And You Thought Hubble Was Impressive...

Over the years, we have seen some amazing, incredible, astounding, superlative-laden images coming from our valuable space friend, the Hubble Telescope. Hubble's had a few struggles, and has needed the occasional repair job, but it's also shown us things in space that have made us "ooh" and "aah" with childlike delight. One of the last missions of the soon-to-be-retired space shuttle will be to go out and give Hubble another much-needed tune-up. Thank you NASA, and keep the pictures coming. NASA, however, isn't resting on Hubble's laurels, and has bigger and better things in mind. The James Webb Space Telescope will someday be sending us pretty pictures from farther out in space than Hubble can peer, because NASA has figured out how to send up a mirror in folding segments, segments that will unfold once they get to their new home and outshine Hubble in the process. This, however, is just the beginning.

NASA has some even bigger plans, due to the development of a new rocket, the Ares V, which will be able to take payloads of 284,000 pounds off this pretty blue ball we call home. With the Ares V, NASA could send mirrors (the main part that makes all that telescoping possible) of over 8 meters into space--no folding required. The mere mention of 8-meter-mirrors may not convey much information to us non-scientist types, but all those jaw-dropping pictures from Hubble come courtesy of a mirror that's only 2.4 meters wide. According to NASA, we're looking at the possibility of telescopes with three times the resolution of Hubble, and the ability to see things that are eleven times fainter than what Hubble can detect right now, because the mirror's surface area will be eleven times greater. I'm not sure how that works mathematically, or scientifically, or any other kind of "ically," but since that won't stop me from enjoying the pictures and the knowledge we gain from the new super space-viewing toy, I'm prepared to forgo any concern I might have at being so dependant upon Smart People for all the really cool space stuff, and simply to be grateful that Smart People exist.

Follow the link to the NASA article to read all about their plans. If you want to expand your brain a bit, click on this "Lagrange point" link for an explanation of 18th-century mathematician Josef Lagrange's discovery of "parking" spots in space, spots where the pull of the Sun and the pull of the Earth conspire together to keep satellites firmly in place. NASA intends to use these spots to the fullest, and fill up the parking lot with various and sundry telescopes, all searching the heavens for new and vital spacey information, and more jaw-dropping pictures. The information is cool and all, and I'm glad that the Smart People have ways to collect and use it, but if you ask me, the best part is the pictures.

Tech Fun

Maybe someday the Smart People will stop coming up with tech toys that call out to me with the lure of the Sirens to Odysseus' crew, but this is not that day. Glenn Derene, at Popular Mechanics, has a look at a revolutionary new computing platform, and it's absolutely amazing. Would you believe it's a coffee table? Well it is--a coffee table like nothing you've ever seen, except in sci fi movies like The Island and Minority Report. I just can't not want one. I can't. It's not possible. Go watch the video, and I dare you to try and not want one too. Read the article. If you're a geek at all, this thing has to at least make you want to play with it, if not start saving money immediately, forgetting your children's education and that long-awaited second honeymoon, for the day when this high-tech jewel will finally be your own. Just remember not to buy it till the technological law of gravity kicks in and the price comes down. Try to have that much self control--although, I admit, it's going to be hard with this one. I'm already contemplating which organ to sell.

Hat tip: Instapundit

First Aid First

Have you ever wondered what would happen if you were suddenly required to remember the CPR you learned in high school health class? What if the guy in the cubicle next to you suddenly collapsed from a heart attack? After you yell to someone to call 911, would you know how to be his "artificial heart" until the paramedics arrive? I have some vague recollection, and could probably get my hands in the right position, but would be pretty shaky on the details, like how hard to push down, and how often. Now, I could tell you the numbers right now, because I just read an article on the subject at Gizmag (100 beats per minute, and about four to five centimeters of compression), but that article also stated that most people don't retain the correct information for long after they have learned it. Gizmag says, "Only 6 months after learning life-saving CPR techniques, around 60 percent of first aiders - including doctors and nurses - forget how to do it correctly." Only six months. Wow. That makes the chances that I remember the details from sophomore health back in '79 accurately pretty darn remote.

Now, I probably ought to go take a CPR refresher course, but considering that the info might only last another six months before finding the sieve holes in my brain, it would be awfully nice if there were another option--something that might make all the potential heart attack victims in my vicinity a little safer. In fact, wouldn't it be great if people all over the globe (not just near me), in houses, stores, airplanes, office cubicles, and every other place we humans tend to inhabit, could be made just a little safer from what the World Health Organization says is the number one killer of both men and women around the world? I have a friend who recently survived a heart "episode" and it's made me much more aware of how important it is that people know what to do, and that I really don't. I'm sure most of us are getting more aware as we age that we don't have the answers for every emergency, while at the same time we are getting ever more likely to experience them. Some folks in Canada, though, have moved beyond awareness and onto solutions. They've come up with a gadget to add to the standard first aid kit that could save a lot of lives. It's not a magic pill, or portable defibrillator, but a glove:

The Canadian CPR Glove acts as a quick on-the-job refresher course, making sure the first aider administers the correct frequency and depth of chest compression. It's a simple and cheap device that has real potential to save lives if included in a first aid kit.

The black, one-size-fits-all CPR Glove features a series of sensors and chips that measure the frequency and depth of compressions being administered during CPR and outputs the data to a digital display.

How's that for an elegant solution to the memory problem? It's a small item, that's easy to store with the other aid supplies, yet it could make such a difference if it's ever needed. Gizmag says that in a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, fifty-nine percent of the time people didn't do enough compressions per minute to help the patient, and that nearly forty percent of the time the compressions weren't deep enough. Put the CPR Glove on the hand that's pushing on the victim's chest, however, and the glove itself will tell you if you're doing it right. Pretty slick, don't you think?

So who were the Smart People who came up with this life-saving notion? Students:

"We were brainstorming about what we could create for our final-year design project that would provide a real contribution," said inventor Corey Centen, a fourth-year student in electrical and biomedical engineering at McMaster. "We came across this study and recognized the importance of finding a solution."

Centen and classmate Nilesh Patel started working on the concept in September 2006 and developed a number of prototypes, bringing the size of components down each time. They wrote the programs and hand-fabricated the button-size computer chips that operate the glove. They even designed the pattern for the glove but turned to a professional seamstress to recommend fabric and stitch the glove together.

"We see the glove being available as part of any standard first-aid package," explains Patel, also a fourth-year electrical and biomedical engineering student at McMaster. "It is also ideal for CPR training and refresher courses. It would be easy to afford since the components are readily available and relatively inexpensive."

Cool, huh? I want one.

