Samples by Patrick McComb

734-757-7355 • pat.mccomb@gmail.com

Excerpts from Science Reporting Blog:

Diamonds in Quantum Computing 1
Raymond Scott 100 3
The Legacy of War of the Worlds 6
Mathematician Sophie Germain 7
Global Sunblock Using Sulfur 9

A Response to Paul Davies 10

Songs:
The Latest Guess of Everything 13
How Long is the Coast of Britain? 15
Mech and Manabozho 16

Information Graphics:
Relativistic Baseball 18
Chord Head 19
US Poverty by State 20

Two-Digit Math 21

sciencereporting.blogspot.com

Diamonds in Quantum Computing

Quantum particles have the bizarre capacity to contain a variety of different

states at once. This is called superposition. A quantum particle may be in a
superposition of states but it will break down into one of those states once it is
observed. In fact, it will break down if the particle interacts too much with the
external environment.

This delicate property makes the quantum world appealing to computer

scientists. By exploiting superposition, many different mathematical values
may be explored simultaneously. That would make computers thousands of
times faster and solve mathematical problems that are too complex for
classical machines. But the difficulty of keeping those quantum bits in causal
isolation is a huge technical challenge. Often, it has required cooling materials
close to absolute zero.
Diamond is now showing promise as a material that can perform quantum
computing functions at room temperature. "The beauty of diamond is that it
brings all of this physics to a desktop," says David Awschalom of the University
of California, Santa Barbara.

Science News posts an article about how

diamonds -- or more precisely, flaws in
diamonds -- are showing promise. In a natural
diamond lattice, flaws are inevitable. The
most common impurity is a nitrogen atom.
Another kind of flaw is a vacancy in the
lattice where a carbon would otherwise sit.

When a diamond crystal contains a nitrogen

and a vacancy next to each other, something
strange happens. Electrons from the nitrogen
will orbit the vacancy as though an atom is
there.

This virtual molecule, called a nitrogen-vacancy (NV) center, possesses

spin, the quantum form of magnetism.

Spins are like microscopic bar magnets and can encode and store
information by pointing in different directions. A single unit of
information, called a bit, can be, say, a 1 if the spin points up or a 0 if it
points down.

...Researchers have so far managed to store and manipulate only a

handful of qubits [quantum bits] in superbly well-controlled systems,
such as single ions suspended in an electromagnetic trap or
superconducting materials cooled to very low temperatures. In a paper
to be published in Science, Awschalom and his collaborators describe
how they achieved a similar level of control over NV centers in diamond.

The October 2007 issue of Scientific American had an excellent article on this
research [subscription]:

Diamond has a track record of extremes, including ultrahardness, higher

thermal conductivity than any other solid material and transparency to
ultraviolet light. In addition, diamond has recently become much more
attractive for solid-state electronics, with the development of
techniques to grow high-purity, single-crystal synthetic diamonds and
insert suitable impurities into them (doping). Pure diamond is an
electrical insulator, but doped, it can become a semiconductor with
exceptional properties. It could be used for detecting ultraviolet light,
 ultraviolet light-emitting diodes and optics, and high-power microwave
electronics. But the application that has many researchers excited is
quantum spintronics, which could lead to a practical quantum
computer—capable of feats believed impossible for regular computers—
and ultrasecure communication.

Raymond Scott 100

"It's all very well to write screwy music, and imitate things like wooden Indians
and powerhouses, but just writing screwy music isn't enough. If it's screwy
music you want, there's plenty of that in Stravinsky..."
-- Harold Taylor, 1939, from the Rhythm Magazine article, You Can Keep
Raymond Scott

In addition to making some of the most joyously

intricate and distinctive melodies of the 20th
Century, Raymond Scott was also a leading pioneer
in multi-track recording, electronic music and
collaborated with the likes of Robert Moog, Jim
Henson and Motown. But odds are you will recognize
his tunes from Warner Brothers cartoons. He is
arguably one of the most influential
musician/inventors in American music. Here is his
signature song, "Powerhouse," as performed by the
band Racalmuto.

