Archive: physics

Another dollop of derrière drizzle from Ferrari’s anonymous “Horse Whisperer”.


Horse Shit logo

The Horse Whisperer has been seeing recently some vicious rumours regarding the poor start to the Scuderia Ferrari season. It is clear that things cannot continue as they are, and we are absolutely determined to reach the bottom of this situations.

However, contrary to vicious media reports, there has not been a problem with the calibration of our wind tunnel. It is undoubted that the on-track performance of the F-150º Italia (or the C-65.56° as it is called in the new monies) does not match up with the figures gleaned from wind tunnel runnings.

However, we can be assured as always of the engineering excellence of which Ferrari is so gloriously famed.

As a result, we cannot escape the conclusion that the laws of physics are conspiring against the Scuderia. It is clear to us now that during the winter the laws of physics were changed in order to disfavour the Ferrari charge. It must be to stop the Scuderia from becoming so dominant.

The tifosi can be rest assured that we are working hard to update our cars in time for Barcelona in order to make full advantage of the new laws of physics.

I now know what they mean when some people say that environmentalism is the new religion.

Thankfully the storm surge predicted at dawn didn’t come to much. It seemed like a different story last night. I was listening to Radio 5 Live overnight, and they were simulcasting with BBC local radio stations. (Incidentally, you can listen to it here — the relevant bits are from about 2 hours in.)

It sounded pretty grim. The high tides hadn’t receded, and a further three feet of water was expected. Hundreds of people evacuated.

One woman was on holiday on a boat in the affected area. She had to wait until it was light until she could make a move and was worried that her boat was going to tip.

Then Radio 5 Live took a telephone call from Chris in Norwich. It is safe to assume that he was Chris Ballance because he said he used to be an MSP for the Scottish Greens. He said is deputy climate change spokesperson for the Green Party, so you can just imagine what he was saying about it all.

It is almost certainly global warming.

The thing that really annoyed me about this was that just about ten minutes earlier an actual meteorologist, Peter Gibbs, was explaining precisely what was going on. It was a one-off meteorological event. An unfortunate combination of low pressure sitting over the North Sea, gales blowing around the north of Scotland and spring tides in the English Channel, and the geographical nature of the area (the narrowness of the North Sea towards the Channel meaning that the water has nowhere else to go). There is a good diagram here.

Presenter Dotun Adebayo asked him just the right question: What about the great storm of 1953, was that global warming too? Bam!

With the listeners having had it explained to them precisely what was causing the rising waters in the south east of England by an actual meteorologist, politician Chris Ballance obviously felt the need to phone up and make sure that some spurious guff about climate change got broadcast. It seemed to me like a crass attempt at making party political gains, exploiting and capitalising on the genuine worry people felt about lives and property.

I am not a climate change sceptic by any means. Funnily enough, I am readier to accept the expertise of qualified physicists, meteorologists and climatologists over the deniers who approach the issue from a political, ideological perspective.

But I can’t help but notice that environmentalists have managed to get themselves into a position where the slightest freakish event is put down to climate change. There is no scope any more for one-off events, meteorological coincidences or freak conditions. It’s all climate change now.

In centuries gone by, before people had enough knowledge to realise otherwise, such events might have been put down to a higher power, a God or something. Having had a brief few centuries of enlightenment, we are almost reverting back to using a catch-all explanation for everything rather than actually analysing what is going on. Climate change is the new God.

Somebody just arrived at this blog searching for “edinburgh university physics exam time“. Something tells me you’re looking in the wrong place! Here would be more helpful. Whoever you are, you don’t have much time!

Is handwriting really needed any more? Kids around the world are forgetting how to handwrite — because all of the writing we do is on the computer. It’s a familiar story. Every time we went back to school after the long summer break, my friends and I would all comment that the most difficult thing was getting used to writing again. “I haven’t had to write anything for about two months!” So every year our handwriting would get a little bit worse.

That wasn’t just because we were using computers all the time. It was just that there really isn’t much need to write at all is there? The only thing I can think of is letter writing. But how often do you do that? Once a year, if that? Maybe, back in the day, people wrote letters to each other. Nowadays people keep in touch by IM or text message. Or, if you’re really old-fashioned, by email. No need to lift a pen.

It’s sensible for me just to avoid writing altogether because my handwriting is a complete mess, and it has been probably since I started secondary school. My lowercase letters are all over the place. If I’m not careful, my ‘b’ looks like an ‘S’, my ‘a’ and ‘o’ both look like an ‘e’, my ‘i’ looks like an ‘l’, my ‘g’ looks like a ‘y’, ‘m’ looks like an ‘n’. And ‘v’ and ‘u’ look exactly the same.

The article says, “Teenagers are still experimenting with their handwriting and trying out new things”. The shocking thing is, I’m not a teenager, and I’m still experimenting with my handwriting. I could cope with all of the other things because I could understand myself what I was writing. But when my ‘v’ and ‘u’ began to look the same I had to take action. In the past couple of months I’ve actually added on a tail to my ‘u’. I never used to add tails because I thought they were a waste of time. Now they are how I tell a ‘u’ (or a ‘U’) from a ‘v’ (or ‘V’).

