It is well known that people don’t always ‘speak their minds’, and it is suspected that people don’t always ‘know their minds’. Understanding such divergences is important to scientific psychology.

This web site presents a method that demonstrates the conscious-unconscious divergences much more convincingly than has been possible with previous methods. This new method is called the Implicit Association Test, or IAT for short.
…
The IAT was originally developed as a device for exploring the unconscious roots of thinking and feeling. This web site has been constructed for a different purpose — to offer the IAT to interested individuals as a tool to gain greater awareness about their own unconscious preferences and beliefs.

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

Check out the demonstration. There’s a huge variety of tests and each test only takes 5-10 minutes.

I’m currently studying for an upcoming microbiology exam on bacteriology and wanted to quick comment on something that one of the doctors told us. During World War II, Nazis were very fearful of typhus (the epidemic from caused by Rickettsia prowazekii). They wanted people in the concentration camps to do manual labor for as long as possible before being killed. Bringing people with epidemic typhus into the camps would cause everyone to become too sick to work. So to prevent the spread of typhus into the concentration camps, Nazi “doctors” tested villages for typhus antibodies via a blood test. Fortunately, some Polish physicians determined that inoculating villagers with Proteus would cause a cross-reaction with the typhus agglutination test. It would appear as if a typhus epidemic was going on in that village and the Nazis subsequently left them alone.

It was a pretty brave thing for the Polish physicians to do. It’s unfortunate that this couldn’t have been used to save even more lives. Here’s an article, A Bacterium Saved a Town During World War II, that talks about the same thing.

According to a team of Oxford scientists (I’m sorry that I don’t have their original publication), the parallel universe theory “helps explain mysteries of quantum mechanics that have baffled scientists for decades.” In particular, “the Oxford team, led by Dr David Deutsch, showed mathematically that the bush-like branching structure created by the universe splitting into parallel versions of itself can explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes.” One expert even described this mathematical discovery as “one of the most important developments in the history of science.” Unfortunately, I have the feeling that unless there is a practical benefit to this discovery, I’ll think that new and future advancements in genetics and proteomics will be much greater developments in the history of science. (But maybe these discoveries in genetics have already happened. What I don’t understand is if each universe gets created “on the fly” for a given decision branch or if there are an infinite number of universes in existence and we just pop between them to reflect each action.)

Basically what the scientists describe is a situation where each action results in multiple parallel universes branching off at each possible decision. For example, in one universe I might get hit by a car while biking, while in another universe the car might just barely miss me, and in another I might swerve and hit something else. The theory states that each of these things and, in fact, everything that could possibly have happened, does but we are only aware of the universe that we are experiencing and that we are a part of.

I guess I could see how mathematically something like this would be possible. However, what I can’t understand is that there are an infinite possibilities for anything that happens. For example, my very thoughts during writing this post alone created countless parallel universes. The neurotransmitter actions in my brain created countless more. Subconscious extraneous movements of my body created even more. And, each second of every day the cells that choose to multiple, die and get replaced, grow, etc, etc each create more and more universes. And that is not even considering the fact that I’m part of other people’s universes too. This just seems too incredible…

Bae’s Photonic Laser Thruster (PLT) demonstration produced a photon thrust of 35 uN, which is sufficient for several space missions currently envisioned, and is scalable to achieve much greater photon thrust for future space missions. Applications for PLT include: highly precise satellite formation flying configurations for building large synthetic apertures in space for earth or space observation, precision contaminant-free spacecraft docking operations, and propelling spacecraft to unprecedented speeds greater than 100 km/sec.

Bae, looking forward with anticipation, observes, “This is the tip of the iceberg. PLT has immense potential for the aerospace industry. For example, PLT powered spacecraft could transit the 100 million km to Mars in less than a week.” Several aerospace players have expressed intent to collaborate with the Bae Institute to further develop and integrate PLT into civilian, military, and commercial space systems.