"The compositions of Raymond Scott are etched, it seems, into the fabric of
20th century culture like some strand of DNA sequence coding our collective
memory for future-mutations."
-- Paul D. Miller, a.k.a. Dj Spooky

Raymond's six-piece band was called the "Raymond Scott Quintette."

(Apparently, Raymond thought the word "sextet" would distract from the music
and the Frenchie "ette" lent a touch of class.) While the music was classified as
jazz, jazz critics were frequently hostile. Despite the critics, the music proved
highly popular with the buying public.

It was not so popular with the band members. Raymond coerced them into
upwards of 60 takes, performing dizzying riffs -- and sometimes under weird
acoustic circumstances in order to achieve a particular sound. Unlike other jazz
acts, improvisation was not allowed. The songs are intricately assembled as
though they were designed by an engineer. Band members could not deviate
from the strict tune structure any more than parts manufacturers could deviate
from an engine design. Raymond didn't use sheet music either. He recorded the
players, edited the strips, played them back and asked the players to play the
re-ordered arrangements from memory.
 "What can you say about a man who inspired
cartoon melodies and bebop, invented Frank
Zappa and electronic music, and still found
time to work for Motown?"
-- Andy Partridge, XTC

Here is the Raymond Scott Quintette performing War Dance for Wooden
Indians. The image to the left is from a comic strip biography of Raymond Scott
by Justin Green, available at the Official Raymond Scott site.

The 1940's saw a lot of changes for Raymond Scott. In 1941, he sold his
compositions (finally rendered in musical notation) to Warner Brothers. The
music was enthusiastically seized upon by Carl Stalling, the man who scored
the Warner Brothers cartoons -- which is largely why these tunes are so
embedded in our consciousness. (To this day, people think Raymond wrote for
cartoons, but he never did. He never even watched cartoons.)

"The music of Raymond Scott is positively exhilarating. Its intricacies

mesmerize, because they're part of a unique and utterly disarming musical
tapestry."
-- Leonard Maltin, film critic

In 1942, he became Music Director for CBS Radio and made history by hiring
black musicians. His CBS band was the first racially integrated band for radio.
In 1946, he founded Manhattan Research Inc, "the world's most extensive
facility for the creation of Electronic Music and Musique Concrete." It was the
first electronic music studio.

Raymond's brother Mark Warnow died in 1949 and Raymond took over Mark's
job: Orchestra Leader for Your Hit Parade. Raymond Scott and his wife,
Dorothy Collins, became early TV celebrities. Here is the Raymond Scott
Quintette performing "Powerhouse" on Your Hit Parade. Raymond called it a
"rent gig." In fact, he used his handsome salary to invest in electronic
equipment. In the late 40's, along with Les Paul, Raymond started
experimenting with a new recording technique called multi-track.

"Raymond Scott was like an audio version of Andy Warhol; he preceded Pop-Art
sensibilities, and he played with that line between commercial art and fine
art, mixing elements of both worlds together. I love and respect Raymond
Scott's work, and it influenced me a lot. I'm a big fan.''
-- Mark Mothersbaugh, Devo

In 1949, Raymond said, "Perhaps within the next hundred years, science will
perfect a process of thought transference from composer to listener. The
composer will sit alone on the concert stage and merely think his idealized
conception of his music. Instead of recordings of actual music sound, recordings
will carry the brainwaves of the composer directly to the mind of the listener."

By the mid-50's his studio began to look (according to friends such as Robert
Moog) like a science fiction set. Over the years, Raymond invented numerous
electronic musical instruments including the Clavivox and the Electronium.

Robert Moog credits Raymond as an important influence on the invention of the

Moog Synthesizer. In 1962 and 1963, Raymond released Soothing Sounds for
Baby. It was entirely electronic music he composed as an "aural toy" for
children. While it was a commercial failure at the time, some now regard it as
a strong pre-cursor to ambient music (over a decade before Brian Eno's
recordings).

Electronic music can suffer from an outdated sound very quickly. However,
Raymond Scott's electronic music from the 60's still hold up today. In a 1962
lecture, Raymond said, "To say that we haven't scratched the surface in this
field wouldn't be exactly right. Because every time we scratch we find the
surface thicker and thicker and thicker. For the possibilities in electronic music
are really quite infinite."

