Reality

I don't understand any science.  Heck, I don't even know how light bulbs work.  But I rest secure in the knowledge that other people do know this stuff.  Or I used to.  Yesterday, I heard the newest Nobel laureate for physics, astrophysicist Adam Reiss, say that we -- by which he means "we Nobel scientists and MacArthur geniuses" -- understand only about 4 percent of the stuff that goes on in the universe.  4 percent!

I don't have a link to the radio show that I was listening to yesterday, but here's the gist of what he was saying:

Taken together, dark matter and dark energy seem to make up most of the mass of the universe (matter and energy are considered to be two forms of the same thing, thanks to Einstein's famous equation E=Mc^2). Dark energy is thought to account for 74 percent of the universe, while dark matter adds about 22 percent, and normal, visible matter contributes a puny 4 percent.

http://www.space.com/6619-dark-energy.html

In English, of course, "dark" matter and "dark" energy just mean "stuff we can't begin to understand."

UPDATE:  A short NASA article on dark energy and dark matter.  It's completely over my head, but a pleasure to read nonetheless.  For example:

But when physicists tried to calculate how much energy this would give empty space, the answer came out wrong - wrong by a lot. The number came out 10¹²⁰ times too big. That's a 1 with 120 zeros after it. It's hard to get an answer that bad. So the mystery continues.

9th grade math

Suppose there were a steel band

fitting tightly around

the equator of the earth.

Now suppose that you remove it

and cut it at one place, then splice in an additional piece

10 feet long,

so that the new band is

10 feet longer than the original one.

If you now replace it on the equator, . . .

[how] large a space would there now be

between the band and the earth?

The Education of T.C.Mits, pp. 32-33

Reminders:

The circumference of earth at the equator is 25,000 miles.

The formula for circumference is: C = 2 * π * radius.

Footnote: I'm astonished to find that T.C.Mits is still in print. It's even older than I am!

And people think economists can't agree

Scientists say 4,000 deaths are attributable to the nuclear accident at Chernobyl 25 years ago.

Or maybe 985,000.

Hot enough for you?

Source: Andrew Sullivan

Update: As I read it, the chart doesn't just say that the world is getting hotter; it says that the world is getting hotter at an accelerating rate.

"Jeebus!" . . .

. . . as Philosoraptor (where I found these items) might say:

• Earthworms form herds and make group decisions.
• False findings may be . . . the vast majority of published research claims.
• Clusters of galaxies are being tugged on by the gravity of matter outside the known universe.
  

Science for Poets

A long time ago I was tempted to read a book called Physics for Poets. Not because I'm a poet, for heaven's sake, but because I thought the subject might be dumbed down enough that I might get a glimmer of what relativity and quantum mechanics is all about. I never did read it however. I probably realized that no matter how simplified it was, it wouldn't be simple enough for me.

A terrific article by Natalie Angier in yesterday's New York Times -- "Scientists and Philosophers Find That ‘Gene’ Has a Multitude of Meanings" -- reminds me of all this. For one thing, genetics is another one of those things that I don't think I'll ever be able to wrap my brain around. For another, Ms. Angier may or may not be writing for poets, but she sure writes as a poet. Consider a few excerpts:

I owe an apology to my genes. For years I offhandedly blamed them for certain personal defects conventionally associated with one’s hereditary starter pack — my Graves’ autoimmune disease, for example, or my hair, which looks like the fibers left behind on the rim of an aspirin bottle after the cotton ball has been removed, only wispier.

[Genes are] less a “blueprint for life” than one of those disappointing two-page Basic Setup booklets that comes with your computer, tells you where to plug it in and then directs you to a Web site for more information.

Not long ago, RNA was seen as a bureaucrat, the middle molecule between a gene and a protein, as exemplified by the tidy aphorism, “DNA makes RNA makes protein.” Now we find cases of short clips of RNA acting like DNA, transmitting genetic secrets to the next generation directly, without bothering to ask permission. We find cases of RNA acting like a protein, catalyzing chemical reactions, pushing other molecules around or tearing them down. RNA is like the vice presidency: it’s executive, it’s legislative, it’s furtive.

And if canonical genes are too thin a gruel to explain yourself to yourself, you can always reach for the stalwart of scapegoats. Blame it all on your mother, who surely loved you too much or too little or in all the wrong ways.