Source: Photon Propulsion Breakthrough Could Cut Mars Transit From Six Months to a Week
Read the rest of this entry »

Google Tech Talks November 9, 2006

ABSTRACT This is not your father’s fusion reactor! Forget everything you know about conventional … all » thinking on nuclear fusion: high-temperature plasmas, steam turbines, neutron radiation and even nuclear waste are a thing of the past. Goodbye thermonuclear fusion; hello inertial electrostatic confinement fusion (IEC), an old idea that’s been made new. While the international community debates the fate of the politically-turmoiled $12 billion ITER (an experimental thermonuclear reactor), simple IEC reactors are being built as high-school science fair projects.

Dr. Robert Bussard, former Asst. Director of the Atomic Energy Commission and founder of Energy Matter Conversion Corporation (EMC2), has spent 17 years perfecting IEC, a fusion process that converts hydrogen and boron directly into electricity producing helium as the only waste product. Most of this work was funded by the Department of Defense, the details of which have been under seal… until now.

Dr. Bussard will discuss his recent results and details of this potentially world-altering technology, whose conception dates back as far as 1924, and even includes a reactor design by Philo T. Farnsworth (inventor of the scanning television).

Can a 100 MW fusion reactor be built for less than Google’s annual electricity bill? Come see what’s possible when you think outside the thermonuclear box and ignore the herd.

Source (link to video): Should Google Go Nuclear? Clean, cheap, nuclear power (no, really)

Message board thread: Interesting fusion talk at google with space related aspects

I haven’t finished watching the video yet (it’s over 1 hour 30 mins) but what I’ve seen looks very interesting. This is not some creating energy from nothing free energy technology, but actual science. I’d love to see his further research get funded.

“There are three strategies to travel 10.5 light-years from Earth to Epsilon Eridani and bring humanity into a new stellar system : 1) Wait for future discovery of Star Trek physics and go there almost instantaneously, 2) Build a relativistic rocket powered by antimatter and go there in 22 years by accelerating constantly at 1g, provided that you master stellar amounts of energy (so, nothing realistic until now), but what about 3): go there by classical means, by building a gigantic Ark of several miles in radius, propulsed by nuclear fusion and featuring artificial gravity, oceans and cities, for a travel of seven centuries — where many generations of men and women would live ? This new speculation uses some actual physics and math to figure out how far are our fantasies of space travel from their actual implementation.”

Interstellar Ark :: Strange Paths

I saw this on Slashdot. It was a very intriguing read. In fact, the whole Strange Paths blog is going to be fun to read through. I, like many people, wonder if building an ark and spending over 700 years traveling to a destination is a good use of money. (However, I forgot the technical economic term, but this scale of government spending would probably give an absolutely huge stimulus to the economy!) With how far science and physics have advanced in the past 300 years, one would think that our future selves could build a machine that would beat the “old” design ark to Epsilon Eridani even with a 300 year late start. All in all, I think that technologically, we could build this ark now or at least once we establish a permanent base on the Moon or Mars. Psychosocial aspects would likely be the ark’s downfall. It sort of reminds me of the movie and book Contact. It is interesting to think about, nonetheless.
Read the rest of this entry »

Some scientists now say that cosmic rays are linked to global warming. Maybe human action isn’t the only (or even major) contributor to global warming…

Researchers studying global warming have often been confounded by the differences between observed increases in surface-level temperatures and unchanging low-atmosphere temperatures. Because of this discrepancy, some have argued that global warming is unproven, suggesting instead that true warming should show uniformly elevated temperatures from the surface through the atmosphere. Researchers have proposed a theory that changes in cloud cover could help explain the puzzling phenomenon, but none-until now-have come up with an argument that could account for the varying heat profiles.

A study in the July 2002 issue of Journal of Geophysical Research-Space Physics, published by the American Geophysical Union, proposes for the first time that interstellar cosmic rays could be the missing link between the discordant temperatures observed during the last two decades (since recorded satellite records began in 1979). The report, by Fangqun Yu of the State University of New York-Albany, proposes that the rays, tiny charged particles that bombard all planets with varying frequency depending on solar wind intensity, may have height-dependent effects on our planet’s cloudiness. Previous research has proposed a link between cosmic rays and cloud cover, has not suggested the altitude dependence of the current study.
“A systematic change in global cloud cover will change the atmospheric heating profile,” Yu said. “In other words, the cosmic ray-induced global cloud changes could be the long-sought mechanism connecting solar and climate variability.”

