Archive for the ‘Science’ Category

Review: Aquaman

Monday, December 31st, 2018

I went and saw Aquaman yesterday, at an impressively early 9:30 am screening. I momentarily baulked at the ticket price…

But then remembered that the film was going to be awesome and couldn’t throw my cash at the attendant fast enough!

The cinema was crazy big. I dutifully sat in my assigned seat (N-16) and when the projector started I was the only person in there! But then I noticed the first half hour or so were just adverts (including many social engineering PSA’s: exercise more, don’t stay in the sun, start a savings account, etc.) and sure enough the locals knowledgeable about such things shuffled in just before the main show.

Aquaman is about a fish-powered dude that fights a lot and seems to wish he was actually a professional wrestler. I’m not going to spoil the overall plot here but I’ll say it starts off strong and within minutes I was intrigued:

Aquaman’s powers are a cross between Superman and Yoda and are frankly absurd (why is he bulletproof?!?) but you won’t question them because after the crazy start the film quickly evolves into madness and then ascends into bonkers territory.

This was my face during the political scene between the aryan riding the zeuglodon and the Viking riding the dragon:

And then when they introduced a pretty redhead fish girl and the film briefly stopped being about fish and became Indiana Jones meets Jurassic Park I was slackjawed.

This was my face when the murlocs (from World of Warcraft) turned up:

But it wasn’t even close to done! When a futuristic city sequence that makes Blade Runner look like the scribblings of a child was followed by a space battle that featured not one, not 1000, not 1000000, but every fish I was just roaring at the screen with joy:

There’s much to love about the film. Its visuals and design are astonishing, its script unfettered by tradition, its actors unconstrained by expectation and it’s easily got the best depiction of cetacean armies fighting a billion crabs that have ever been printed to celluloid.

It makes you feel every emotion, from love to hate to glee and yes, to terror. It’s unfettered fun, and easily gets my highest recommendation. Best fish war film ever by a mile.

Immediately afterwards I languidly strolled over to the Game Center and found a coin-pusher machine:

I was so full of DC comics appreciation I had to win a card, and quickly targeted this Batman that was right at the edge:

As you can see it was about to drop! So close in fact that a shift of only one atom would have caused it to fall…

…it only cost me $25 to ‘win’ it 🙂

Crystal Hog

Monday, August 13th, 2018

Let soak 24 hours…

The crystals are strong and very pretty!

It’s Time To Address The Paranormal

Thursday, February 23rd, 2017

I’ve had a lot of discussions recently with my students and coworkers on the topic of the paranormal, and I’m intrigued by how many of them believe in the existence of such matters. While most people are skeptical, others have simultaneously expressed belief in very specific things (mermaids, psychics) and a small few don’t deny anything. One student yesterday told me “I believe in everything!”

For the most part I simply ask and am happy to hear their responses without commenting. I think they know I don’t believe in any most of it, since often they pose questions asking me why ‘things’ can’t exist (as opposed to whether I believe them or not). But enough people have asked me about these topics I thought it was time to address it all here.

So here we go, in no particular order…

Ghosts aren’t real, period. There is absolutely no evidence for them, there never has been, and there never will be. There is no theoretical basis for their existence, and they occupy no part of the world that we don’t understand. Ghosts are – have always been – a figment created by human fear of death and the afterlife. Wouldn’t it be nice if our dearly departed weren’t gone after all? Of all the topics in this blog, ghosts are the most widely believed with about a third of westerners thinking they are real (and about a fifth of believers claiming to have seen one).

So if ghosts aren’t real but millions of people believe they have seen (or felt) one – including an intelligent, well-educated coworker of mine – what is the explanation? There are a few, but my favourite is the tendency for the brain to find patterns where none exist. Very few people have ever reported seeing ghosts clearly in broad daylight when they were wide awake and calm. They are more likely seen at night or in very poor light, when the viewer is alone and in a state of heightened tension. Suggestible if you will, like the haunted card deck.

Cryptids (excluding bigfoot) might be real. A cryptid is an unknown animal (although some expand the definition to include sentient creatures) and while the most famous examples include lake monsters, bigfoot (see next), chupacabra and ‘Beasts of Exmoor’ there are also much more fantastic (not to mention unlikely) examples such as Ningen, Bunyips and the Congo river dinosaur Mokele-mbembe (allegedly filmed by a Japanese expedition in 1988).

Though it pains me to say it, most of these don’t exist. I say this because as a youth I was slightly obsessed with cryptids, and to this day have several volumes on the topic on a shelf in this very room. My particular forte was ‘sea monsters’ but despite sightings going back centuries none have ever been found, nor has any real evidence been located. Likewise for the other famous cryptids, most of which have been ‘seen’ far less than lake monsters.

