Three Jokes which Most People Won't Get

1) There is a party of functions. Everyone is there. x², π² and every other function is having fun. Except e^x , who is sitting in a corner all by itself. x³ notices it and says: "come on, integrate yourself!"  e^x responds sadly: "Why should I? It wouldn't make a difference"

2) A group of bankers want to invest in, and bet on, horse races. They decide to hire a group of physicists and ask them to find which horse will be the best. On the day of the presentation, the physicists have a presentation ready. On the first slide there is a circle. A physicist takes out a laser pointer, points at the circle, and says "Modelling the horse as a perfect sphere in an insolated system, in a vacuum..."


3) Heisenberg and Schrödinger drive in a car, and are stopped by a police officer. He asks: "Sir, do you know how fast you were driving?" Heisenberg responds: "No, but I can tell you exactly where I was driving"
The police officer thinks that this response is a bit odd, and searched the car. A few minutes later he comes back and asks: "Sir, did you know you had a ead cat in you trunk?" Schrödinger responds: "No, but now I do."


YAY, physics and maths jokes. Funny? Maybe. Conversation starter / ice breaker? Yes!

On God and Science

I was raised Roman Catholic. I got my first version of the bible when I was maybe six years old, a tiny paperback with little writing and a lot of colorful pictures which depicted maybe seven of the most important stories of the bible. Over the years, I was given various versions of these bibles for children, each getting more violent and having less pictures the older I got.

When I was 10, I started attending a Catholic school, was taught mostly by civilians, and had mass every Tuesday, first class in the morning. My art teacher was a priest who drew amazing abstract art, had a piercing and wore jeans and t-shirts. I read the entire bible during two years of incredible boredom during religion classes, after which I left the school, but if I had stayed, I would have learned about evolution and astrophysics and the big bang in my science classes – without stickers on the textbooks which claim it to be “only a theory”.

Religion was part of my childhood, and my mom’s guardian angels protected me from monsters in the closet and under the bed - I cannot remember ever being afraid of them. Praying consoled me when I was worried sick about something – that my parents would divorce, an important exam the next day, or that my grandparents could become ill and die.  

Yet, I am a geek. I have always been one, fascinated by science, the world around me. And my parents, being academics, have always supported me, buying me books and encouraging me to ask questions. I have never, as a child, really felt the conflict between religion and science, because in my family, both were allowed to co-exist. And my mother, who is quit religious and was the driving force in my family to educate me and my siblings religiously, calls creationism ridiculous and shakes her head at people who demand it to be taught in schools.

But it is not that easy for me. I am caught in a conflict between religion and science, my upbringing and an idea which has given me a feeling of safety as a child, and the reality of this world and science. I have difficultly employing this double-think mentality (not that there is anything wrong with it), and have been forced to admit that God has no place in science, not in the traditional way at least.

The origin of live - how living things, the first primitive cells, arose from a few acids – or the origin of the singularity which started the Big Bang, or even what caused this singularity to evolve into the Big Bang… A lot of people try to use these things to explain the existence of some intelligence, some kind of God - it’s the typical God of the Gaps. The practice to stuff God into every gap in science, to explain his existence with the things science can’t yet explain. I know what it is, this God of the Gaps and how it works, and I know that science will most likely find answers to these questions. To employ this God of the Gaps to justify my belief in God would again result in a double-think mentality, something I have enormous difficulties with.

But maybe the mistake here is to look for God in science and for science in God. Maybe God, religion, the supernatural, is just a human instinct, the desire to explain, the desire to seek comfort and safety in something which will always be there to rely upon. Maybe there is no need for God to exist, at least not in any physical way. Maybe it is just a concept that exists in our heads.

Or maybe, possibly, it is something else. Maybe God can be found in science. In the way everything fits together, like pieces of a big puzzle. How simple equations, a few letters and numbers, can be used to explain the behavior of particles, objects, light and sound, how patterns can be found in even the most chaotic places and things in this universe.

Maybe it is like Einstein once said: “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.”  

3 Reasons I Don’t Like the Doctor Who Seasons 5 and 6 (as Much as I Liked the Older Ones)

1)   There has been no change in the doctor or his companions from season 5 to season 6. This was one of my favorite things about Doctor Who, having either a new companion or a new Doctor each season. I loved the change. I loved getting to know these new characters, I loved seeing the Doctor meet new people and take them on an adventure through time and space. It is part of what Doctor Who is to me, and now that I am watching the second season with the same doctor and the same companions, I feel like there is something missing.


2)      There have been no reappearances of any of the old characters. So far, the old characters have always made a comeback in the new seasons, typically those from the 2005 remake, but Russel T. Davies also got Sarah Jane and the Master on board for a few episodes, and I loved it. I love seeing the new characters interact with the old ones, interact with each other, or with the new Doctor. And I just love seeing them again, because it’s just nice. It’s fun. So far, there have been none. Sure, in season 5, some of the old enemies were brought back, but no actual characters.