Continue reading for more… http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020731080631.htm

Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

Continue reading for more… http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

My opinion is that the Sun basically provides the means for all life on Earth. So why then shouldn’t it be considered a major contributor to global climate change?

Here’s another article called, “Don’t ruin economy over tiny temp rise,” that is interesting.

So I guess that Scott Adams was suffering from a condition called Spasmodic Dysphonia (Wikipedia ref.) (For the medically-oriented among you, check out this eMedicine article.) This is an incredible story!

As regular readers of my blog know, I lost my voice about 18 months ago. Permanently. It’s something exotic called Spasmodic Dysphonia. Essentially a part of the brain that controls speech just shuts down in some people, usually after you strain your voice during a bout with allergies (in my case) or some other sort of normal laryngitis. It happens to people in my age bracket.

I asked my doctor – a specialist for this condition – how many people have ever gotten better. Answer: zero. While there’s no cure, painful Botox injections through the front of the neck and into the vocal cords can stop the spasms for a few months. That weakens the muscles that otherwise spasm, but your voice is breathy and weak.
Read the rest of this entry »

In this piece from 1921, PopSci subjects the Sultan of Swat to a battery of scientific tests hoping to discover the secret behind his superhuman swing.

Link to Popular Science article

Wow…Babe Ruth was amazing, and he did this all on a diet of hot dogs and beer (or at least not steroids!)

Written for my Neurobiology 500 seminar at the University of Wisconsin – Madison.

I see two people who are both begging. The first man is just standing on the sidewalk with a cup asking for money; the second man is playing a jazz sax and has his instrument case out for money. I know nothing about either of them except what I see them doing at the moment. In my pockets I can feel the change from the burrito that I just bought. As I walk by the first man I maintain a coordinated steady pace and gaze straight ahead. My brain’s internal regulation controls my breathing and cardiovascular system. It also controls my movement and coordination without much input allowing the higher level processes within my brain to decide how I want to react. When he asks me for change I either lie and say I have no change or just keep walking. However, when I approach the man who is playing the jazz sax I may stop to listen and watch for a few seconds and then give him my change.

Why the difference? There are two reasons for not giving the first man my money. The first is a result of an innate (or primal) desire for increased fitness. I would rather give up my money for something that would benefit me or my offspring. Giving money to an unrelated man offers no chance for improved fitness. Secondly, his begging does not elicit any emotional response. Rather, I would only think that instead of begging he could find a paid-by-the-day construction job and be a productive citizen. The man playing the instrument, however, does elicit an emotional response. The man then becomes more of an skilled entertainer than a beggar. While I will get no fitness benefit by giving this man my money, he earns it more than the other man. The jazz player appeals to my cognitive awareness which includes emotions and appreciation of music.

As humans with a greater sense or development of higher awareness than other animals, we have the responsibility to choose how we want our resources spent. Altruism, or helping others with little or no interest in being rewarded, is a concept that only humans can obtain. Therefore, with limited monetary resources we have to decide how best we want our money spent. Yielding to a very real example, I personally would rather give my money to the American Red Cross to help those suffering from Hurricane Katrina than to give it to a man whose negligence may have contributed to his current state.

However, even the benefit of my charitable donation can be debated. I was reading a blog post in which a man claimed that “The disaster was the ‘American Dream’. Katrina was the aftermath.” He said that “The ‘naturalness’ of a disaster is dependent on the extent to which the system does not lay the foundations for the occurrence of such a disaster. We must not forget that the ‘American Dream’ claims its fair share of victims on a daily basis in a myriad of ways.” For him, a different sense of good and bad prevails, showing that the concept of “good” is largely dependent on the emotional and sociological state of the individual. “I realised that being ‘good’, or ‘doing the right thing’ requires the right socio-economic conditions in order to not turn good into evil.” While this is not the time to debate such deep accusations, it does plainly illustrate the wide range of ideas that our amazing brain can create.