And yet this is not a topic that can be easily dismissed. For years gigantic squids were the stuff of legend, but we now know they absolutely exist. These are the largest examples of ‘unknown’ creatures being recently discovered, but every year we find more and more hiding in dark corners of the world. Might there be a colony of large cats living in the wilds of England? Possibly.

The weird ones though, such as werewolves, unicorns, dragons and ‘cloud creatures’ that live permanently in the upper atmosphere are exactly as they seem: creatures of myth and legend. The most open-minded (some may say optimistic) cryptozoologists may entertain the possibilities of some of these being real (or at least based on real animals) but I remain firmly skeptical.

Bigfoot (also known as Sasquatch, Yowie, Yeti, Yeren etc.) isn’t real. Centuries of searching for these man-apes has produced no actual evidence short of dubious footprint casts and hair swatches that when tested have always been identified as known animals (such as elk or bears).

Most belief in bigfoot stems from the famous 1967 ‘Patterson-Gimlim’ film that has now been exposed as a hoax. In the years since there have been a few other notable claims of bigfoot’s authenticity, but none held up under scrutiny and all have since been confirmed as hoaxes. In fact almost ever single ‘sighting’ is quickly determined to be fake, and the very few that may have involved someone seeing an unidentified creature are almost always bears or other large woodland creatures.

And yet the myth continues. ‘Bigfoot hunters’ exist, sightings continue and (some) people believe. There is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence and theory contradicting the existence of this guy, but as long as money can be made on hoaxes or TV shows about searching the legend will continue.

After all, aren’t we now living in a ‘post truth’ world?

UFOs and Aliens are a tricky subject. One certainly exists, the other probably doesn’t.

It’s been about 60 years since UFOs entered the public consciousness, but reports of unidentified objects in the sky have been around for centuries, long predating the invention of manned flight. It was in the middle of the 20th century that the mania took off though, and for a while there it must have seemed possible that an actual alien landing on Earth was imminent.

I’ve written about UFOs before since I find the topic intriguing, I’ve never seen one, and I believe those that have are experiencing the same sort of phenomenon that explains ghost sightings, and yet I think the possibility exists that they could exist. Here’s why:

  1. There’s nothing supernatural about them. If we put our minds to it, we humans could build a craft that could traverse interstellar distances.
  2. If we could build such a craft and survive the journey to another planet I’m convinced we would.
  3. This is the most compelling proof: Aliens certainly exist

I’ll get to that last point in a bit, but first more on the second. Just this week NASA announced the possible existence of life-supporting planets about 40 light-years from Earth. Suppose we built a craft that could safely traverse that distance. Using the known laws of physics – in particular with regards to energy  and relativity – it is very, very unlikely we could get to that planet in anything less than thousands of years (and likely far longer). So if we wanted to send our own UFOs to them, no-one could survive the trip. ‘Generational’ craft (that support communities that breed in space) are hardly a possibility given the social and technological obstacles, and suspended animation is science fantasy.

And yet, I am 100% sure that life on other planets exists. The universe is so impossibly – possibly infinitely! – large that Earth is just one tiny planet in one tiny corner of one tiny room. There are trillions upon trillions of other planets like ours out there and it is absurd to think that life evolved only on this one. It is equally ridiculous to suppose we are the most advanced life in the universe, which is to say if we ever could build interstellar craft than ‘someone’ else already has.

But those distances! Those energy requirements! The light speed constraint!

Yes aliens exist. Yes they may be able to build spaceships so advanced we perceive them as magical. But can they actually get here and have people actually seen them? I won’t say for sure, but it seems extremely unlikely.

I could go on, and discuss topics such as time travel, espers, fairies, crop circles and many more but I’ve covered the big ones and I think you could anticipate my thoughts on the others.

While it’s fun to believe – and in fact I want to believe – I’ve become a very rational man and simply don’t. What I do enjoy is the belief of others, so if you are convinced your home is haunted or you saw an alien on a windswept beach one evening then please, please, don’t let anyone tell you it didn’t happen. Memories like this are what makes us unique, and it would be a shame for anyone to ever take them away.

Is This Real Life?

Tuesday, May 3rd, 2016

I watched an extraordinary film recently called Welt am Draht or World On A Wire.

world-on-a-wire-poster-art

It’s a 3.5 hour two-part film made for German TV in 1973. It’s beautifully shot and acted, and one of the more watchable films I’ve seen in a long time. To say I enjoyed it greatly would be an understatement, and I believe I would have done so even if it didn’t have such a remarkable story.

Spoiler alert! I’m going to spoil the film now, so skip to after the next image if you want to watch it without knowing what it is about. Note however that the remainder of this blog will deal with the same issues covered by this remarkable film.

