The Good, Bad, Ugly: mit waves and handwaving!
 

This is a catchall for whatever you find interesting but with a special emphasis on good, bad or ugly science, technology, or mathematics.

This thread shall not get bogged down in careful proofs or pedantry because these things are allowed but will be treated the same as handwaving.

Cringeworthy references such as Wikipedia are not detractive because they are not intended to be proof (all links are to be treated as handwaving) and are not to be required reading. Posting a link to, say, a video, is spam if looking at it is necessary for the discussion.

Good, bad, and ugly references score extra points if it is not clear which category best defines them (e.g. software hacks that are so ugly as to be beautiful)

Discussing whether something is good, bad or ugly and other forms of meta discussion is welcome and also light punning and other amusing but slightly irritating forms of banter.

One topic for meta discussion could be [URL="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html"]John Baez's Crackpot Index[/URL]:
A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:

A -5 point starting credit.

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5 points:[LIST][*]each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction[*]using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment [*]each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards)[*]each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann"[/LIST]10 points:[LIST][*]each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence)[*]pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity[*]beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)[*]mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen[*]offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory[*]each new term you invent and use without properly defining it[*]each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations"[*]arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it[*]arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism"[*]each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence)[*]claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift"[/LIST]20 points:[LIST][*]emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.) [*]suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize[*]each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence)[*]every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact[*]defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories[*]naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)[*]talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it[*]each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary"[*]each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy"[/LIST]30 points:[LIST][*]suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.) [*]suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate[*]claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence)[*]allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory[/LIST]40 points:[LIST][*]comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts[*]claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike[*]comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on[*]claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)[/LIST]50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions

More meta discussion (or perhaps meta meta) would be noting that Baez's list has 37 entries now, but in the year 2002 had 32 entries: [URL="http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=5752"]How can we tell if someone is a scientific crank?[/URL] (SciForums.com : Science : Science & Society )

When I was a kid, one science experiment involved centering a lit candle on a dinner plate, filling the plate with water and covering the candle with a jar. What inevitably happens is that the candle is extinguished and water is drawn up into the jar.

What we were told was that the candle consumed oxygen and the water was take up in its' place.

This is ridiculous because at STP, gasses occupy equal volumes (CO[sub]2[/sub] vs. O[sub]2[/sub])

What actually happens is that the flame is hot; placing the jar over the candle fills it with hot air which will occupy less volume when it cools down after the candle is extinguished.

Another bad science explanation involves radiometers. As a kid I was told that the light pressure caused by the dark side absorbing light caused the vanes to turn. Feynman tells me that reflected light from the shiny side would press harder so by that logic the vanes should turn in the other direction. As he explains it in one of his anecdotal books (not sure which one), what actually happens is that since the vacuum is not complete, the dark side heats gasses which cause turbulence and the gas turbulence presses hardest on the dark side.

One interesting thing that I recently learned is that modern 3D movies use circularly polarized light. I believe that I read that this allows more head tilting.
I'd never heard of circular polarization until I learned that it is used on modern mini satellite dishes. Anyway, as many people know, by holding a two pairs of polarized sunglasses together and turning one against the other, at some angle, the light is mostly blocked. What I recently tried is holding a pair of polarized sunglasses against a pair of 3D movie glasses. What I find is that if you arrange them so that the light shines through the sunglasses first and then the 3D glasses, not much light is blocked. However, if you hold them so that the light goes through the 3D glasses first and then the sunglasses, most of the light in both lenses is blocked regardless of the rotational orientation of the sunglasses.

One thing I have been interested in for some time is computer generated holograms. When I got a lightscribe drive I mused on using the laser label printing feature to burn a hologram. Although possible, I'm told that the label is burned with a low powered laser that only burns about 1k tracks per inch.