It became necessary because a lot of the equations I have to use at university involve a u or a v — often in the same place, meaning subtly different things. But I can’t be confusing them or I will get myself… well, confused. At the same time I’m coping with how to write Greek letters. Before it was just π in maths and the occasional μ in physics.

Now, in economics, I have to grapple regularly with Σ, θ, δ, γ, α and the dreaded σ. When you’re struggling with the Latin alphabet, the last thing you want to do is work out how to write a σ (my ‘σ’ actually looks like ‘δ’!).

Whenever I have to handwrite a note or something, I always write it in all capitals. Not print, though, because I am such a lazy bastard that I can’t even be bothered to write neatly in block capitals. My capitals used to be neat — when I was in primary school. But when my lowercase letters became illegible and I moved on to using capitals instead — well, of course my capitals became illegible as well. Nevertheless, it is the least-worst option. Although I always have to apologise and explain that I’m not shouting!

I don’t have a signature either. Well I do, but it’s basically just a scrawl. I’ve tried practicing writing my name, but I think I am actually physically incapable of doing it. It looks kind of like “D____ Sl_____”. Distinctive, in a way, but it’s just a scrawl. Some people are genuinely shocked by my signature.

Despite my uneasy relationship with handwriting, I find it absolutely fascinating. It’s interesting to note how different people can take such radically different approaches to writing the same symbols. My friend and I had a discussion about somebody else. I just said, “I like her ‘a’s.” My friend thought I was using some kind of secret man-code euphemism. But no. I genuinely like her lowercase ‘a’.

Maybe that’s why I don’t have a girlfriend.

Via Digg.

My dad is disappointed in me. He tries to restrain it, but every so often he lets it come out. He thinks I shouldn’t have chosen to do Economics at University. “It’s not a real science,” he says. He is a chemist, you see. Sometimes I find it difficult to disagree with him, although I don’t think that it makes economics worthless at all. I hated chemistry at school anyway. Besides, my mum warned me not to do a science at university because according to her it’s almost impossible to get a job. What do I do with parents like this?

Anyway, that throny issue as to whether or not economics is a science is something that Greg Mankiw has got his teeth into on his blog.

In my opinion there are a few barriers to economics being a science (so far). One of the things my dad says is that because the behaviour of humans is “random” (his word), you cannot possibly make any serious predictions. Perhaps so. It does get tiring after a while to see economic models assuming “rationality”. Every human becomes the robotic Homo economicus (there was a post about this yesterday at The Fluffy Economist).

Nevertheless, many economic theories do appear to hold true in real life. I should have asked my dad, “When the price of a good goes up, is it really a ‘random’ occurance if the demand for that good goes down?” Yet even such simple concepts which even non-economists would recognise almost as facts of life are not without their problems.

I was discussing economics with a friend on my way back home from our exam yesterday, and I mentioned that my biggest personal gripe with the economics I have learned at university and that I read in the textbooks is all of the maths involved. The movement towards a more maths-based approach was an attempt by the discipline of economics as a whole to gain more credibility; to look more like a real science and not one of those wooly humanities subjects.

But I think I would take a lot of economics much more seriously if it stopped trying to sum up human behaviour in an abstract equation. It is a square peg in a round hole, in my view. By coming out with such an approach that gives you such precision makes it look like economics is promising the moon on a stick when it evidently cannot bring you it. Maybe this is just my personal aversion to maths coming out though. :D

Another huge barrier to economics being seen as a science is that it is so closely related to politics. To make a comment about economics is to make a comment about politics. And as we all know, making a comment about politics makes you ten instant friends and a hundred instant enemies. Even if many economists can agree on something (which isn’t often, but hey), many non-economists almost certainly will not. Immigration is a good example (and I’ll probably have a post on that tomorrow — I bet you can’t wait!).

As one anonymous commenter on Mankiw’s blog said, “One hardly hears of Republican chemical theories and Leftwing chemistry.” Is it any coincidence that, for the man on the street at least, one of the most controversial scientific theories today is that of evolution? The scientific community may be pretty well united in its support of the theory of evolution, but because creationism / Intelligent Design and evolution has become such a politicised issue, the theory of evolution has become questionable in the eyes of the general public.

This is a rare, freak event: a biology theory has become politicised, and therefore questioned. Economics is not so lucky: every economic theory is politicised from the word go, and is therefore questioned.

Here is some better news for economics though. Economics is still an extraordinarily young science. While people have been pondering about mathematics, biology, physics and chemistry for thousands of years, modern political economy is said to have begun with Adam Smith just a couple of hundred years ago.

If we go back to when chemistry was that old, we would probably find four elements: earth, fire, water, air. So perhaps we shouldn’t be too critical if economics still seems a bit unsteady on its feet, and we should instead make do with what we’ve got.