Someone has just pointed me to a YouTube video called "The Undercover Scientist." The lyrics are
surprisingly appropriate... If we ever make a TV show from The Undercover Scientist book,
this would make excellent title music!
I'm a collaborating Prof in KAIST, Korea so I go over there now and again. At the beginning of this
month I was in Jeju, Korea giving a talk for some high school children. The organisers just sent me
some photos. Although in this picture I look like I'm teaching karate, I was talking about evolutionary
computation and showing some of the videos from my first book Evolutionary Design by
Computers (and also gave them a Korean version of Digital Biology). The school
specialised in science education, and you could tell. Not only did the kids cope with a talk in English,
but they asked detailed technical questions on genetic algorithms. I've had less intelligent questions
from fellow scientists in academic conferences! I'm afraid they put British school children to shame...
Life can be ironic sometimes. Having written The Undercover Scientist, Investigating Everyday
Mishaps which includes a whole section on how hard disks fail, and how you should ensure
they are always backed up... my hard disk failed and it wasn't backed up recently.
It did give me a chance to test the remedies I gave in the book first hand. In the book I
reported the suggestions of others in this situation - lightly hitting with a hammer, cooling in
freezer... but would any of these work for me? My disk had died so thoroughly it even prevented
the computer from booting up when connected normally. Instead I removed it, created a fresh
operating system install on a new disk, then linked the dead one to the computer via a USB
interface. It took a tap with a screwdriver to unstick the heads and make it seek again. Using Data
Rescue II software I was able to trawl the surface of the disk and see my data. But only sometimes
- if the disk got too hot, it failed again. This was a problem because the software needed to try
and access the disk continuously for many hours, which makes it hot. I had no fans, but if I put
something frozen right next to it, then it became too cold and also failed again. Through trial and
error, I discovered that putting the hard disk on a steel electrical socket installation box provided
a good heat sink and air gap, then placing the box onto a slice of frozen pineapple (wrapped in
clingfilm) provided the perfect natural cooling. Each slice lasted about 2 hours. Half a pineapple
later and all my data was successfully retrieved.
Here's a recent email exchange about the history of numbers, relating to the descriptions in
The Book of
Numbers
One month ago I finished reading your fascinating book "the Book of Numbers". From that
moment on your question: Where are all the girls? keeps lingering through my mind. I
wonder
how many girls did react on this question.
I'm glad you enjoyed the book. So far you are the first to tell me about your reaction
to
that specific question. Let's hope a few more girls do become more interested in the
subject!
You wrote about Euler, Pierre de Fermat and Descartes concerning amicable numbers.
I just happened to read the following text on the internet: Arabic mathematics : forgotten
brilliance?
…Continuing the story of amicable numbers, from which we have taken a diversion, it is
worth
noting that they play al large role in Arabic mathematics.
Al-Farisi (born 1260) gave a new proof of Thabit ibn Qurra’s theorem, introducing important
new
ideas concerning factorisation and combinatorial methods. He also gave the pair of amicable
numbers 17296, 18416 which have been attributed to Euler, but we know that these were
known
earlier than al-Farisi, perhaps even by Thabit ibn Qurra himself. Although outside our time
range
for Arabic mathematics in this article, it is worth noting that in the 17th century the Arabic
mathematician Mohammed Baqir Yazdi gave the pair of amicable number 9,363,584 and
9,437,056 still many years before Euler’s contribution……
Perhaps it is of interest for you.
yes, when describing amicable numbers I wrote "(although some claim that they
may also
have been known before this)". I was referring to this text you found. There is some debate
over
the issue, but it is probably true that the Arabs had found many amicable numbers, which
were
then forgotten for several hundred years and rediscovered by the likes of Descartes and
Euler.
The University of St Andrews is an excellent source of information on this topic - I used their
help
when writing the Book of Numbers.
