Online Cortex Thoughts on Science and Technology

What good is a cortex if it doesn’t dream a little?

I have been thinking about Ariel Caticha and Carlo Cafaro’s derivation of Newton’s Second Law from probability theory (http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.1071).  In this derivation, they assume three things:

1. There exist basic entities called particles
2. There is an intrinsic uncertainty about a particle’s position
3. There is change… not time necessarily, but change.

The first thing I like about this derivation is the fact that distance in space derives from distances between probability distributions describing particles at two positions.  Distance comes from the Kullback-Leibler Divergence, and leads directly to the Pythagorean Theorem.  More on that in another post… 

The derivation results in an expression describing an interaction between two particles and this results in changes in position which, when parameterized, leads to F = ma. 

The mass turns out to be related to the uncertainty in the position of the particle.  The more uncertain one is about a particle’s position, the more difficult it is to accelerate it (change its change in position).

uncertainty in position^2 = 1/mass

This is quite satisfying as it is reminiscent of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.

But what implications does this picture hold?
First, it gives us another viewpoint of mass.  Multiple equivalent viewpoints always leads to constraints.  These constraints can be used to figure out how things work… or at the very least to rule out possibilities.
(see my earlier post on E8 to get another picture of mass)

Well, photons have no mass.
So there is infinite uncertainty associated with the position of a photon.  In fact, I am not sure photons “travel”.  I prefer to imagine that they just “are”.  One way to imagine photons might be to see them as lines connecting two particles in spacetime.  The photon is spread out across space.

So now comes the important question.  Given this probabilistic picture, what can we learn about mass?  Do we need a Higg’s boson?  I would think not.  Except, today I spoke with Ariel, and the way that the Higgs imbues mass is by having the particles scatter off of it.  The more the particles scatter, the less certain we are of their position… and the more mass the particle has.  Maybe this is where the Zitterbewegung originates.  And maybe the Higgs boson is just a reflection of an intrinsic uncertainty.

Instead, I imagine that as these ideas are refined to describe more than Newtonian mechanics, and include spin, charge and flavor, a relationship between the particles and their masses would emerge naturally. 

Again, these are raw thoughts… not even half-baked… and should be treated as such.  My grandma always said that eating raw dough will give you worms. 
Just think what thinking raw thoughts might do!!!

Kevin Knuth
Albany NY

Posted under Philosophy, Physics, Probability, Research

Intelligent Design.
That phrase alone should ignite a firestorm of controversy. 

The NOVA special, Judgement Day, on the recent Dover Pennsylvania trial now can be viewed online.

Let us begin with two moral principles: HONESTY and CONSISTENCY.  I know of no one who can disagree with the importance of these ideas.  These ideas are central to religions all over the world.  And as my friend Ariel Caticha points out, they are central to science as well.  If someone is dishonest, that person cannot be trusted.  Likewise, if someone is inconsistent, that person cannot be trusted.  Consistency and Honesty are central to trust.

I am not going to go into a lengthy discussion of Intelligent Design.  However, there are two aspects of this idea that strike me. 

The first is due to the fact that Intelligent Design proponents cannot imagine that the complexity one sees in the universe could happen by accident.  As if the truth was ever constrained by our imaginations.

For some reason, not being able to understand the mind of a Creator is acceptable, but not being able to understand how accidents can lead to complexity is not.  This is an example of INCONSISTENCY.  To be consistent, we must choose one or the other.  I myself will chose to not accept not being able to understand… period!

The second aspect that strikes me is related to the fact that every Intelligent Design discussion eventually comes down to the idea that “I am not an ape!”  Next you’ll be telling me that you are not a civilization of single-celled organisms?  That your mass is not 20% bacteria?  That you are not made of atoms?  I am sorry, but you can be oxidized like any other bag of organic molecules my friend. 
Being an ape is the very least of your worries!

Let’s focus on what seems to be the real issue here.  What is wrong with being an ape?  Do you really need to be created in God’s image to be special?  Really?  If there is a God, is his creation not sufficiently divine such that if you were an ape you would be any less glorious?  For all the shouting about the magnificent complexity of life, Intelligent Design proponents sure seem to think very little of the creation.
God’s strongest proponents often trash his glorious work.

Let’s be HONEST, the issue here is human arrogance.
Human’s do not want to be apes because they are arrogant.  We believe we are better than apes.  We are not allowed to believe we are gods, so we cling to the idea that we are created in the image of god.  If this belief causes you to look down on the rest of creation, then you are arrogant.
Arrogance, there is a fine moral principle!

The NOVA special, Judgement Day, on the recent Dover Pennsylvania trial now can be viewed online.  It does an excellent job of presenting the issues and the evidence.  In addition, it makes clear the difference between: theory, fact, and belief.

Kevin Knuth
Albany NY

Posted under Biology, Evolution, Philosophy

I recall back to my first days in physics class where I read the quotation “Nature abhors a vacuum”.  The phrase was accompanied by an image of two teams of horses trying to pull two hollow hemispheres apart after the air was pumped out from inside.