One More For The Space Destination Wish-List

European astronomers, star-gazing from the European Southern Observatory's telescope in La Silla, Chile, have found another space address for us astronaut wannabes to add to our destination wish-list. They've found a planet, a mere 120 trillion miles away, that could potentially be habitable, boasting balmy temperatures in the 32 to 104 degree range, with 1.6 times Earth's gravity (just right for promoting strong muscles and bones), and maybe even liquid water. The planet, dubbed 581c, by astronomers who clearly need to get some creative influences in their lives, circles a red dwarf star once every 13 days, likely without rotating, so the same side faces the star all the time. That lack of spinning is sad news for any inhabitants of the newly-discovered planet who would like to take time out of their busy day to watch a nice sunset, since no turning means there aren't any sunsets. It's a shame, really--they would have been spectacular. The star is much closer to 581c than the Sun is to Earth, on the order of 14 times closer, which, according to Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press, would make the red star "hang in the sky at a size 20 times larger than our moon." (Oooh, pretty.) Don't worry about getting too toasty at that proximity, though. Even at that distance things wouldn't heat up too much, since the red dwarf is much cooler than our Sun. All in all, this planet looks like it's got some potential, the kind of planet that scientists speculate could support life--ours, or some other totally alien species that we could finally confront about those crop circles and invasive medical probes in the mother ship.

Before we start packing for a nice long space voyage, though, we're still going to have to deal with the enormous distances. Even though the planet is circling a star that counts as one of our 100 closest neighbors, it's still 20.5 light years away. That's way too far for us to reach at our present level of technology, unless we wanted to do the generational ship thing, and die in space so that our great-great grandkids can inherit the as yet unexplored planet. The big problem with that (besides dying in space without ever reaching the big other-worldly destination) is that scientists really don't know what we would find once we got there. It could be a rocky planet such as our own, or it could be a big old ball of ice. Right now, it's best guess. You see, these astronomers have determined all of this information about the red dwarf and 581c by examining light wobbles that they can detect from their fancy telescope down in Chile. They are applying their extra-smart physics-savvy brains to exactly what these light wobbles mean, and this possibly-able-to-sustain-life planet is what they've come up with. Do not ask me how, because I don't have a clue. I'm sure it's something to do with gravity's effect on light, and Einstein probably comes in for a bit of the action, but that's as far as my non-physics-savvy brain can get me without going back for another college degree. The one I have in English Lit simply isn't very helpful in extrapolating how they know there's a possibly habitable planet circling this red dwarf, based on the wobbling of a little light. (Actually, that is something that frustrated me about both the articles I read about this planet. They both mentioned the light wobbles, but neither of them told me more of the science in detail. I will probably have to quest more to have that curiosity satisfied.)

In any case, now that they've found a planet just right for adding to the exploration-worthy list (is there any planet not worthy of inclusion on such a list?), there's still a lot for us to learn before we can head out to see it for ourselves and swap recipes with the local alien inhabitants. We still need to learn the basics of long distance space travel and colonization. We have to lick the problem of cosmic radiation and we need propulsion systems that can shorten the journey for us. We also need truly self-sustainable habitats and recycling systems that conserve every bit of air and water, so that a long journey without restocking our provisions with supplies from Earth is even possible. We need efficient energy generation systems, strong, lightweight ship designs, and thousands of other things that will have to be developed and perfected. Sadly, we're not even close. Don't give up hope, though. Our Smart People are working on all these things, and we'll start getting more familiar with how to overcome the problems of space by sending people out into our own solar system. Once we get the whole establishing colonies thing down, by practicing on the Moon and Mars, we're going to gain the expertise to head farther afield, and then we'll get to go exploring, maybe even to 581c. Hopefully by then they'll have come up with a better name.

Note: For a little more reading on the topic, here's a link to NewScientist.com.

Hat tip: Su

"Colony Collapse Disorder"

I'm just passing this one on--from Alexei Barrionuevo, at The New York Times:

More than a quarter of the country’s 2.4 million bee colonies have been lost — tens of billions of bees, according to an estimate from the Apiary Inspectors of America, a national group that tracks beekeeping. So far, no one can say what is causing the bees to become disoriented and fail to return to their hives.

According to Barrionuevo, 27 states in the U.S. have been hit by colony collapse, with some honeybee populations disappearing in as little as two days. Some European countries, as well as Guatemala and Brazil are also looking for explanations for beehive vacancies in their own regions. This could be a big deal--we all know how much our food supply depends on nature's pollinators. There are lots of theories right now, and lots of scientists looking for answers, using everything from DNA research to bee autopsies to narrow down the many possibilities. From what Barrionuevo writes, they're making progress. Let's hope the Smart People are in top form for figuring this one out. Bees are important.

Hat tip: Instapundit

Eye In The Sky

I've been playing with a site I stumbled upon via NASA's Earth Observatory website. Every week NASA sends out emails with links to various photos of Earth locations, and the stories about what's happening there. Today I followed a link to an Earth Observatory story about how satellite data is helping scientists investigate the extent of desertification in the Sahel region of Africa, an area bordered by the Sahara desert. There has been some suspicion that the desert is spreading. (To reassure you, long-term data indicates this isn't necessarily so, but I'll let you read the article if the topic interests you.) That article led me to another, which examines exactly what desertification is, which then led me to click on a hidden little link that took me to the really cool site which is the whole reason I'm writing this post. I clicked over to GeoEye, and was met with the most amazing set of satellite photos, and a nifty little scroll whereby I could call up each picture that caught my interest. (The scroll was actually a bit tricky. It wanted to move a little too quickly for me to always get where I was aiming to go, but I got the hang of it eventually.)

After I looked at every single photo on that scroll, I started nosing around the rest of the site, and discovered that GeoEye is a "commercial remote sensing company," and according to the website, "GeoEye is a leading producer of satellite, aerial and geospatial information." They have three satellites taking highly-detailed images, which they sell to customers who use them for "mapping, environmental monitoring, commercial fishing, urban planning, resource management, homeland defense, national security, and emergency preparedness." (They have a photo of Hurricane Katrina that made me say, "WOW." Out loud.)

All of these "planning the future of mankind" applications are worthy and beneficial I'm sure, but realistically, I personally have no use for the data as such. Nor, I suspect, do you. National security will just have to go on without our input, but the "highly-detailed imagery" is just so darn cool, that I had to tell you about it. Let the Smart People figure out how to use the pictures for the good of all mankind. I just think they're pretty. (They have a store if you want a poster, or calendar, or anything--and just so you know that there really can't be many secrets anymore, at least not above-ground, one of those posters they're selling is an image of Area 51. The government had better get to hiding those aliens.)

