ResearchBlogging editor’s selections: mega-rings, nano-anglerfish, and resilient algae

  • New mega ring around Saturn discovered using Spitzer. The big news in astronomy this week is the discovery of a BIG, hidden ring around Saturn! Dave at Exploding Galaxies and other Catastrophysics gives us the details.
  • Nano Anglerfish Snag Orphan Enzymes. Keith at Omics! Omics! describes a new approach for studying enzyme activities using nanotechnology — and does so by making an analogy with anglerfish!
  • Algae bounced back after a knock. How can we tell what really killed the dinosaurs? Thomas at Thomas’ Plant-Related Blog describes one important clue: the recovery of algae in the immediate years following the event.

Check back next Monday for more “miscellaneous” highlights!

Posted in General science, Science news | Leave a comment

“Liveblogging” What’s Hot in Optics at Frontiers in Optics 2009

Each year, Frontiers in Optics has a session entitled “What’s hot in optics”.  I thought I’d “liveblog” it (type it up on my computer and post it later) like I did last year; hopefully the comments make sense, considering I got up at 4 a.m. to fly to San Jose.

There were some very interesting things discussed, though I always feel that these talks lack a certain amount of energy.  If you’re going to label a session “hot”, I would think that the speakers should bring some enthusiasm to the podium!  Then again, people may be a little gloomy due to the economy, which has hit optics like everything else.

The blogging:

Continue reading →

Posted in Optics, Science news | 1 Comment

Off to Frontiers in Optics 2009!

Today my life is complete chaos as I try and get things together for the OSA Annual Meeting, aka Frontiers in Optics 2009.  Wouldn’t you know it, today is the day that suddenly a dozen extra meetings and phone calls take place, and a bunch of other urgent tasks appear as from nothing! I was hoping to finish my talk this afternoon, but it looks like I’ll be doing it on the road…

I’ll try and blog, as I did last year, about events at the conference.  This year, however, seems to be super-busy, as I’ve accepted all sorts of new conference-organizing responsibilities and am going to try and hash out a few papers with people while there.

If any of my regular readers are going to be at FiO and want to meet up to say “hello”, send me an email and we’ll see what we can do!

Speaking of OSA, this month’s issue of Optics and Photonics News has a nice biography of Robert W. Wood, who I recently declared one of the earliest investigators of invisibility physics.  I’m not sure if it is an open access article or not, but it’s an interesting read if you can get to it.

Posted in ... the Hell?, Science news | 4 Comments

The Linkin’ Log, video edition: October 8, 2009

Over the past couple of weeks, a few videos caught my eye, for various reasons.  I thought that it was a good time for a collection of links:

Via Steven Benen at Political Animal, a video has been found which encapsulates the obstructionist policy of the Republicans with respect to health care and, come to think of it, everything else:

Via Roger Ebert’s “Answer Man” column, I learned of the movie Paranormal Activity, a low-budget, “Blair Witch”-style documentary horror film which is getting rave reviews as a stunningly scary film.  It hasn’t received wide theatrical release yet, but hopefully it will be coming to a theater near you soon:

Shepard Smith, though an anchor on the stunningly dishonest Fox News, manages to demonstrate an admirably independent thought process.  This week, when Senator John Barrasso spouted spurious GOP talking points about the proposed public health option, Shep let him have it (via Talking Points Memo):

As long as we’re speaking of Fox News personalities, I can’t pass up pointing out what a phony slimebag Glenn Beck is.  Though it will surprise few that his teary-eyed commentaries are completely faked, it is still amazing that this video was released showing his tear-producing method: Vick’s Vapo-Rub:

Finally, via HuffPost, some truly amazing video: the only known film footage of Anne Frank, a short scene in a video of the wedding of the girl next door.  This footage was released by the Anne Frank House, and is now on YouTube:

That’s all for now!

Posted in Entertainment, Politics | Leave a comment

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences is trying to drive me insane

What a difference a letter can make!  The Nobel Prize in Physics this year went to Charles K. Kao for developments in fiber optics and to Willard S. Boyle and George E. Smith for the development of CCD cameras.  Fiber optics is a huge field, however, and the news descriptions have been a little vague as to what, exactly, Kao did for the prize, so I decided to look up Kao’s original paper for details.

The Nobel Prize site has a nice description of the scientific background; it includes the reference to the seminal contribution:

K.C. Kao and G.A. Hockham, “Dielectric-Fibre Surface Waveguides for optical frequencies,” Proc. IEEE 113, 1151 (1966).

So, no problem: I went to the website of the IEEE and browsed to the location of the reference.  No good: the paper is not in the Proceedings of the IEEE, and the volume for 1966 is 54, way off.  Now discombobulated, I did a search through the IEEE journals for the title of the paper.

Bingo, it seemed: I found the paper, with the right authors, and the right title.  It was in the Proceedings of the IEE, not the Proceedings of the IEEE — a common mistake.  IEE refers to the Institution of Electrical Engineers, a British society which was first founded in 1871 and became the IET in 2006, while IEEE refers to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, an American institution which was formed from the merger of other organizations in 1963.  There was a significant overlap of the two organizations in time, making things mildly confusing.

So I sat down to read the article.  A quick glance at the citation showed that it still didn’t match the Nobel reference, but hey, maybe they totally screwed up!  Then I happened to glance at one of the references in the paper: G. Hockham’s Ph.D. Thesis, 1969.  What??!! Kao and Hockham’s paper was supposed to be written in 1966 — could they see the future??!!