The film is about an IBM-like company (named IKZ) which has created a simulation of reality (Simulacron) which contains 9000 individual simulated humans that are used for consumer trend analysis (such as to determine what fashions may be in vogue years later). One of the programmers kills himself under mysterious circumstances after claiming to have learned a terrible secret, and his replacement (Stiller) finds himself in increasingly bizarre situations as he attempts to determine exactly what led to his predecessors suicide.

The truth is – and here’s the big spoiler – that the world of IKZ is itself a simulation, and none of the inhabitants knows. The dead programmer found out, and in time Stiller finds out himself, and races against time (and the clever and subtle changes being made to the world by whoever is simulating it) to somehow find a reason to keep living now that he knows his life is nothing but data in some computer ‘above’ his reality.

As I said, this film was made in 1973. Even more remarkable was that it was based on a novel from 1964. It’s fantastic: watch it.

ee

Ask yourself: “Am I real, or just a simulation?”

The idea of our reality not being real is hardly new, and for centuries philosophers have debated the nature of reality and whether anything actually exists at all. But in the last few decades the idea that our reality may be a simulation has slowly been gaining some form of credence. This paper in particular, has helped drive the argument. This is not crazy-talk, as recently as a month ago the American Museum of Natural History had a well-attended talk (moderated by Neil deGrasse Tyson) on the topic (only one of the five debaters rejected the possibility).

I’ll skip to the end before I throw out a few considerations: the answer seems to be ‘maybe’. We may one day even be able to prove it is true. In fact it is unlikely – even impossible – that we could ever prove it isn’t true. So we may have to accept the possibility that we are living in a simulation and consider from what effect  – if any – this has on our lives.

screensaver

Bostrom’s argument supposes only one of these is true:
1) No civilization ever becomes able to simulate the universe
2) No civilization that can ever does simulate the universe
3) We are living in a simulation

One of the logical conclusions of his argument is that if we fit into one of the above criteria, that one must be true. Right now we’re in catgeory 1, with neither the ability nor the means to simulate reality. And that’s supposing that reality is even calculable, which is a big unknown due to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics and the fact we currently don’t know much about things like gravity, and dark matter (ie. fundamental parts of reality).

But humans are smart, and we learn how to build more powerful computers every year. One day, presumably, we may have the means to simulate ourselves, at which point we’ll enter category 2. When we’re at the point where we can simulate reality, will we? It seems to me this is more a sociological question than a scientific one, but I can’t think of many times in the history of humanity where we’ve developed the ability to do something (non destructive) and not done it. So it is at least likely that we will build the simulation and then turn it on.

At which point we must face the fact that if we can simulate reality perfectly, there is no logical argument against us being simulations ourselves. So if we ever get beyond category 2 and create out own reality sim, we are simultaneously proving that we ourselves are simulated.

There are other possible proofs. One idea is that a 3D reality simulation must have some discrete co-ordinate system (x/y/z) which would have an effect on EM wave transmissions and background cosmic radiation. There are claims that evidence to support this has already been found.

A wilder consideration is that the second law of thermodynamics when applied to the closed system that is our universe suggests that disorder should always be increasing. And yet we live in a universe full of order – in fact we see more order than disorder (ie. atoms are arranged in planets and not distributed randomly throughout the universe). This itself has led to endless philosophy (this will bend your mind) but one theory may be that our simulation has been tweaked to accommodate us in (macroscopic) violation of the second law. In other words the simulation agrees entirely with the laws of physics only as far as it must to allow our universe to exist in the first place.

ferns

Going further down the rabbit-hole, the logical question is ‘how’? How would it ever be possible to build or power a computer able to do this, much less code the simulation itself? We can’t know the answers, and if we are simulated likely never will, but from the point of view of a simulation we may create certainly one must ask “Why simulate everything when you can just do one person?”

Consider that for a moment. Maybe reality is not a simulation. Maybe just you are? Maybe just I am. Maybe none of you exist, and the comments you leave on my blog (or texts you send me) were just generated by a computer to make the world I perceive seem real? Maybe everyone I interact with only exists while I interact with them? It may be that reality isn’t simulated, only my reality is? (You may want to read up on the Bishop George Berkley at this point.)

sg

Which brings me to: If we are simulated, so what? The answer is it doesn’t matter. Assuming the simulators continue to let the simulation play out without interference (or at least tweak the code to hide their interference) then it has no affect on our lives at all. What we don’t – can’t – know won’t hurt us, you could say.

My Dad at this point is thinking another obvious question: who are the simulators? If we are simulations who built the computer and who wrote the code? This is for some an uncomfortable element of the argument, since it blurs the lines between science and faith.