Hydrogen Fuel Cells: "On Demand" Energy

Here's an alternative energy tidbit for you. Clean, cheap energy remains the Holy Grail of the modern scientific world (unless you rank the cure for cancer higher.) Among other approaches, ambitious companies are working hard on practical ways to make hydrogen fuel our cars. Bill Hobbs, writing yesterday at Ecotalityblog, says that Ecotality’s Hydratus technology combines magnesium and water, and the reaction between them produces hydrogen "on demand," as a vehicle's fuel cell has need of it. On demand sounds good, doesn't it? So does the idea of a fuel whose only byproduct is water, which is one of the lures of hydrogen as a source of energy, and Hobbs says this new technology can power a bus. The Smart People at Ecotality think they're onto something big.

Now, I'm not a chemist, or a physicist or any other kind of "ist," but I still found the short post about the Hydratus interesting. Although, maybe I found it interesting because I'm not an "ist." So far there are several comments from other Smart People in response to the post, explaining why using magnesium is not a net gain in terms of energy output, requiring too much energy to produce the magnesium which produces the hydrogen, and how there are other byproducts to deal with as well when magnesium is involved. Ecotality’s CEO, Jonathan Read, sounds awfully confident, though, claiming, "Hydrogen on-demand is going to be what catapults hydrogen from being a great concept to a great reality." Maybe the company is one or two steps ahead of the commenters. Smart People debates--fine entertainment for your Wednesday morning. I hope Ecotality comes out ahead on this one, though. It would be nice to see more really tangible advances on the alternative energy front.

Hat tip: Instapundit

Haptics--Coming To A Cellphone Near You

Pretty soon we're not going to be able to trust any of our own senses. We are rapidly approaching the day when the line between illusion and reality won't be easily determined by casual examination. Science fiction is creeping further and further into the real world, and some of the time we don't even notice it. The phrase, "I'll believe it when I see it." has lost a good deal of it's meaning in recent decades. We see perfectly believable things all the time which are nothing but computer generated graphics, or clever use of Photoshop. We hear things all the time which are studio fabrications--like the beautiful diva's aria from the movie The Fifth Element. We taste and smell things, probably daily, that are chemical facsimiles of nature's offerings, and never give it a second thought. The only relatively trustworthy sense left in our arsenal is that of touch, and if the truth be told, that one's going on the reliability chopping-block too.

If you've read the Meow for any length of time, more specifically since last August, then you've probably seen my posts about haptics. In the first, I spent a little time discussing what the science of haptics is, and in the second, I shared some links sent to me by Dr. Gabriel Robles-De-La-Torre, founder of the International Society for Haptics, and a prominent researcher in the field. For those of you who don't have the background, I'll describe haptics the same way I did before:

Haptics uses computer technology to make you feel things that aren't really there, or feel things differently than they actually are. It's a virtual reality type of fooling the senses, but haptics involves the sense of touch.

It's not really an adequate definition, but it gets you started on the idea, and you can follow the links if you want to know more. There are explanations for how force can imply shape, and there are graphic demonstrations to help those of us who aren't neuroscientists and computer engineers like Dr. Robles-De-La-Torre. It's interesting stuff, and the Meow will still be here when you get back, so go have a look... Go on... Shoo!

Back now? Okay, then let's move on. The thing which got me "hooked on haptics" is reading the explanations of how Dr. R's work can be applied in the real world. I find it absolutely fascinating that your body could touch something, and feel something else. The good doctor has developed mechanisms where a person running their finger over something smooth will feel something sharp, or pointy, which is impressive enough in itself, but what is even more amazing is the growing list of ways the science can be applied to things which you and I use, and will probably grow to take for granted. I wrote before that there are hopes that haptics will advance to the point where surgeons could practice operations using a haptic interface, perfecting their technique before ever touching a real live patient, but feeling everything they would if a living breathing bleeding person lay on the table before them. Space technicians, too, might be able to get the "feel" of dangerous maneuvers, like docking a spaceship to an orbiting station, aiding the chances that when they perform the real thing in space, they won't damage either people or expensive space toys. There are versions of these technologies in use today, although there's a long way to go. More and more advanced forms of haptics technology could be saving lives in the very near future.

These applications are wonderful, of course, even noble, but you might be thinking, "Okay, but that stuff is all pretty distant from me. Although I might have surgery one day, I'm not going to be performing one any time soon, and space shuttle docking is even further out of my reach, so there's not much chance I'm going to even experience haptic technology, let alone take it for granted." Clearly, I have something further to offer for your haptics edification, or I wouldn't bother writing this post, so read on.

I got an email yesterday from our friend Dr. Robles-De-La-Torre, and he sent me to an article from The Economist (via TCMnet) that just came out this month, about some more applications of the kind of work that he's doing. The Economist explains how the science is moving beyond using only force to fool you into believing you're touching something you're not (as amazing as that is), and adding a new dimension--skin stretch:

Most of today's haptic devices rely on motors that either prod or vibrate the skin, but a new technology is emerging that is an even more flexible and effective means of stimulating the sense of touch: skin stretch. By laterally stretching the surface of the skin (without pushing or poking into it) it is possible to mimic the feeling of complex shapes and sensations. This is because the sense of touch seems to depend far more on the way in which the skin is deformed and stretched than it does on the degree of pressure applied. So it should be possible to recreate sensations purely by stretching skin, says Vincent Hayward, a researcher who first developed such a device at the Centre for Intelligent Machines at McGill University in Montreal, Canada.

"It's analogous to watching a TV screen," he says. The human eye can be tricked into seeing a range of colours on a video display, even though it really only consists of tiny red, green and blue dots. In much the same way the sense of touch can be fooled into feeling shapes and textures that are not there, says Dr Hayward.

Okay, cool. Skin stretch is another tool in the haptic bag of tricks, and the body gets fooled like it does with television, but this still doesn't answer how any of this becomes something you and I are likely to encounter. How does the science of haptics affect me!! (It is all about me, you know--or you, as the case may be.) Patience. The Economist points out some of the ways the rest of us may be experiencing haptics--it also includes a much better definition than mine of exactly what haptics is:

Haptics is the science of simulating pressure, texture, vibration and other sensations related to touch. The term is derived from a Greek word meaning "able to lay hold of". Devices that exploit haptics have been around for decades: many modern aeroplanes, for example, have haptic control columns that shake or vibrate to warn the pilot of an approaching stall. The technology has also found its way into video-game consoles, where it adds an extra layer of realism. Players can feel when they are veering off course in a driving game, or when they have been hit in a shooting game. Force-feedback technology, another offshoot of haptics, is used in robotic telesurgery and in surgical simulators to enable surgeons to feel resistance as they move their surgical instruments around, just as they would in conventional surgery. Even the "vibrate" mode on a mobile phone, which discreetly alerts the user to an incoming call or text message, is an example of haptics.

Okay, this is getting a little more down-to-Earth. We've all played video games, and used a cellphone, right? This haptics thing might apply to us after all! It might even be worth reading the rest of this post to see what's around the corner.