"It's those front-line types that go into uncharted areas, and pave the way for
others. Always go to the source, sources like Raymond Scott."
-- Henry Rollins, Black Flag, Rollins Band

In the early 70's, Raymond was hired by Barry

Gordy to develop new electronic sounds when
Motown was positioning itself as a leader in
cutting-edge music. Today, we don't know the
degree of influence Raymond had on the 70's
Motown sound. (If you've seen "Standing in the
Shadows of Motown" you know that the Motown
star-machine, as policy, kept the support crew on
the down-low.)

One very unique collaboration was with an up-and-coming puppeteer. Raymond

Scott and Jim Henson collaborated on "Limbo - The Organized Mind" a very
unique performance which appeared on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson.

"Raymond Scott was definitely in the forefront of developing electronic music

technology, and in the forefront of using it commercially as a musician."
-- Bob Moog, inventor of Moog synthesizers

Scott fans include Igor Stravinsky, Henry Rollins, XTC, Elvis Costello, the Kronos
Quartet, They Might Be Giants, Devo, Jascha Heifetz, Art Blakey and Danny
Elfman. You can hear Scott's influence in Benny Goodman, bebop, ambient,
electronica and The Simpsons theme. In 1986, Raymond composed his last
known work, "Beautiful Little Butterfly," in Midi. In 1992, a retrospective of
Raymond Scott's work, Reckless Nights and Turkish Twilights, brought Raymond
Scott to a new audience. Raymond died in 1994.

Concordia University in Montreal recently hosted a Raymond Scott Centennial

Tribute Concert:

157 West 57th Street

Boy Scout in Switzerland
Dinner Music for a Pack of Hungry Cannibals
A Message from Where
The Rhythm Modulator
Twilight in Turkey
War Dance for Wooden Indians

As more music lovers discover him, Raymond Scott is gradually becoming

recognized as one of the great innovators in American music. September 10th
of 2008, will be Scott's 100th birthday. For much more, here is the official
Raymond Scott site, the Raymond Scott Blog and the Raymond Scott MySpace
page.

"Being introduced to the music of Raymond Scott was like being given the
name of a composer I feel I have heard my whole life, who until now was
nameless. Clearly he is a major American composer."
-- David Harrington, Kronos Quartet

The Legacy of War of the Worlds

This coming Halloween will mark the 70th anniversary of Orson Welles' radio-
vérité broadcast of "War of the Worlds." Radiolab just posted an outstanding
podcast of the "War of the Wolds" legacy. Why did it fool people then? And why
does it continue to fool people?
 First they look at the context of the times -
- the recent destruction of the Hindenburg
and the new media form of the day which is
now part of our mental furniture. It starts,
"We interrupt this program..." As Hitler
continued his attacks throughout Europe,
special bulletins became an authoritative
and attention-getting feature of radio. A
feature Welles exploited. Interestingly,
many of the listener's fooled by Welles'
broadcast believed that it was Germans
attacking, rather than Martians.

Other radio stations have staged their own

versions of "War of the Worlds" over the
years. And again people were fooled. The
most disastrous example is the profoundly
ill-advised broadcast in the capital city of
Ecuador, Quito. The Quito broadcast was produced without any warning to
anyone. In fact, the producer planted fictitious stories of strange phenomena in
the days preceding the broadcast -- to whip up paranoia. At the end of the
evening, the radio station was set on fire by an angry mob. Six people died that
night.

Buffalo's WKBW (my hometown and my favorite station in the 70's) first
broadcast "War of the Worlds" in 1968 -- modernized and set in the Western
New York landscape. The 1971 WKBW broadcast is available online. The page
contains a link to the full show (with great opening music) plus a making-of
video. The climax of the '71 broadcast has iconic TV news anchor Irv Weinstein
reporting from a rooftop like Edward R. Murrow –
except Irv is reporting on an approaching robot. It's
really quite brilliant.