These were called Magdeburg hemispheres and the experiment was performed by Otto von Guericke.  I didn’t realize this, but according to Wikipedia it was Aristotle’s theory Horror Vacui that von Guericke was trying to disprove.  This theory suggested that nature hates a vacuum and that the vacuum will suck material in to fill it.  Von Guericke demonstrated that it is not a sucking force, but a pushing force from the outside air.  However, as I recall from the physics text, the presentation was written as if this experiment was a demonstration of this “principle”.  I imagine that this misconception is why you still see the phrase commonly used today.  This is one of the science myths that keeps floating around.

A more accurate viewpoint is that Nature Abhors a Gradient.  It isn’t that there is a vacuum that is holding the hemispheres together.  Nor is it that there is air surrounding the hemispheres that is holding the hemispheres together.  Rather it is that there is an enormous gradient in the air density outside the hemispheres with respect to the inside.  The result of this gradient is a force.

Gradients in potential energy cause forces.

More generally, gradients in any scalar field result in generalized forces.

The gradient of the electric potential is the electric field.  The gradient of the gravitational potential energy is the gravitational force.  Over and over again these ideas reappear.  In physics, we learn them as separate concepts, and then later in the abstract topic of statistical mechanics we are expected to put it all together.  But each of these gradients resides in its own little box in the student’s cortex, and statistical mechanics is in its own little box.  Rarely do these ideas merge to form a unified concept.

Temperature gradients are responsible for our weather. 
Huge temperature gradients are responsible for hurricanes.  The temperature of the extremely warm air at the sea surface in the Gulf of Mexico drops quickly as one rises higher into the atmosphere.  This enormous gradient powers the heat engine known as a hurricane.  Nature abhors gradients, and will do something about them.  The gradients will result in forces that tend to eradicate the gradient.  Watching this NASA video of satellite imagery during the 2005 hurricane season, one can clearly see that hurricanes are designed to cool the sea surface.

Our weather here in Albany is due mainly to cyclonic storms that act to relieve the temperature gradient between the Earth’s equator and the poles.  Forces due to this gradient brings parcels of warm air north from the south and exchanges them with parcels of cold air from the north.  The spinning of the Earth results in the Coriolis force which deflects the northbound warm air eastward and the colder southbound air westward.  This creates a counter-clockwise rotating structure that brings warm air north on the eastern front and cold air south on the western front.  The result is that the extremely warm weather we had a few days ago had to be followed by the extremely cold weather as this cyclonic structure moved over us from the west.

However, the weather is not the only system driven by the Earth’s energy gradients.  Life itself is driven by these forces.  The “purpose” of life is to relieve gradients.  This is why forests are cooler, they are working to dissipate thermal gradients induced by incoming light heating the surface.  During the process of relieving these thermal gradients, the plants grow.  This excess organic matter results in residual chemical potential energy, which again creates a gradient.  The herbivores devour the plant matter to further relieve the chemical potential gradients.  This works up to a point, but again there is a residual chemical potential, of which the carnivores take advantage.  The cycles of life are driven by energy gradients.

But it doesn’t stop here.  There are other scalar fields that have gradients.  Wealth gradients result in generalized forces.  In cites where there are enormous gradients between the wealthy and the poor one sees violence.  Across the southern U.S. border there is another enormous gradient in wealth.  This gradient results in forces that drive Mexican immigrants into this country.  Building a wall won’t help because it doesn’t eliminate the gradient.  The gradient will merely increase until new forces become strong enough to eliminate it. 

How does one solve the problem? 
Eliminate the gradient.
Nature abhors a gradient.

Kevin Knuth
Albany NY

Posted under Biology, Climate, Energy, Evolution, Philosophy, Physics, Social Justice

The MIT Center for Collective Intelligence is investigating the phenomenon of collective intelligence with the goal of improving collective decision making in social and business systems.  They are working to devlop methodologies for quantifying and measuring collective intelligence.

Perhaps in the future we will be able to quantify and characterize the collective intelligence of ant colonies.

Kevin Knuth
Albany NY

Posted under Intelligent Systems, Internet, Philosophy, Research

‘Am I already in the shadow of the Coming Race? and will the creatures who are to transcend and finally supersede us be steely organisms, giving out the effluvia of the laboratory, and performing with infallible exactness more than everything that we have performed with a slovenly approximativeness and self-defeating inaccuracy?’
                – George Eliot,
                   The Impressions of Theophrastus Such, 1879.

The robot creation is about to happen.
- We know how to design machines that reason
- We know how to design machines that learn
- We know how to design machines that question
and more..

Could it really be that the ultimate achievement of the Human Race will be to create Life itself? 
Boldly I ask “Why Not?”

We have already reached into the Heavens and find the experience inviting.  But how much higher than the spire of the Tower of Babel can we reach?  The Moon is certainly high, and the other worlds of our Solar System higher still, yet at this very moment… right now as you read this… we are exploring these heights with the precursors to the Coming Race. (mars, saturn, sun, mercury, pluto, venus).

Reaching into the sky, while a fantasy of the Babylonians, has become commonplace to us.  But the Act of Creation is another thing altogether.

How amazing it will be when we send our first true Creations up, away, and deep into the  Heavens to travel about with God’s bacteria. 
A bold and arrogant notion?  YES!

And on that most glorious of days,
God Himself will ascend to become a Creator of Creators.

Kevin Knuth
Albany NY

Posted under Astrobiology, Astronomy, Computation, Evolution, Exploration, Intelligent Systems, Inventions, Philosophy, Research, Robotics, Space, Technology