see in here are lights and nothing more.  But can you imagine?  A completely new world?

**

Kholodov’s usual peregrination through the grounds of the university is strikingly beautiful—tree-lined paths around buildings decorated with imposing soviet cenotaphs.  In early June, it’s warm and sunny with clear blue skies overhead.  Kholodov is quick to point out this was the route the university rector took Supreme Premier Vladimir Putin on when he visited last year, but also quick to point out that he himself was not invited to meet with Putin.  “They told me to stay home,” he chuckles.

When we reach a bench on the outskirts of the cobblestone quad, Kholodov reaches into his coat and produces a small bag of sunflower seeds.  “Zelenograd’s animal symbol is the squirrel.  We will feed the squirrels now.  It is good luck.”

I tell Kholodov about David’s first email.  He smiles slightly and tosses a seed to one of the brown squirrels in the courtyard.  “I know Dr. Ellis.  He is a—how do you say it?—optimist.”  It’s the only time I’ve seen Kholodov struggle for an English word.  “Do you know about Mars-500?  It happened about twenty years ago.  2011.  You must have been in high school.”

Kholodov is referring to an experiment in isolation undertaken by the Russian Academy of Sciences two decades ago, simulating a 520-day voyage to Mars.  Six men from four countries were sealed into a 600 cubic meter plywood box in the basement of the RAS’ Institute of Biomedical Problems—a “big coffin,” according to Kholodov—and observed as they pretended to hurtle through space towards the Red Planet.  There was a simulated landing, but nothing close to the level of simulation going on in Nevada.

When the six men emerged from the capsule in November of 2011 and were declared healthy (and sane), the experiment was quickly declared a success—mankind could survive the isolating nature of space exploration.  But seven months later, the wife of one of the Russian terranauts filed for divorce, claiming the man who came back was not the man she married.  Five months after that, on the anniversary of his departure from the plywood spaceship in the basement of the IBP, the Russian terranaut shot himself in the head with a 9mm Grach pistol.  Plans for a manned Russian mission to Mars in 2025, announced in the months following Mars-500, were put on hold.

“If that man had gone to space…” Kholodov trails off, then chuckles, a raspy noise against the gray hairs of his beard.  “A lot more people would be dead.”

**

The five terranauts in Nevada are all very similar to David.  Kyle Baker is the other American, a young mechanical engineer on leave from Raytheon.  Yang Wu is the oldest at thirty-eight, a member of the team that designed the Ri-Chu space station who is reserved and quiet about everything except space. I get the most exuberant emails from Raj Mangeshkar, the youngest terranaut, but even Dmitri Baranova, a reticent Russian surgeon, has sent me emails about his great duty to explore the space in mind of man.  During my time in Nevada, the five crewmembers seemed eager to talk about their reasons for signing up for NASA’s experiment, if not their day-to-day lives.  I learned far more about them than they did about me—Bloom constantly appeared, hovering over my shoulder, to scan the emails I had written for any sort of “upsetting content,” which usually takes the form of anything that could remind them too much that the outside world is changing: new music, trips I’ve taken, politics.

I argued with Bloom to let me ask Raj and Yang about the rise in Chinese-Indian tensions, but he said they hadn’t been told.  “The Sino-Indian border dispute is completely off-limits,” he told me on one of my last days in Nevada as the two of us hunched over a plate of microwaved beans in the mess tent.  “We’ll brief them on it when they’re done.  Besides, the whole mess should be sorted out by then.”  Bloom snorted into his beans.  “Look, here’s the deal.  We’re going to go dark sometime towards the end of July.  We’re still monitoring on video, of course, but we don’t want to risk anything.”

Bloom meant NASA is planning to cut the terranauts’ communication off while they’re at work setting up the mock Mars base.  Earth and Mars revolve around the sun at vastly different radii, which contribute to different year lengths—one Martian year is almost two Terran years.  For approximately two weeks out of every two years, the positions of Earth and Mars are such that they’re blocked from one another by the Sun, a time referred to as the synodic period.