It's the cellphone that is taking haptics to a new level, in terms of real-world application. Some of the new mobile phones are coming sans keyboard, with nothing but a touchscreen interface, but one phone in particular, from Samsung, is taking it a step further, and adding a new haptic twist:

The SCH-W559 handset, which is so far available only in China, fools the user's sense of touch and mimics the feeling of pressing a mechanical button, even though the surface is actually completely flat. It is the latest example of a new breed of "haptic" technologies that do for the sense of touch what lifelike colour displays and hi-fi sound do for eyes and ears.

Wow. They're making you feel like you've pressed a button--that satisfying little click you feel--when all you've done is touch a screen. Unbelievable, huh? That whole skin stretch thing must be making its mark. I get why you would want the feel of real buttons, even if it's only a screen you're touching. You'd have to pay much closer visual attention if you couldn't tell by feel when a button had indeed been pushed. I'm mentally working on what the advantage is to a simulated button over a mechanical one, and the best I'm coming up with so far is that if you spill something it can't seep between the buttons and gum up the works. Dust would have a hard time finding its way into tech devices that are dust-sensitive, too, if the surface of the keyboard was actually a solid screen. Maybe mechanical buttons would wear out more quickly than simulated ones. I'm sure there are many other advantages, and Smart People somewhere have thought of most of them. They will become clearer to the rest of us as the technology gets more mature. What I suspect is part of the motivator now, though, for playing with haptics is that they can. It's just plain cool and fun to be able to do this stuff, whatever it's ultimate uses.

Of course, this whole world of haptics technology is one of those things that one day we'll all take for granted, and future generations might even understand. In a few years our kids will probably be able to build their own haptics interfaces for school projects, and it will have worked its way into children's toys as well as the grownups' gadgets. Mattel will sell some version or other of Barbie's Haptic Dream House , where you can pet little haptic Barbie pets with Barbie's hand, and feel it with yours, or feel the new Barbie Dream Carpet through Haptic Barbie's feet. Wouldn't that blur the line between reality and illusion--if you could feel what Barbie "feels"? Hey, you're scoffing now, but can you imagine what it would be like to go to sleep a hundred years ago and wake up today? Microwaves and cellphones alone would send you loopy. Haptic Barbie is not that much of a stretch. I wonder if her cellphone will come complete with haptic buttons?

Protecting The People Who Serve And Protect

Really Smart People just keep pushing the knowledge envelope, and making more and more progress on the medical front. Today's breakthrough announcement comes from New Scientist, which reports that there's a new drug in the works, at Hollis-Eden Pharmaceuticals of San Diego, California, to help prevent the effects of "acute radiation syndrome" in people exposed to radioactive material. The drug is 5-androstenediol, or AED, which is "an adrenal gland hormone." How it works involves stimulating the production of bone marrow, to replace that which gets killed off during radiation exposure, which in turn replaces the blood cells lost to that radiation, such as those which cause the blood to clot and fight infection. According to New Scientist, the loss of such blood cells is often the cause of death weeks after radiation exposure. This is a pretty big deal in real world application since it means, 'Emergency workers attending the scene of a "dirty" bomb or nuclear blast could soon have a drug to help protect them.'

Wow, they're basically talking about a radiation vaccine, in practical terms, anyway. That's such great news. Wouldn't it be wonderful if this drug could be perfected to the point where emergency workers responding to a situation involving nuclear materials could be assured of their own protection from radiation? They could simply do their best work rescuing people, and not have to take so many precautions for their own safety that they have to help fewer victims. Maybe they could even get rid of those bulky and hindering protective suits so they can work more efficiently--although, since I'm not a Really Smart Person, I don't know all the possible reasons for the protective gear. I'm sure heat is probably a big factor in the need to suit up as well. Maybe they can come up with a new treatment to make folks super-resistant to high temperatures, too. Anything seems to be possible these days. We're getting closer to Star Trek all the time. Anyway, one of the encouraging things about this new preventative drug is that it "...may even protect victims of a blast if administered quickly enough after exposure." So, they can protect the workers going in, and treat the victims coming out. I love Really Smart People.

Promises, Promises

Why do weather reporters always lie? I'm convinced that they know the reports they are making are wrong, and they do it anyway, just to mess with our heads. They keep their jobs, because they're all in on it together, and there's no competition from other, more honest, weather prognosticators, no fear someone else is going to come out with a more accurate prediction. They are also secretly sharing the real weather forecast with their bosses and station owners, and they are all chuckling about it behind everyone else's backs. It's mean. I and countless children in the Portland area were promised snow, and all we're getting is COLD. Where does that get fun? If I sound like I'm whining, it's because I am. It's so anticlimactic. I was all ready to snuggle into the comfy chair, with a big mug of tea, and stare contentedly at the meandering flakes drifting down to nestle into their chilly white beds. Later, I would have bundled up and gone walking with my Kedley in a winter wonderland. It was a good plan!! Hmmph. Good thing I went skiing a few days ago, and plan to go again soon, or this snow thing would really tick me off. As it is, I'm just in whine mode, and will get over it as soon as something interesting catches my attention. I'm sort of like a puppy, or a Kat.

Okay, attention caught. (Wasn't that easy?) Those of you who check in here regularly know that I'm a big fan of the whole Space Elevator idea. Electric elevators climbing a super strong ribbon up and out of the gravity well that keeps matter sucked to our fair planet make a fine alternative to the rockets that require so much fuel to boost them out to space that there's barely any room left for cargo. Not that watching rockets take off isn't fun and all, but someday I'd actually like to take a trip into the outer limits myself, and I just can't see it happening as long as the voyage involves massive amounts of money, and massive amounts of G-forces. I get carsick if the ride involves too much acceleration. I'm pretty sure I would get rocketsick too. Now, I know that a space elevator would have to book it along at a brisk trot as well, but the mph factor and direction would be much more likely to remain fairly constant once it got up to speed, thus eliminating my main motion issues. That's my hope anyway, and I'm sticking to it, as long as no Really Smart People tell me any differently. (I'll think about the whole sickness from free-fall thing later.)

This brings up a pertinent question, though. Where do you go to get your space elevator queries answered? Answer: Really Smart People, of course!! Follow the link I posted above, which will send you to the Elevator 2010 site. Here's what they have to say about themselves:

The dream of a Space Elevator is a monumental one. A vision that will not only further space exploration and knowledge, but has the potential to shape the existential future of the human race for centuries to come.

For the first time since it was initially conceived, this dream is now within our reach.

Elevator 2010 has joined the on-going construction effort, adding energy, resources and new initiatives to the ever-growing number of organizations, companies, websites and enthusiasts focused on the technical, political and economic development of the Space Elevator.

Our goal is to generate enough interest in the project, so that within five years the Space Elevator basic building blocks can be demonstrated as feasible, and full-scale design and construction can begin.

And hence our name. Elevator:2010. we promise to get an answer for you by then.

Elevator 2010 is a project of the Spaceward Foundation, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization.