Also, there has been no Captain Jack Harkness for a very, very long time. Enough said.  
("Hello, there. Name's Captain Jack Harkness, and who are you?" 
"Doctor? Is he flirting with my husband?!"
I would probably give very, very much to see this scene)



3)      The fact that the Doctor has a love interest who is non-Time Lord. It just bugs me. I know that he has a granddaughter in the first two seasons, so he probably had a wife, or at least a love interest, at some time, but that was when he was on Galifrey, with other Time Lords. He has been portrayed as the lonely traveler in the remake, which I thought was pretty reasonable and a nice difference to his otherwise cheerful and carefree demeanor. It created this beautifully contrasting character, always lonely, but always traveling with others, always looking for companions.
Also, I just don’t like River Song. She bugs me. 

That said, if someone asks me "Star Wars or Star Trek?" I respond with "Doctor Who!". Always. 

Warning Labels for Evolution Textbook Stickers

From time to time, a new incident regarding the creationist stickers in biology textbooks appears in the news. I propose that instead of all the drama, we simply make this mandatory:

 

 Here's the actual sticker:

Warning Sticker by me. But please feel free to distribute it, or print it out and glue it on every creationist sticker you see. Just to be sure, of course. And to avoid excessive vomiting.

Why Some People Don't Like 3D

Tomorrow, Pirates of the Caribbean 4 is going to hit the cinemas, and I plan on watching it the next day, on Thursday, with a group of friends. This involves some organization, done via face book, and also brought up the question “3D or not 3D?” which spilt everyone into three groups. A few people said they didn’t like 3D, because it “takes away from the movie”, others prefer 3D, and some just didn’t care. In the end, we decided to watch it in 3D, but it got me thinking.

Does 3D really take away from the movie? Or is it just because we are not used to it, and associate movies with a flat, 2D experience?

Everyone has grown up with 2D movies. We watched our first episode of Sesame Street, our first anime and our first Star Wars movie in 2D, spend hours in front of a 2D screen, either the TV or the computer. We stare at words and pictures printed in two dimensions every day. When we look at graphs or charts, most of them are in 2D, because it is just easier to represent, and understand, them that way on a two dimensional surface.

We are spending an increasing amount of our time focused on something in two dimensions instead of three.

So maybe that’s the reason why some of us prefer watching our movies in 3D. Because we are used to it. We are used to experiencing everything outside of reality, everything outside the  tangible world, be it newspapers, books, television or computer games, in two dimensions.

Maybe, however, it is something different. I have heard may people say that the technology is simply not good enough to create a convincing three dimensional effect, that they dislike the way closer objects appear to float above others. It is distracting, and some even say it actually makes the illusion of three dimensions, which many producers have excelled at creating in a two dimensional movies, seem less real.

But then, we would just have to wait. New technologies are produced and also improved at an exponential rate. We have seen this with computers and mobile phones, television and modes of transportation. In a few years, then, we should have perfectly convincing 3D movies, without any floating layers. Surely a few not so well done movies in three dimensions are worth it, while movie makers, engineers and techies figure out new ways to make the 3D technology more effective and more enjoyable?

  

But maybe it’s none of that. It has got nothing to do with the various studies that claim that 3D movies may cause nausea or headache (just in case you have forgotten – anything in 2D slowly ruins your eyes), or the fact that 3D movies are more expensive. Maybe it’s just the old story – no matter how amazing, or how great a new technology is, we are still humans. And humans just don’t cope very well with any sudden changes.

To Be a Geek

Recently, curiosity drove me to look the work “geek” up on Wikipedia. What I found ranged from “A derogatory reference to a person obsessed with intellectual pursuits for their own sake, who is also deficient in most other human attributes so as to impair the person's smooth operation within society“  to “a carnival performer who performs sensationally morbid or disgusting acts […] In some cases, its performance included biting the head off a live chicken”.

Well. I blinked a few times, stared at the screen, and then, just to be sure, I decided to peek into the mirror – nope, no carnival performer. And no headless chicken, either. I also checked my mental calendar – two planned outings with friends in the next few days. I can also walk, prepare my own food, I shower regularly and can communicate very efficiently in two, moderately efficiently in one, and barely in one other language. That definitely kicked the “deficient in most other human attributes”

I still considered myself to be a geek. And I refused to accept defeat because I was able to function in a modern society, or was not biting the heads off live chickens.   

But by then I had to admit to myself that it was probably rather difficult to define the word “geek”, a slang term, one which has no proper, universal definition yet. And that maybe everyone  has their own definition.