“It’s a huge problem for Mars settlement,” Bloom said.  “No data in or out for two weeks.  Can you imagine if the U.S. dropped off the face of the earth for two weeks?”  I asked him if there was a way to bounce the signal around the sun.  “Sure there is,” Bloom pushed his beans away, pulled a blue ballpoint pen out of his breast pocket, and started drawing on a napkin.  “You put a relay satellite at the L4 or L5 Lagrange point, here or here.  But that’s a big satellite in an area of high asteroid activity.  You’d be replacing it every three months.”

So dark it is in July—Bloom and his team will pull the plug on the commlink with the terranauts for two weeks starting on July 25.  The crew doesn’t know the exact date, only that their simulation enters the synodic period towards the third week of July.  NASA’s hoping that when the comms go dead, the terranauts just carry on.  Bloom thinks it’s an important step to getting this mission they’re simulating approved.

Bloom’s goal, after all, is ambitious: a space station—on Mars.  Continuously inhabited.  A human colony on a red rock millions of miles away from… anything.

**

When we’ve emptied his bag of sunflower seeds, Kholodov starts his walk again, and motions for me to follow along.

“It would be easier, of course,” he says, “if they were not so concerned with coming back.”  I assume he’s taking the engineering position—less food, less fuel, much less cost—but Kholodov isn’t that simple.  “The kind of man who signs up for a one-way mission to Mars isn’t the kind of man who shoots himself with a Grach.  He is the kind of man who really wants to live forever.  In a way.  And—” Kholodov stops walking midsentence and turns to face me.  “He is the kind of man who does not give a damn about Terran politics.  No culture clash.”

I ask Kholodov several questions after that, but he’s silent or monosyllabic until we get to the main entrance of the university.  It’s a long path lined with ragged trees that leads, eventually, to downtown Zelenograd.

“You know what was here, in Zelenograd, before the city?” Kholodov asks.  “Nothing.  We are here—I am here—because sometime between Laika and Gagarin, Khrushchev decided we should be here.  And the Soviets did it.  Out of nothing.  We are now number one exporter of integrated circuits in all of Russia.  Seventy-nine percent of the residents have college degrees.  Nothing around but forest.  We are a colony.”  I’m picturing the map of Moscow’s districts, jostling one another for position around the Central Okrug’s Red Square.  Zelenograd, deemed a Moscow district by the administrative powers that be, sits alone to the northwest, disconnected from the rest of the map.

“And you know how the Soviets built Zelenograd from the air?”  Kholodov smiles, a slit in the gray beard that appears suddenly and stretches up his face, crinkling the skin by his eyes.  “No dissention.  Zero.  That is the secret to alchemy.  Can NASA and the U.S.A. say that about their science experiment in the desert?  I do not think they comprehend.”  The smile disappears.  “No, I do not think so.  NASA wants to build a Zelenograd on Mars, a scientific Eden.  But I am not in Zelenograd because I choose to be.  I am here because I cannot leave.  You understand?”

I tell Kholodov I understand, and he says he has a lecture to give.  Without another word, he shakes my hand firmly and turns around, walking with long strides back to the crenelated brick buildings.  In the late afternoon light, the lieutenant casts a long shadow on the campus’ stark white tile.

**

I pay a visit to Nevada once more after my trip to Russia.  Michael Bloom greets me at the military checkpoint that marks the entrance to the camp, and escorts me through the swinging gate, flashing his badge to anyone who looks in his direction.

“We upped security a bit,” he mumbles as we walk through the boiling summer desert sun to the communication tent.  “We cut comms in two days, don’t want anything… out of the ordinary happening.”  Bloom has transitioned from arctic explorer to safari vacationer, a lightweight khaki shirt over khaki shorts and birkenstocks.

A blast of cool air rushes out from the comm tent when Bloom opens the flap and ushers me inside.  Bloom steps in and wipes his forehead with his rolled up shirtsleeve, then sits down across from me at a folding table in the center of the tent.