Here's the link to their Space Elevator Primer, which should give you the gist of the concept. Then, if you still want more Space Elevator fun, you can go on to the FAQ page. It'll provide you with a list of Frequently Asked Questions, and more importantly, answer them. Isn't that exciting? Even better, if you need a little help getting your head around the whole notion of an elevator into space, there's a movie. Well, okay, it's an animation. Since we don't actually have an elevator yet, it would be hard to produce actual footage of the thing in action, but the animation is pretty slick and movie-esque--not up to the standard of today's CGI, but what do you want with a free demo of a cool idea? Popcorn and Milk Duds? Just follow the link to the FAQs and off to the right, under the Elevator 2010 logo is a little "intro movie" link. Go ahead and click on it. It'll be fun. At least I think so. Honest. I wouldn't lie to you about it. After all, I'm not a weather reporter, or any deceptive mean person like that. Hmmph. Promise me snow and not deliver....

Update: We finally got a little token dusting, but only enough to make things inconvenient, and not enough to make things fun. What's more, it came at night, when I couldn't watch it fall. I am not mollified in the least toward the weather prognostication industry. They made a big deal of it all, and I didn't even have a reason to put on boots. I still say they're mean. Waah!!

Smart People Predict The Future

In keeping with the theme of the past few posts, here's another Smart People link. This time I'm sending you to NewScientist.com, for a set of forecasts, from "70 of the world's most brilliant scientists," about what revolutionary changes and advances in understanding we'll be seeing in the wonderful world of science over the next fifty years. Each of the 70 gives a taste of what the future may hold, or what they hope it holds, in their field of expertise. Understanding the origins of the universe is a common preoccupation among the smart set. The question of whether we are alone or coexisting with aliens, even hosting creatures from other planets right here on Earth, is another popular area of speculation, and parallel universes can't stay off the radar either. Medical breakthroughs are a hot topic--conquering illness and aging gets its share of anticipatory attention. Even the mystery of prime numbers gets a mention--solving it that is. (For those of you who didn't know there was a mystery to prime numbers, read the blurb by Marcus du Sautoy.) Cognitive neuroscience is also a very fashionable item of interest among these Smart People prognosticators. Energy, aliens, space travel, drug-implanted false memories, artificial intelligence--this is a geek smorgasbord, but don't worry; the articles are all very short and non-detailed, so it's more of a low-calorie smorgasbord, and there won't be a test. Yum.

More Ideas From Smart People!!

Have you ever wished that you could charge all your chargeables with the same device, instead of having ten different cords plugged into ten different outlets? Wouldn't it be especially nifty if that universal charger were wireless and automatic? No more being tied to the wall. No more having all the videos from Christmas taken from the same awkward angle because you didn't remember to charge the camcorder and the only accessible plug-in is behind the tree. No more losing important documents because you forgot to hit "save" and your laptop battery unexpectedly bit the dust. No more sitting in that really hot sunny spot by the dining room window because your cell phone started to die during an important call and that's as far as the power cord you frantically hunted down and plugged into the nearest outlet would reach. Ahhh. Electronic freedom--the stuff dreams are made of.

Needless to say, the reason I'm bringing this up is because there are Smart People working on it. Celeste Biever, at NewScientist.com, writes that Marin Soljacic at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (have I mentioned before how much I love cut and paste?) is working on a method called "evanescent coupling" to liberate chargeable electronic devices from their base stations and allow them to start refilling their energy coffers as soon as you walk in your door. What is evanescent coupling you ask? Something magical and useful all at the same time, and complicated, using magnetic fields and resonant frequencies and other things like capacitors. I'm going to cheat and tell you to go read Biever's explanation for the detailed parts, but basically it involves sending a weak electromagnetic field out from the wireless charger, which resonates with a compatible device, allowing it to induce an electric current on the receiving end of the combination. That's probably enough for most of us "Not As Smart People" to believe that such a thing as wireless chargers could be possible, and to be grateful that we aren't the ones who have to figure out how to make it all work. For the rest of you, you probably already know how to make it work, and are wasting your time with this post, so go read the article at New Scientist.

I started thinking about all the gizmos that we use that need to be charged; drills, razors, dust-busters, toothbrushes, you name it, and imagined how very cool it would be to have them all released from cord bondage. If they were always charging, just by being in the house, they would never go dead. Cordless drills might actually be worth having, and the dust-buster might come back out of the dustbin. Then my imagination really got going, and I started to wonder whether this technology, once they actually get it beyond the theory stage, might deliver us from cords altogether. Could everything in the house someday have the proper resonance receptor? I don't see why not, and some Smart People should get right on that notion. The one other thing that occurred to me was to wonder what my Naturopath/Acupuncturist would think of having all those electromagnetic fields flying all over the house all the time. I better not tell him I'm sitting here with my laptop actually in my lap. Gasp!! Oh well, let's assign some really Smart People to figure out how to make personal electronic shields. Whaddya think?

Hat tip: Futurismic

A Giant Sunbrella

Do you ever stop and ask yourself, "What if all the climate prophets-of-doom are right?" What if all the worst fears about global warming come to pass and the world is threatened with killer temperatures, droughts, floods, and all the other scenarios that would make this time of partisan politics and the global War on Terror look like the good old days? One possibility, of course, is that a whole lot of humans would die off, and if people and their greenhouse gas-producing ways really are the root cause, then the Earth would balance itself out again with less pesky humans to mess things up. It could be, though, that humans aren't the culprits. It entirely possible that cosmic rays affect our climate, and phytoplankton could play their role, as well. Theories, theories, everywhere. Whether humans are the cause, or natural phenomenon over which we have no control, if the climate does warm up significantly (and I do believe that the words if and significantly are pretty important here), we might want to come up with some options to keep ourselves from becoming barbecue.

This is where the "smart people" enter the picture. NASA's Earth Observatory reports that University of Arizona astronomer Roger Angel has come up with a plan, a sort of emergency cooling system for the planet, which won him and his colleagues a NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts grant. The grant will be used to further study the possibility of sending trillions of small spacecraft up into orbit, to form a giant cloud that would act as a sunshade, diverting a portion of the Sun's rays away from the Earth:

The spacecraft would form a long, cylindrical cloud with a diameter about half that of Earth, and about 10 times longer. About 10 percent of the sunlight passing through the 60,000-mile length of the cloud, pointing lengthwise between the Earth and the sun, would be diverted away from our planet. The effect would be to uniformly reduce sunlight by about 2 percent over the entire planet, enough to balance the heating of a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere.