Here are some hologram links for areas that I intend to pursue at some point (or not):

[URL="http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/amateur/holo1.html"]"Abrasion Holography"
Holography without lasers: Hand-drawn Holograms[/URL]

[URL="http://www.instructables.com/id/Burning-visible-images-onto-CD-Rs-with-data-beta/"]Burning visible images onto CD-Rs[/URL]

[URL="http://corticalcafe.com/prog_CGHmaker.htm"]The CorticalCafe Computer Generated Hologram (CGH) Construction Kit[/URL]

I wonder how what things can be done with the now common 2 layer DVD writers.

I thought we already had a thread for this:

[url]http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=7450[/url]

[QUOTE=retina;174854]I thought we already had a thread for this:

[url]http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=7450[/url][/QUOTE]
That is quite different. This thread is not intended to be for Mersenne number prediction and also in not intended to be for the maximizing of the crank index. Rather, there are several threads that are created that have only 3 or 4 messages in them on diverse subjects. This thread is intended to be a holding place for things like that so that thread spawning is reduced.

Also I hope to generate a welcome format for general musing and a sense of wonder about things without too much need for rigor. Topics should be ones in which rigor could be successfully applied but I desire not to descend in to such levels of detail or pedantry.

The crank list scoring is to be considered a backdrop to the discussions in hopes of not wandering off deeply into the weeds of speculation.

[QUOTE=only_human;174852]One topic for meta discussion could be [URL="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html"]John Baez's Crackpot Index[/URL]:
A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:

[/QUOTE]


I have already suggested within this forum some
(mathematically relevant) additions.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;174859]I have already suggested within this forum some
(mathematically relevant) additions.[/QUOTE]

(1) 10 points for trying to discuss any subject for which
you have not taken a course, or read at least one book.

(2) 15 points for not using standard mathematical terminology.

(3) 15 points for failing to define your variables and their
domain.

(4) 20 points for trying to generate a discussion instead of
asking a question when it is clear that you do not understand
what you are trying to discuss.

(5) 25 points for failing to do a web or literature search
before posing an idea or question.

(6) 35 points for elementary mistakes in high school level
mathematics.

(7) 50 points for trying to invent new mathematical
terminology.

(8) 50 points for trying to "reinvent the wheel". An extra
10 points for reinventing a "square wheel" (e.g. a 'new'
algorithm that performs more poorly than existing ones)

(9) 50 points for posing poorly defined problems, or
for posing problems which show a lack of BASIC understanding
of elementary aspects of the subject you are trying to
discuss.

(10) 100 points for both trying to invent new terminology
and failing at the same time to rigorously define what
that terminology really means.

(11a) 100 points for posting a 'conjecture' in which it is clear that you have
not bothered to test it yourself via numerical example. Especially if trivial
counter-examples are available.

(11b) 200 points for even trying to pose a solution to a
well-studied problem in which you are not an expert.

(12) 500 points for trying to claim that knowledge of the
state-of-the-art "gets in the way" of creativity.

(13) 1000 points for any comparison of yourself to any
well known mathematician, or for trying to point out that
some prior mathematican worked in some area in which he/she
was not trained as if this were an excuse for your doing the
same.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;174859]I have already suggested within this forum some
(mathematically relevant) additions.[/QUOTE]
Nice! Thank you for adding them.

[QUOTE=only_human;174853]One interesting thing that I recently learned is that modern 3D movies use circularly polarized light. I believe that I read that this allows more head tilting.
I'd never heard of circular polarization until I learned that it is used on modern mini satellite dishes. Anyway, as many people know, by holding a two pairs of polarized sunglasses together and turning one against the other, at some angle, the light is mostly blocked.[/QUOTE]I neglected to mention that if you hold two pairs of polarized 3D glasses together and try this same experiment, there is no rotational angle that blocks most of the light.