I scrolled down a bit, and found the following:

“It [the word geek] is taken to be someone who is an enthusiast, often in things outside of the mainstream spectrum. It may also describe immersion in a particular mainstream interest to an extreme that is beyond normalcy”

I liked what I read. I re-read it. And I still liked it. It was almost like someone had taken a look inside my head, and then written these 36 words to define it. My inner geekiness.

During my entire childhood I have had an absolutely unhealthy obsession with reading. I suppose many children like to read, but in my case, my mother had to step in and take away my books so I would go to sleep or actually do my homework. (Not that I disliked school, but for my eleven year old self, Latin translations ranked far below reading fantasy – even though I did get more interested in them once the stories we translated became a little more complex).

When I was ten, I developed a similar fascination with ancient, high civilized cultures, especially their religions and myths. I devoured books on them, I begged my parents to go to museums during holidays where we visited other cities, and when I was 14, I was ecstatic when we visited the remains of an ancient city in Sicily, at 40° Celsius, instead of spending time at the beach. When I was eight, I read Sophie’s World in a matter of days.

And I am fascinated by physics, even though I sometimes despair over it, and even though my mathematic skills are nothing compared to that of some of my friends. But I absolutely loved how both can be used to explain our world, to put (most) of it into neat, pretty equations, and the only thing I find more interesting are the still unsolved mysteries in this field.

I don’t want to brag here. I don’t. I really don’t. I don’t want to justify calling myself a geek, or be one of those girls who think that it is cute or sexy to call themselves a geek.

I do want, however, to clarify that I don’t think that it is necessary to be a brilliant genius in order to be a geek, or vice versa.

I am not uber-intelligent. I can’t program computers (even though I plan on learning it) and I can’t solve a complex probability problem just by staring at it for two minutes.

I know someone who can, though. Probably the smartest person I have ever met, a guy who is getting a predicted 84% without studying, who can do exponential equations in his head and who I’ve met on my way to school once. After a wild night, and with no idea where his school-bag was, and some crazy story about waking up on a roof, alone, and with no recollection about how he got there.

I don’t think anyone would consider him a geek. A genius, yes. But not a geek.

And similarly, no one would call me a genius.

But on several occasions, often when I start resembling a pre-pubescent girl during a Justin Bieber concert because of something truly amazing I just learned in physics class, my friends (whom I usually  share the aforementioned “truly amazing” thing with the second I see them), have called me a geek.

Science Fiction and Science

I’m going to be straight here. I love science fiction. Star Wars, Star Trek, Stargate Universe, Doctor Who… I don’t know why, but I am hooked. And most of the time, I’m absolutely absorbed in a strange world where no man has gone before.

I have went without food, fresh air or sun light for the better part of a day on several occasions, because, dammit, I was going to- I had to- finish this season of Doctor Who or Star Trek in the next three days!

But sometimes, something just completely snaps me out of this hypnotized staring at a screen. 
Sounds in space, characters dodging lasers, explosions in space, aliens who have never encountered humans before, but speak perfect English, or FTL without even an attempt at explanation. One of these things, and BAM! my brain kicks in and screams "This is rubbish! This couldn’t possibly happen! This is not scientifically possible! Let's watch something else"

I used to try and defy my brain.

I used to lean back in my chair, hit pause, and glare at the screen. And then I’d try to come up with a reason why things in science fiction are the way they are.

And every single time, I’d fail. Because I just can’t come up with an explanation, no matter how much I twist it, that doesn’t cause my brain to call B.S.. I don’t know if that’s because the screenwriters have absolutely no idea of physics, or because I have too little idea of it to come up with some decent explanation.

But either way, I don’t try anymore. I have given up. I try to accept the errors, to tell my brain to shut up, to forget about these mistakes as soon as I’ve seen them flitter across the screen. I try to pretend that somehow, magically, it all makes sense.

But that's the point. That's what still drives me crazy when I see aliens that look just like humans, except with green skin or an enourmously bulged forehead, or when someone explodes in vacuum. It’s not magic that's supposed to make everything work in the science fiction universe, or is used to explain everything, but science. Hard, fast science and facts.

I don’t complain in the scientific errors in Harry Potter. I don’t complain that every second page, at least one fundamental law of physics is broken. I don't complain that it makes absolutely no sense that according to Gamp’s Law of Elemental Transfiguration, it is impossible to create food out of nothing, but that a simple spell can create birds out of thin air which could then, in turn, be killed, roasted and eaten.

No, I simply accept that this makes absolutely no sense. Because it is magic. It doesn’t have to make sense, and especially does not have to obey the laws of physics, because the magical world in which all these atrocities take place is not based upon science.

Science fiction, on the other hand, relies on science to explain almost everything that makes the story interesting – enemy robots, space travel, sonic screwdrivers and laser weapons.  And then it completely cocks it up.