A closer look at the citation shows a problem: the paper I’m looking at was published in 1986.  I suddenly had my doubts that I was looking at the right paper — perhaps I was looking at a review article, or an article so closely related it had the same title?

All of this confusion happened over about 5-10 minutes.  At this point, I think capillaries started to burst in my head.  I did a frantic internet search to try and find the proper citation, which was not only fruitless but almost destructive — a search on “kao iee” brought me to one of those sites that tries to “virus scan” your computer and sell  you crap.

Finally, I calmed down a bit and looked again at the 1986 paper.  In small print on the bottom of the front page, I found:

Paper 5033E was originally published in the Proceedings IEE, July 1966.

The version of the paper I found was a reprint of the original.  The original didn’t turn up in my IEEE website search because they haven’t updated their digital archives that far back.

So the document on the Nobel Prize site has a citation which is off by only one letter — one too many ‘E’s — and that threw me into a complete tizzy.  Let this be a cautionary tale on the importance of properly citing articles.

However, I still don’t understand how a reprinted paper can cite a Ph.D. thesis which was written 3 years after the original publication.

I’ll actually write a post about the substance of the Nobel-winning research when my head stops throbbing…

Posted in ... the Hell?, General science | 4 Comments

Lord Rayleigh’s comments on invisibility (1884)

Found it! I pointed out in my previous invisibility post that R.W. Wood attributes an early discussion of invisibility to Lord Rayleigh in his Encyclopædia Britannica article on optics; however, I couldn’t find the quote after browsing Rayleigh’s articles and wondered if Wood had miscited Rayleigh’s work.

A bit of closer inspection, however, shows that I overlooked Rayleigh’s comment, which was buried in a footnote in his article on geometrical optics (Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. 17 (1884, 9th ed.), 798-807), in what I would have considered an unlikely place, namely his discussion of achromatic object-glasses (p. 805).  The footnote is as follows:

Even when the optical differences are not small it is well to remember that transparent bodies are only visible in virtue of a variable illumination.   If the light falls equally in all directions, as it might approximately do for an observer on a high monument during a thick fog, the edge of (for example) a perfectly transparent prism would be absolutely invisible.  If a spherical cloud, composed of absolutely transparent material, surround symmetrically a source of light, the illumination at a distance would not be diminished by its presence.

Continue reading →

Posted in History of science, Invisibility | Leave a comment

Themes for “The Giant’s Shoulders?”

The other day I was mulling over one of my recent ‘history of science’ posts, on an early physics crank whose work dates back to 1891.  About the same time, I was thinking about other ‘challenges’ I could pose for sciencebloggers similar to my classic papers challenge that really launched my whole interest in science history.

Hey, I then realized: why not put the two ideas together?  What I’m thinking is to have themed editions of The Giant’s Shoulders, one of which would be “Failures, Frauds and Fools”, discussions of the works of those people who were horribly wrong about a phenomenon, published fraudulent research, or were just plain nuts!  Such a theme would seem natural for the upcoming April issue of TGS.

Another theme that quickly came to my mind involves the 9th edition (late 1800s) of the Encyclopædia Britannica, the so-called “Scholar’s edition.”  Many of the articles of the scholar’s edition were written by leading experts in their fields, including articles by Lord Rayleigh on optics, and the entire edition can be found online with some searching.  The theme would be to take one of those articles and write about the current state of understanding of a particular research topic. I’m thinking that this could be a nice theme for an upcoming issue, say November.

The theme of any particular TGS edition would not be exclusive: bloggers could still submit history of science posts on any topic of interest, but the themes would give some ideas on what to write about.

Does this sound interesting?  Let me know what you think.  If you have other ideas for themed editions of the carnival, let me know that too!

Posted in General science, Science news | 4 Comments

Ten days until The Giant’s Shoulders #16!

There’s 10 days left until the deadline for The Giant’s Shoulders #16!  It will be held at Quiche Moraine, and entries can be submitted through blogcarnival.com or directly to the host blog, as usual!

Posted in General science, Science news | Leave a comment

ResearchBlogging editor’s selections: water on the moon, telescopes in history, seeing through other people’s eyes, and space travel

This was a very good week for my section of ResearchBlogging, and I had a hard time picking selections!

As a bonus, emma at we are all in the gutter talks about the winners of this year’s Ig Nobel awards, given out for, shall we say, unusual research!  She also describes some of her favorite past winners.

Check back next Monday for more “miscellaneous” highlights!

Posted in General science, Science news | Leave a comment

The first paper on invisibility? (1902)

When discussing the history of invisibility physics, I typically cite Ehrenfest’s 1910 paper on radiationless motions as the first publication dedicated to the subject.  Ehrenfest’s paper, which attempts to explain how electrons could oscillate in a classical atom without radiating, is a direct precursor to the long history of nonradiating sources and nonscattering scatterers that I’ve been chronicling on this blog.

However, it turns out that Ehrenfest was not the first author to discuss some form of invisibility!  I recently stumbled across an article in an early issue of the Physical Review: “The invisibility of transparent objects,” by R.W. Wood, 1902.  It is not an earth-shattering paper, but it presents some intriguing ideas and suggests that visions of invisibility may go even further back in the sciences… Continue reading →

Posted in Invisibility, Optics | 9 Comments