Many years ago in a quantum physics text I read a quote that I will paraphrase here: “Science should be careful of looking too closely else they may find God”. It seems to be this is just as relevant to the simulated reality argument.

(If this topic interests you, you may also want to read about the idea that our universe itself is a computer and another theory explaining the apparent 2nd law violation.)

In The Cards

Sunday, March 6th, 2016

Go and get a deck of cards, shuffle it, and deal it out in the order you shuffled it. You may find this hard to believe, but it’s extraordinarily likely that no one ever has shuffled cards into the same order you just did.

random cards

You’ve probably heard this before, since it’s one of those quite interesting facts that does the rounds. But in case you haven’t, the reason is that the amount of different ways a 52 card deck can be ordered is astonishingly high. The number is so big it’s difficult to parse:

8065817517094387857166063685640376
6975289505440883277824000000000000

Yes that’s one number written across two lines. To get an idea how large this is, it’s significantly higher than the number of stars in the universe, the number of atoms in your body, and the number of seconds that have elapsed since the universe was created in the big bang.

I’ll take it one step further. Depending on who you ask, between 60 and 108 billion humans have ever lived, so we can use an average of 80 billion. Applying the Doomsday Argument to this average suggests that about 1.2 trillion humans will ever live (and there’s a blog post on that topic itself!).

So in the entirety of human history, if every human ever lived to an average of 70 years and spent every single second of their lives shuffling cards the entire output of humanity would only correspond to a miniature subset of the total possible permutations of a 52 card deck (3.3E-45% to be accurate).

So shuffle that deck, deal it out, and be impressed with a creation that only you have made.

intellivision

This has an interesting relevance in the field of gambling, which requires randomized deals lest the player guess the card order. Using human dealers, decks can be shuffled in a way that makes them almost completely random (although studies have shown that a virgin deck must be shuffled anywhere from 4 to 7 times to eliminate the order inherent in the way it was packaged). But these days the vast majority of deck shuffling is done by computers, and it’s not trivial to make computers do things truly randomly.

The very first computer games that included card shuffling had extremely primitive random number generation and could only return limited unique decks. Random number generators require a ‘seed’ (ie. a start value upon which all others are based) and every sequence based on the same seed is identical. Games on the Atari 2600 and Intellivision (shown above) typically used hardware values or player input (such as the number of frame refreshes that occurred before the player pushed the start button) as seeds, but even then were limited to usually only a couple of hundred unique decks. Given enough time and effort therefore, you could know the entire order of cards based upon the first few dealt.

As time moved on the algorithms became more sophisticated, and so too did the random number generators, but even then it was possible to predict deck orders if you had enough information. In 1999 an online casino, in an attempt to demonstrate their games were not rigged, actually posted their RNG code online. Someone got it, worked out how they seeded (based on the clock time, as I did in my polycap simulation), and actually wrote their own code that was able to reproduce perfectly the shuffling of the games they were playing online.

So we get to today, where RNG’s use very creative ideas to seed themselves with truly random seeds (such as using code to convert video frames captured from random Youtube videos or 1 second of white noise from a radio into seeds). But there is still a problem in that the range of randomly generated numbers is still limited to about 4E38. In short, you can’t generate a number between 1 and 8.06E67, which means you cannot generate one number for each possible deck permutation.

There are ways around this (hint: using only a single coin you can generate two random values) but it makes the task of writing a deck shuffling simulator that can account for every possibly permutation non trivial.

I think.

vp

So as a result of this thought experiment, Bernard’s going to do it! Here’s my design document:

1) Assign all 52 cards a random number
2) Sort them
3) Output shuffled deck

It’s trivial stuff, and should only take him a femtosecond or two to implement. But the true fun is in the testing! For what I’m really interested in is how many unique shuffles are completed before a repeat occurs. Therefore the output (deck order) will need to be saved as well as the time it takes for each shuffle to be completed. Plus, since 52! is insanely large (the world will end before his computer shuffles that many times) I’d say saving the first 15 cards + the time the shuffle occurred is sufficient to do some statistical analysis.

So there you go Bernard, there’s your challenge. Write the code, run it 1.3 trillion times*/**, save the first 15 cards in each deck and the time the shuffle was performed and then analyze it to see if any sequence repeated.

Let us know the results 🙂

* I’ll assume you have a modern Pentium running about 100k MIPS, and that this code requires maybe 1000 operations to execute (a big guess there; the sort could take many more), which means about 12000 seconds or 3.5 hours per experiment. However writing results will slow it down a lot I suspect. Good luck!

** A very rough mental calculation tells me this may be a file size in the order  or 17Tb. I hope you have a lot of space! Even more luck to you sir!!