“I heard you went to Russia.”  Bloom’s tone isn’t necessarily accusatory, but it gets the point across.  I figure there’s no point in being coy, so I tell Bloom about my visit with Kholodov, how the old Russian doesn’t think this mission can be done—doesn’t even think this simulation can be done.

Bloom pauses and leans back in his chair.  He wipes his forehead once more and then leans forward again and asks me if I’ve ever been to Star City.  I tell him I haven’t.

“Star City,” Bloom says, “is where Sergei Kholodov would be living if he hadn’t fucked up.”

It’s true, probably.  Star City is a town outside of Moscow, tree-lined and picturesque, a verdurous oasis in hoary Mother Russia.  It’s the home of the Yuri Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center, and to the families of Russian cosmonauts past and present—kind of a Beverly Hills for the space-faring Russian elite.  Kholodov has no place there.

“Have you listened to the recording of him during Derbent?”  Bloom is trying to hide a smirk, but isn’t doing a very good job of it.  “The Soviets had to bail his ass out three months early.”

That was, definitively, the end of Lieutenant Sergei Kholodov’s career as a cosmonaut.  Born in 1949, Kholodov was twelve years old when Gagarin floated around the globe in a cramped capsule and became the first human being to see the earth from space.  As his family watched the launch on state television, Kholodov claims to have whispered in his mother’s ear that he was one day going to do the same.

He went to college and studied electrical engineering, enlisted in the Soviet Air Defense Forces, excelled in officer school, and—on paper—was the perfect cosmonaut candidate.  But his chance to walk in Gagarin’s weightless footsteps didn’t come until after the bureaucratic curtain of the Soviet Union fell.  In 1994, at the age of 44, Kholodov boarded the Russian spaceflight mission Soyuz TM-18, call sign “Derbent,” as a research cosmonaut, slated to spend nine months on the now-decommissioned Russian space station Mir.

As the mission progressed, Kholodov spent more and more time each day at the station’s small, circular viewports, gazing not at Earth, but in the opposite direction, into the vast gulf of interstellar distance that separated him from the stars.  After five and a half months, he stopped talking to anyone onboard the station and took to scribbling furiously and almost constantly in a large, leather-bound journal he had brought with him.  Three days before the mission’s six-month mark, Kholodov snapped.

The recording from the space station’s cameras got little coverage in the United States, but played almost pervasively on Russian evening news broadcasts after some Roscosmos engineer leaked it to a news outlet.  In the video, Kholodov can be seen tearing apart his bunk and using one of the metal legs of his fold-out desk to beat the reinforced porthole window over and over and over again, screaming the word “nichego.”  When the other Russians in the station gathered around the small door to his closet-sized quarters, he began brandishing the desk leg and ranting about how mankind was “nothing” and that nothing he could do would change this, would make the universe care that he had existed, that his species had existed, that Earth was “just a blue pebble in an endless black sea.”

“Everything,” Kholodov said and turned to face the camera, “everything, everyone, everything that has ever happened—happened on nothing.”  Dr. Valeri Polyakov can then be seen approaching Kholodov with a syringe before the leaked video cuts to black.

Soyuz TM-18 landed on Earth, with Kholodov aboard, four days later.

“Pretty nuts, right?”  Bloom smiles.

**

I got my last email from David about six hours before the comm shutdown severed his ties with the outside world for two weeks.  He was jovial as ever, joking about an argument between Raj and Yang over the flavor their freeze-dried ice cream was supposed to be imitating and even asking if I had seen the new Superman movie his kids kept raving about.  At the end of the email, he tells me I should pick up a copy of Pale Blue Dot by Carl Sagan, the 20th century physicist.

Everything, David writes, everything we have ever known has happened on that dot.  Sagan calls Earth “a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.”  It’s beautiful, isn’t it?  That there’s so much of the universe we haven’t seen?  So much to discover, so much mystery?  I think Sagan would like what we’re doing here.  We’re pushing forward, into the unknown.  And the goal, the goal is to push humanity beyond that dot.  To have a rust red dot to match Earth’s blue.