One cannot fault the scientific community for lacking ambition, wouldn't you agree? Angel has the specs all worked out for composition, steering and delivery, and if the plan flies "as is," with all the current concepts intact, it will only cost about $100 billion a year to turn on the global air conditioning, "about two-tenths of one percent of the global domestic product." It sounds as if, were the Earth in such dire straits that implementation of emergency plans became necessary, the world's economy could afford to pony up that much, especially if the alternative was going to be factor 2,000 sunscreen, and/or a return to a pre-Industrial Revolution way of life.

In "science time" it wouldn't even take too long to pull the shades, once we were sufficiently motivated. According to NASA, it would only take about ten years to deploy all the flyers necessary for the job, if they can get the twenty electromagnetic launchers up and running that they would need to send the little life-savers into position. Twenty-five years could see the whole project developed and installed, and with a useful life of approximately fifty years, we'd only have to replace it once or twice a century for the duration of the heat wave. How's that for value, huh? Your average patio umbrella certainly doesn't last that long. Of course, your average patio umbrella doesn't cost $100 billion a year, either.

It's kinda comforting to know that whether or not all our technology is the cause of the potential climate crisis that's got the world in a dither, all our technology may also be the thing that saves the day. Wouldn't it be amazingly sci fi if we did end up with the equivalent of a giant parasol keeping the Earth's head cool? Mind you, since the global warming and cooling fears trade off every few decades, in a few years time we're going to be hearing about scientists who are figuring out ways to catch a few extra rays from the Sun, amplify them, and turn on the equivalent of a global heat lamp. Either way, it will be scientists who come up with the schemes to save mankind. Smart people are so useful.

The Force Is Strong, And It's Messing Up Our Calculations

Some people are way too smart. It's almost scary the things that these especially astute people can think through with their mighty Super Brains. How many of us really understand what Einstein's Theory of Relativity is, and why we should even care, let alone grasp the math required to prove it? Up front I'll say I certainly don't, and if you do, you had probably better go read somewhere else, because this post is waaaaay beneath your abilities. I like to skim the surface of science for fun. I am enough of a geek to get a kick out of scientific theory and technological development, and I even did the extra credit geometry problems for fun in school. (My teacher didn't give the extra credit, so I guess that tilts me a little farther into the geek category.) However, I went on to be a Lit major, not a Smart Person, so I just get floored with the things that some people are able to figure out.

I have been at the European Space Agency website this morning, and not only do these people understand Einstein's theory, they are heading out into space to test it and "lay the foundation" for further developing its concepts, also potentially enlarging their knowledge of gravitation and navigation in the process. By navigation I am, of course, referring to space navigation. I don't think the European Space Agency is worried about directing ocean liners and weather balloons. They're interested in directing space ships, and calculating the huge distances between heavenly bodies, and figuring out how much gravitational pull those planets, and stars, and black holes, etc., are going to have that could pull probes and ships off their intended course. The weather balloons will have to fend for themselves.

Since we're talking space and astronomical bodies, there is a basic question about how you account for the movement of these bodies when calculating distances and locations--of anything. If two items are both moving, there has to be a way to measure that motion. Apparently, this involves bringing another object into the mix:

A cornerstone of relativity is the concept of a frame of reference. This is a set of bodies relative to which any motion can be measured. Without a reference frame, no motion through space can be detected. Scientists call a frame of reference 'inertial' if unperturbed objects appear in that frame, either at rest or moving at a constant velocity. For a reference frame to be perfectly inertial, the bodies that are used to mark it must be completely free of any force.

If I'm reading this right, scientists can measure things accurately in space only if they have objects to which they can compare other item's motion--objects that are either completely still, or are moving at a completely constant rate, but without being affected by the pull or push of anything else. They then can measure the motion and distance of other bodies relative to these celestial touchstones. The problem the ESA is facing is that gravity from all those big celestial bodies out in the great beyond is always mucking up the works, and its very difficult for any frame of reference to be "free from any force," so the measurements get all out of whack.

So, what is the ESA doing to overcome these difficulties? They are working to create their own frames of reference, and compensate mathematically for the "warping" of the measurements of distance that happens when gravity is not properly taken into account:

To make this measurement, LISA Pathfinder uses two 'proof-masses'. Each is a small cube of a gold and platinum alloy, whose relative motion is measured by a laser beam. Once in space, the proof-masses will float freely within the spacecraft. When subtle forces act on the proof-masses, the laser beam will detect the way they change position to within a few thousandths of a billionth of a meter, and will be able to detect forces as small as the weight of a typical bacterium.

In layman's terms, or as close as I can come even to that low standard, they made these gold and platinum alloy cubes (only 5 centimeters wide) because they are as close to being impervious to magnetic fields as they could possibly get them, since that is another force which can act on objects out in space. They have made them this way so that the only force they will respond to is gravity, and they hope to send them out into space, free-floating in this vessel called LISA Pathfinder. Then the fancy extra-accurate laser measuring gismo will track their every motion. In this way, they hope to detect and calculate the gravitational forces that throw off the accuracy of space measurements, and then they'll do lots and lots of complicated math to work out how much distance is really between all those celestial bodies that are currently way beyond our reach, but we might get to once the Smart People figure out warp drives.

The date they're shooting for to send LISA Pathfinder into space is sometime in 2009. This mission is the forerunner to LISA, which is a bit more large-scale, in which, "three spacecraft...will work together to detect Einstein's predicted ripples, known as gravitational waves, in the fabric of spacetime." Okay, I'm barely getting my head around the concept that these people can do the math involved in compensating for gravity when calculating distances in space, now they want to start looking for ripples in the fabric of spacetime. I think I'll ignore this part. I can only handle one over-my-head topic at a time, thank you very much. All the same, the Super Brains are really amazing, don't you think? I wonder what they'll work on once they have all this space measuring and navigation stuff figured out? Probably those warp drives we're going to need once they have the navigation part down. Whatever it is, I'm sure most of us won't understand it. I think I'll go read some literature now.

Climate Science--Emphasis On Science

A friend asked me to keep an eye out for articles about climate science (emphasis on the science, and not the hype.) I'm happy to oblige. It's a topic I keep an eye on anyway. Beside the fact I have a genuine interest in the state of our planet, both the alarmists and the total naysayers have their entertainment value, after all. However, I frequently can give little credence to what I read, because so little of it is based on experimentation, and so much of it on anecdotal evidence and politics.

At first much of the debate rested in whether the Earth is warming at all. Then it shifted to the cause, as weather records over the last few decades do show a decided warming trend. Some people are still heavily engaged in the "why" debate, but many have moved on to what, if anything, we should/can do about it. Much of the world has simply accepted--It's Our Fault. Eliminate humans and you eliminate the problem. (Making the assumption, of course, that it is a problem.) Since ridding the world of humanity is hardly practical, the next best solution offered by some is to make people stop living the modern life, something very few of the uncooperative scourges of the Earth are willing to do (except the ones who want to take us back to the seventh century, but that's a different topic altogether.) So we spend a lot of time blaming and very little time checking our facts.