I gave a talk for TESLA (our arts-science group at UCL) in November 2007. The topic is a
common one for me - the nature of computation in biological or natural systems. If I ever
get
around to writing a sequel to Digital Biology it'll be on this kind of stuff. At the end
I also
talk a
little about science communication in general. They've recently put a rather noisy
recording of the talk online here:
I was rather surprised to come across an online leaflet written by the Centre for Career Development
at Nottingham University. Surprised because much of the content seems to be taken directly from
my book the PhD Application Handbook. Well they say imitation is the best form of flattery (I
wonder if that applies to duplication). To be fair, they do acknowledge the book. So it's nice to have
some fans out there. You can read the leaflet for yourself here:
Another day and another contract, this time for Portugal. We're all very excited by the
international interest in The Undercover Scientist (or The Science of Mishaps as
it may be called in some countries). Do the twin themes of mishaps and science apply across all
cultures? Looks like it so far. The list of publishers to date includes:
An eagle-eyed ex-engineer has spotted a dodgy explanation in The Undercover
Scientist. I trust this reader, for it's my Dad:
On pages 57 and 58 of the Undercover Scientist you refer to
pistons connected to a camshaft. I think you meant crankshaft. The cams are the lozenge shaped
bumps on the camshaft which operate the engine valves.
Yes, we somehow all managed to miss this one. The book should read: "Each push on the
rim is a linear motion, and that is converted into a rotary motion by the hoop. Connect a piston to
a crankpin (often connected to a crankshaft) and the piston rotates the crankpin, pushing it round
and round." and later "Nevertheless, the principles of the engine remain exactly the same: fuel
and air is injected into the cylinders and is ignited by sparks (produced by the spark plugs), the
resulting pressure from the explosion moves the pistons, which pushes the crankshaft around,
and through a series of gears, makes the wheels turn."
Future editions (and foreign versions) will have this amendment... Thanks Dad.
When I wrote The Undercover Scientist I (perhaps naively) never thought in a million
years I would get questions like this... But today I did. Here's how I responded (part 1).
1) Ordinary people have long known that computers crash
on deadline and cars break down in emergencies, while previous studies have shown the law, also
called Sod's Law, is not a myth and toast really does fall buttered side down. But in 2004 a panel
of experts (David Lewis, matematico Philip Obadya e Keelan Leyser) has provided the statistical
rule for predicting the law of "anything that can go wrong, will go wrong" - or ((U+C+I) x (10-
S))/20 x A x 1/(1-sin(F/10)).
So, do you think it is possible to break Murphy's Law?
The Undercover Scientist is about those everyday mishaps that happen without blame or
fault. I use each mishap to open the door to scientific principles that explain our behaviour and
the technology we use. I'm afraid there is no sound scientific evidence that shows Sod's Law or
Murphy's Law is anything more than a misconception - toast does not have a tendency to fall in
the way we do not want it to. Sometimes things go wrong when we're stressed and working to a
tight deadline, but this is because we make mistakes and we inadvertently stress our technology
until it fails - there are lots of examples of this in the book. However, there is certainly evidence
to show that if you believe in such "laws" and your behaviour is affected by your own superstitious
beliefs then the result will be as though such laws exist. Your superstitious beliefs cause you to
act differently from normal and cause the very mishaps you are afraid of. Thus Murphy's Law is
nothing more than a construct in your own mind - to break it, just don't believe in it.
2) Why do you chose this topic?
I am a scientist who is trying to show how exciting and interesting science really is. The
whole purpose of the book is to show there is always a rational (and often fascinating, fun and
exciting) explanation for all the everyday events that happen to us. It shows that superstition
really has nothing to do with misfortune. What really counts is the physics, chemistry, biology that
underlies us and our technology.
3) "Fortune is blind, but bad luck has perfect eyesight". Is
it true?
It is only true if you make it so for yourself. Personally I am a strong believer that we
make our own luck - if you want something good to happen, then push for it; if something
happens that you don't like, then turn it into something positive by learning from it. Again, this is
what The Undercover Scientist does - it provides fascinating and entertaining new knowledge
from mishaps.