The prefab structure came together, and the air is working, and the crew is happy.  All the experiments are going well.  Mankind can be spacefaring.  We’re showing that.  A universe infinite in scope, ours to explore!

I think it’s wonderful.  Everything up here is wonderful.

I thought about that as I walked out of the comm tent and looked across the encampment to Bloom’s consummately immersive dome. I thought about Earth, suspended in a sunbeam.  Down here, up there—Kholodov would scoff at me and mutter something about prepositions and how everything in the universe is relative.

We’re all up there, in some sense.  There’s beauty in that, and terror—the same terrifying beauty that confronted Kholodov during his orbits around the planet.  But even terrifying things can be wondrous, and after all these millennia of existence, human beings still see magic in the stars.  Because, after all, what are millennia to the stars but wisps of smoke?  Our lives, when whatever evidence of them reaches the stars thousands of light years away, are just a fading echo of our days, our thoughts, our joy, our pain, our laughter, of long-passed loves and long forgotten deeds.

The thought that something could be so far away—could live only in history and never grasp the present—that is the terror.  The wonder lies in our ability to live on this planet, at this moment, to breath its air and see its trees and love its people and not care if the footprint of our life is being whisked away to the edge of the universe, not care that the universe is void and humanity a small light in the darkness, not care that swathes of our galaxy will never be explored, but to realize, finally, that everything up there is beautiful—and everything down here is wonderful.

Terminal Eternal

I don’t want to achieve immortality through my work… I want to achieve it through not dying.

– Woody Allen

I am going to live forever.

I am also, of course, kidding.  (OR AM I?)  But some part of me is, undoubtedly, going to live forever.  The only hiccup with this is that I’ll be in no way associated with it.

There are two intertwining threads that lead to my inevitable immortality: 1) the amount of information and personality I’ve poured into the cloud via this blog, Facebook, Twitter, etc., etc., etc., and 2) rapidly accelerating progress in language processing and artificial intelligence.  Even just a simple Markov text generator (thanks, CS106B!) can generate passable, if not convincing, text in the voice of a sample author.  Now, extrapolate this is two dimensions: I’ll only continue to add information about myself in the form of writing to the web, and programmers—and thus algorithms—will only continue to be better and better than my simple class project.

The result?  Predicted in William Gibson’s Neuromancer: by the time I’ve died, I’ll have essentially uploaded myself to the cloud.  Insert your heaven metaphors here.

And not just me—anyone born in the last half century who has a non-negligible presence on the internet could be resurrected.  The only St. Peter and the Pearly Gates of this afterlife (there, a metaphor) are a friend, relative, or private investigator who feels like having a bit of a posthumous chat with the ghost you left in the machine.

I’d like to say this post wasn’t inspired by Facebook’s recent Timeline update, but—alas—something about seeing my entire digital history vivisected and displayed got me thinking about what it might look like in ten, twenty, thirty years.  (And if I’d ever be able to run for public office, but frankly in thirty years I don’t think I want to vote for anyone who doesn’t have some digital dirt on them.)  There’s a record of my soul, if you want to call it that, online—the places I go, people I talk to, things I say.  My wit, my inanity, my charm, my tiredness, my good side, my bad side are all there.  In fifty years, it’ll just take a little clever stringing together of those lumps of clay to make a convincing Seth-golem, something that talks like me, something that acts like me, something that is deterministically programmed to emulate the free will and spontaneity of me.

Someone told me once that his idea of the afterlife—heaven, hell, or purgatory, depending—was to put everyone you’ve ever met into a theater and show the movie of your life, in real time, from birth to final breath.  I propose a new afterlife, and with it a new metric for a life well lived:

When your avatar is raised by some computer necromancer in a séance of modem noises and flickering blue screens, what would it say?