Waves and handwaving
 

[quote=only_human;174853]
One interesting thing that I recently learned is that modern 3D movies use circularly polarized light. I believe that I read that this allows more head tilting.
I'd never heard of circular polarization until I learned that it is used on modern mini satellite dishes.[/quote]

If you hold a long stretched rope and wave your hand up
and down, you produce a wave polarized in the vertical plane.
If you wave it horisontally...
If you rotate it in a clockwise circle you get a circularly polarized
wave in the clockwise sense.
The motion of your hand and each element of the string is
a vertical SHM superposed on a horizontal SHM pi/2 out of phase.
Similarly, superposing a clockwise rotation on an anticlockwise one
results in a plane polarized wave.
[quote]

Anyway, as many people know, by holding a two pairs of polarized sunglasses together and turning one against the other, at some angle, the light is mostly blocked. What I recently tried is holding a pair of polarized sunglasses against a pair of 3D movie glasses. What I find is that if you arrange them so that the light shines through the sunglasses first and then the 3D glasses, not much light is blocked. However, if you hold them so that the light goes through the 3D glasses first and then the sunglasses, most of the light in both lenses is blocked regardless of the rotational orientation of the sunglasses.

[/quote]

Treating sunglasses as allowing one plane of polarization to
pass through and completely blocking the perpendicular plane
makes it clear why orientation may be critical.
Treating 3D glasses as allowing clockwise polarization and
blocking anticlockwise, it is equally clear why orientation
is irrelevant (thereby allowing head tilting)

I can't account for your observation.
Was the original light "unpolarized"?
Remember that the point of polaroid sunglasses is
to block light reflected off horizontal surfaces (eg the sea)
which is predominantly horizontally polarized.

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;174917]I can't account for your observation.
Was the original light "unpolarized"?
Remember that the point of polaroid sunglasses is
to block light reflected off horizontal surfaces (eg the sea)
which is predominantly horizontally polarized.

David[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;174853]What I find is that if you arrange them so that the light shines through the sunglasses first and then the 3D glasses, not much light is blocked. However, if you hold them so that the light goes through the 3D glasses first and then the sunglasses, most of the light in both lenses is blocked [I]regardless of the rotational orientation of the sunglasses[/I].[/QUOTE]Upon repeating this experiment more carefully, I find that I reported my findings incorrectly and also that I did not notice other aspects initially. Exact details follow:

First of all, 3 illumination sources behaved substantially the same:Tube TV, Fluorescent Lamp and ambient light through a bay window (an adjacent building blocks most of the view). The fourth illumination source, a backlit LCD display is apparently polarized.

When holding polarized sunglasses against my LCD display, they block light when rotated to 135 and 315 degrees.

When holding 3D glasses against the LCD, in the orientation as they would be worn, the image is bluer (through both lenses) at 45 and 225 degrees and yellower at 135 and 315 degrees. However when flipped over so the earpieces are closest to the monitor, then they block light at 45 and 225 degrees and no color differences are noticeable during rotation.

When holding polarized sunglasses behind the 3D glasses (nearer the earpieces) they block light at 0 and 180 degrees. However if the sunglasses are held on the other side of the 3D glasses, they do not block light in any orientation. (This is the observation that surprised me and that I reported wrongly in the original message)

When holding 2 pairs of 3D glasses so that the earpieces are facing in the same direction (to better visualize, wearing a pair and then wearing another pair on top), they do not noticeably block my unpolarized light sources when rotated against each other in any orientation. [I]This is true when rotating corresponding lenses or when rotating left lens against right lens, etc.[/I]

However when holding the 2 pairs of 3D glasses so that they face each other (earpieces oriented in opposite directions), this arrangement places a left lens against a right lens (left and right as pertains to the glasses themselves as normally worn much as a doctor refers to the left side of a body; also as headphone speakers are labled). This blocks light at all rotations of a left lens against a right lens. No light is blocked for rotations of a left lens against a left lens, or a right lens against a right lens.

I do not know why the orientation of the earpieces matters

[quote=only_human;174937]
I do not know why the orientation of the earpieces matters[/quote]

It seems that it does.
Let's just accept it.
I'm fairly sure about the sunglasses.
If the incident light is circular polarized, rotating
the sunglasses will have no effect on intensity.
And presumably the 3D glasses transmit light iff the
incident light had the correct circular polarization.
Conjecture: this "transmitted light" may be plane polarized.
If you point the earphones the other way, the light transmitted might
be circularly polarized.

Any help?
My "Head of Department" although not stupid (he read Chemistry
at Cambridge) had an annoying habit of invoking Quantum Theory
whenever he encountered a problem he couldn't understand.

Paul?:smile:

David