Sometimes, however, we get a look at actual verifiable science on the topic. It's very refreshing. Here's an example. SpaceDaily has a look at experiments performed in Denmark that conclusively link cosmic rays to cloud formation, and thus Earth's temperature:

It is already well-established that when cosmic rays, which are high-speed atomic particles originating in exploded stars far away in the Milky Way, penetrate Earth's atmosphere they produce substantial amounts of ions and release free electrons.

Now, results from the Danish experiment show that the released electrons significantly promote the formation of building blocks for cloud condensation nuclei on which water vapour condenses to make clouds.

Hence, a causal mechanism by which cosmic rays can facilitate the production of clouds in Earth's atmosphere has been experimentally identified for the first time.

Here's the lowdown. Scientists filled a large reaction chamber with the appropriate gases to approximate the chemistry of the lower atmosphere. They used ultraviolet lamps to perform the function of the Sun's rays in the equation, and as the "penetrating cosmic rays" did their thing, the scientists monitored the chemical reactions in the chamber with instruments that only "really smart people with degrees and stuff" know how to use. The experiment proved that cosmic rays help facilitate the development of the "stable, ultra-small clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules which are building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei. A vast numbers of such microscopic droplets appeared, floating in the air in the reaction chamber." Turns out the rays are very effective at producing these building blocks, and there is now empirical evidence that cosmic rays can have an effect on Earth's climate because of the clouds they help form.

It's interesting how that works. The more rays that get through to Earth's atmosphere, the more low-altitude cloud cover we get. Less rays equal less clouds. Those low altitude clouds drop the temperature here on Terra Firma. Here's the really intriguing bit:

Interestingly, during the 20th Century, the Sun's magnetic field which shields Earth from cosmic rays more than doubled, thereby reducing the average influx of cosmic rays.

The resulting reduction in cloudiness, especially of low-altitude clouds, may be a significant factor in the global warming Earth has undergone during the last century. However, until now, there has been no experimental evidence of how the causal mechanism linking cosmic rays and cloud formation may work.

Did you catch that? When the Sun's magnetic field is strong, we get less cosmic rays. Therefore, one can conclude that when the Sun's magnetic field is strong we get fewer clouds, and the Earth warms. That would link global warming to the cycles of the Sun, wouldn't it? I have read the theory before, and seen data that clearly showed that over the last four hundred years, as the Sun has cycled, so has Earth's temperature, and this experiment is some solid support for that theory. Unfortunately, I can't remember where I read the theory in the first place, but hopefully the SpaceDaily article will give you a good start on the subject.

I still think, of course, that we need to follow all the scientific leads, and find out for sure whether humans really are effecting the climate, or whether natural cycles such as the flux in the Sun's magnetic field are the reason for the temperature shifts we experience over the years. I don't think, however, that we ought to be making rash decisions that shut down the economies of the world because of fears that are as yet unproven. If global warming is a temporary and natural phase of the planet, caused by forces as far away as the Sun, no amount of turning off the air conditioning, riding the bus to work, or staying off of airplanes is going to change that natural rhythm. Of course, theories come and go. I remember being warned as a child that we were going to enter another ice age soon. We see how accurate that prediction turned out to be. I'm all for scientific investigation of the facts, but histrionics are pointless. I read recently that Al Gore told a group at the U.N. that cigarette smoking is a significant contributor to global warming. You tell me which of these two theories--cigarettes, or cosmic rays as realistic causes--has the most likelihood of veracity? Until I see solid scientific proof that smoking is the cause, I'm sticking with cosmic rays.

Hat tip: The Anchoress

Another Tour Around The Holodeck

First things first. Here's a link to a post I wrote a few weeks ago on advances in haptics technology, and how we're edging ever closer to the Holodeck from Star Trek: The Next Generation. I'll sum haptics up this way (keep in mind, this is not the official definition): haptics uses computer technology to make you feel things that aren't really there, or feel things differently than they actually are. It's a virtual reality type of fooling the senses, but haptics involves the sense of touch. I know this is a little challenging, but read the original post to get yourself up to speed. Wait, let me clarify. When I say up to speed, I mean up to my speed, which is about 2.5 miles per hour. I do not pretend to have any real insight into this whole field. In fact, until a few weeks ago, I didn't even know there was such a field, at least one that wasn't imaginary. Did you? Well, there is, and it's starting to grow some pretty interesting crops.

Last time, I wrote briefly about an article by Duncan Graham-Rowe, examining the work of Dr. Gabriel Robles-De-La-Torre, founder of the International Society for Haptics, who has developed ways to create physical illusions, like the feeling that you are running your hand over something sharp, or pointy, when you really just have your finger inside a thimble, attached to a computerized mechanical arm, which applies pressure to fool your mind into "feeling" different shapes. Confused? Well, here's the nifty part that led me to address this topic again so soon. I got an email today from Dr. Robles-De-La-Torre, with all sorts of links to help us understand his work better. I admit, I never expected such a smart person to be so helpful, and to voluntarily go out of his way to provide us with more information. "Really smart people" are supposed to be aloof and far above us all. I'm glad to be wrong, and also really glad to get all those links to follow up. It really has helped me to understand some more of what the doctor, and others working in the same field, are accomplishing.

I'll just list the links and where they lead. I've followed them all this morning, and done a fair bit of reading now, and I can assure you that the information is really helpful for understanding how sensory illusion can be created, and, more basically, how important the sense of touch is to our interaction with the world. It's not just dry reading, either. I really found everything I saw and read fascinating:

1) A demo of computer haptics. This is a short visual demonstration, but will help you get your head around the ideas.

2) A demo to help us understand what some illusory objects feel like. Be sure and read the text.

3) An article that discusses some related, earlier work with more illusory cases. The doctor explained to me that the technology goes beyond what I originally wrote about creating the illusion: "The cases mentioned in the article are even more surprising. It is possible to actually touch a combined real and virtual object and have our perception of the real object changed by the virtual one."

4) A broader article on why touch is important (but frequently misunderstood and underrated.) This article is amazing. Dr. Robles-De-La-Torre tells the story of Mr. Waterman, a man who permanently lost his sense of touch from the collarline down, and how he had to learn to control his body completely through visual reference. It's really an incredible tale. The doctor explains all the ways that we rely on touch information to function in the world, and how the lessons learned from Mr. Waterman relate to virtual environments. Read this one, if you can. For me it was a totally new look at the sense of touch, and gave me a new appreciation for its importance. God knew what he was doing when he gave us all five senses.

5) The good doctor also invited me (and thus, you) to keep up with the latest on haptics. Guess how? He's got a blog!! He calls it a newslog, which is much more legit sounding, but I'm a little more plebeian than that, so, a blog it is.

I hope you enjoy the opportunity to explore this subject some more. Anyone who reads the Meow much knows that I just eat this stuff up, and then ask for dessert. The world is an amazing place, and the accomplishments of people like Dr. Robles-De-La-Torre make it even more so. I'm looking forward to seeing where this research into haptic technology will lead us. There are exciting applications on the horizon, especially medical ones. Wouldn't it be great if surgeons could practice a procedure over and over with a haptic interface, before they ever took a scalpel to a real live human patient? What other precise and dangerous work will we one day be able to practice in realistic virtual environments? Will I ever be able to take a virtual vacation to the Moon? Will I ever be able to take a real vacation to the Moon? All of these questions have answers that are just around the corner. I'll be checking in on the doctor's world from time to time to see how close we're getting to the holodeck.

Math Quiz

I have a math question for any really smart people who happen upon the Meow. I've wondered this for a very long time--twenty years in fact. I mentioned yesterday that today was the twentieth anniversary of the day I married my beloved. What I didn't mention (because seriously, why would you care?) is that Friday is also our birthday. Yes, I said our birthday, as in both my husband and I have the same one. What are the odds of that? Really, I want to know the answer to that question. I took a probabilities and statistics class in college in the early eighties, but I have definitely lost the knowledge of how to calculate this one, if I ever learned it in the first place. I think that the odds of any two people having the same birthday can be calculated by multiplying 365 by 365--the number of days in the year multiplied by the number of days in the year--this accounts for all possible combinations--I think that will get you close, or at least start you in the right direction. Maybe. It's been a long time. (Although the chances of a specific person having your birthday is one in 365, right? Or wrong. Is that wrong?) How do you factor, though, for the odds of two people who meet, fall in love, and get married, also having the same birthday? The numbers have to go way up at that point, don't they? So anyway, if you're a really smart person, who has happened to stumble by accident onto the Meow, would you please take a little of your time and calculate this one out for me? You would be answering a very old question, and letting me move on to more important things, like why does one sock always lose its mate in the wash?

Brilliant

Here's a "Duh" moment from lessons learned in childhood. Do you remember when you were a kid and all the small fry in the neighborhood would run around from house to house all through the hot summer days, usually barefoot? How many times did you eech and ouch your way across the scorching pavement to get to the new hangout of the moment? Why has no one ever thought of saving up all that heat exploding off the blacktop--translation: energy--and using it to provide power for some of the various endeavors of humanity, especially cooling us off when we finally get where we're going? Well, now somebody has. They're even saving the heat up to use in the winter. I just love human ingenuity.

Hat tip: Futurismic

Light Breaks The Rules

Okay, this really threw me. I read a relatively short article (as papers on physics go), at World Science, about experiments to manipulate light and make it behave in unexpected ways--unexpected at least to me, and I found the concepts rather challenging. Physicists, not sharing my confusion, and looking beyond normal expectations, have figured out ways to make light break the rules. Einstein said nothing could go faster than light in a vacuum (in the neighborhood of 190, 000 miles per second.) According to World Science, "If something broke that limit, then some observers could see it reach its destination before it left, violating a universal law of causality." However, scientists in recent years have already managed to defy Einstein, and make light speed up and slow down. This seems miraculous enough in itself, but I suppose the wacky experiment I read about as the article continued is the next inevitable phase.

What it said was that now they could make light travel backwards. Huh? How does that happen? My first thought was something along the lines of them causing light to reverse directions, kind of like a ping pong ball, and I wondered what the big deal was, but from the explanation and illustrations the article provides, what they're really talking about is a light impulse that goes forward and backward at the same time through a tube, like a clone that forms at the other end and races the light back to its source. Equally amazing is the fact that when it travels backwards, "the backward-moving pulse of light travels faster than light." So, the backward light wave, as it moves through the tube, comes out at one end before the forward light wave comes out at the other. Okay, light travels backwards faster than light. Sure it does, and if I jump out of mud puddle backwards my shoes are suddenly going to be clean, too. (The comparison is a bit non sequitur, but I'm just trying to convey a little of my confusion.) It reminds me of the Harry Mudd episode of Star Trek where the android Norman gets all confused because they tell him that everything Harry says is a lie, but then Harry says, "Now listen to me Norman. I am lying." Norman eventually starts babbling, and smoke comes out his ears. Well, smoke didn't come out my ears, but I had to work pretty hard to grasp any of this.

You might wonder what the point would be to changing the speed of light. I have a very limited physics brain, but I can think of a couple of reasons (and if I can think of even one lame reason, you know the Smart People can come up with lots of really good ones.) One would be related to space travel. There are such vast distances involved in exploring even our tiny little solar system. The possibility of travelling to other star systems is pretty inconceivable, even at the speed of light. However, what if we (and I use the term we extremely loosely here) could figure out how to make things go faster than the speed of light, starting with light itself? Wouldn't that make the vast distances a little more conquerable?

The second reason I came up with for trying to change the way light operates is related to the first, not limited to space travel, but still connected to it in a way. If scientists can learn how to defy one physical law, it stands to reason that they might be able to defy others, or at least alter their impact considerably. It's not really that humans could change physical laws, but by delving deeper and deeper into what's really happening, we come to understand how to work within those laws in new ways. As our understanding grows about the way things really work, we are able to do things that could not even be imagined centuries, or even decades ago. Who in the nineteenth century could have imagined cell phones? We take them for granted. What else is possible that we barely imagine in science fiction? Could they learn how to overcome gravity? The practical applications to that one are staggering, both for space travel and Earth-based travel. What would the shipping rates be for moving a large item that weighs nothing? Building space stations and lunar colonies gets a whole lot more feasible when you're not having to fight gravity the whole way out of our atmosphere. We could just chuck loads into space, without all those dangerous and costly rockets, or fascinating but complicated space pier schemes. Even moving something here on Earth would be easier. How about a piano moving company that employs only 90 lb. girls?

I could go off from here onto the whole concept of "beaming" things from place to place, since we're talking about out-there schemes for scientists to defy physical laws as they currently understand them. (Note that I did not use the word we, mistakenly implying that I understand them.) What will save you from more ventures into the realm of Star Trek is the fact that I'm having enough trouble grasping the topic at hand.

Fortunately, linked to the article, they have these handy dandy little animated demonstrations of what it means to have light speed up, slow down, and go into reverse. They're kind of like a "Physics for Dummies" teaching aid. Once I watched those, things got somewhat clearer, so I read the article again and it made more sense. However, I will not try to explain any of it to you. It would only hurt my head, and probably try your patience, but if you want a bit of an adventure, read the article, and then come back and tell me in the comments how slow I am, and how you grasped it all in the first paragraph. It actually is interesting, I think. Of course, that could be because it's 1:30 am, and at this point my mental processes are going backwards. I wonder what Einstein would say about that?

Hat tip: Armchair Anarchist at Futurismic--I think. (It's late.)