Mathematician Sophie Germain

Science News posts a two-part series on Sophie

Germain [Wiki] -- a mathematician born in France in
1776. The article describes Germain as "the first
woman known to have discovered significant
mathematical theorems." (Hypatia from the 4th
Century is worth noting, though she is not known for
any particular theorems)

Germain assumed the identity of a male student and

took classes from Lagrange. She read class notes and sent in assignments under
the name of the male drop-out. Lagrange found out her secret:

According to a commentator at the time, Lagrange "went to her to

express his astonishment in the most flattering of terms," and the
commentator goes on to say that "the appearance of this young
'geomètre' made quite a stir." Nevertheless, the barriers against
Germain's inclusion in the mathematical community didn't come
tumbling down.

Later, she corresponded with Gauss under the male pseudonym, "Antoine-
August LeBlanc." Gauss too discovered her real identity:

In 1806, Napoleon's armies were marching into Prussia, and Germain

became concerned that Gauss might be in danger. She asked a friend
who was a commander in the French artillery to find Gauss and ensure
his safety. Her friend followed her request—but revealed her identity in
the process.

Gauss initially responded with delight, writing to Germain: "The taste for
the abstract sciences in general and, above all, for the mysteries of
numbers, is very rare.… But when a woman, because of her sex, our
customs and prejudices, encounters infinitely more obstacles than men
in familiarizing herself with their knotty problems, yet overcomes these
fetters and penetrates that which is most hidden, she doubtless has the
most noble courage, extraordinary talent, and superior genius."

Gauss broke off correspondence with her shortly thereafter -- saying he was
turning to astronomy and would have no more time for math.

Germain worked in isolation, taking on one of the most difficult problems in

math, Fermat's Last Theorem. (It was not until 1995 that the theory was proven
by Andrew Wiles, and that was in a roundabout fashion.) She defined what
would be called Sophie Germain primes and worked on the math of elastic
surfaces.

Gauss convinced the University of Göttingen to give her an honorary degree.

Unfortunately she died in 1831 before receiving it.

The two-part series on Sophie Germain: 1, 2.

Global Sunblock Using Sulfur

Last week's podcast of CBC's Quirks and Quarks discusses the radical idea of
blocking the sun's rays to mitigate climate change. Bob McDonald interviews Dr.
David Keith, the Canada Research Chair in Energy and the Environment at the
University of Calgary. Keith is not necessarily recommending the idea but he
does believe we should put it on the research agenda. One option -- a pretty
shocking one -- is to release sulfur into the upper atmosphere. From volcanic
activity in the past, we already
know this would have an
immediate cooling effect on the
climate.

Nobel Prize winning atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen^ also recommends

looking into such research [PDF]. But he warns:

I must stress here that the albedo enhancement scheme should only be
deployed when there are proven net advantages and in particular when
rapid climate warming is developing, paradoxically, in part due to
improvements in worldwide air quality. Importantly, its possibility should
not be used to justify inadequate climate policies, but merely to create
a possibility to combat potentially drastic climate heating.

Keith says in the podcast that many climate scientists are reluctant to discuss
this because it would only treat the symptoms of climate change and not the
cause. At the same time, he found policy-makers who were all too eager to
deploy such a program.

In this panel discussion on geoengineering, Harvard geochemist Dan Schrag^

points out:

If we're going to use the Earth as an experiment -- which we're already

doing by adding greenhouse gases -- if we're going to do an experiment
by testing injection of reflective material, say, sulfur, into the
stratosphere, we don't have a control. And so if something happens, it's
almost impossible, given the complexity of the system, to attribute it
either to the CO2 or the sulfur.

Sulfur injection into the upper atmosphere, says Keith, is within the power of
poorer nations and even within the power of the richest individuals. And like
the current trend in climate change, there would be winners and losers. Since
we are already altering the atmosphere, is this something we should consider?
And if so, who would be responsible? Who should be allowed to fiddle with the
global thermostat?
A Response to Paul Davies on the Nature of Science

"People say to me, 'Are you looking for the ultimate laws of physics?' No,
I'm not... If it turns out there is a simple ultimate law which explains
everything, so be it — that would be very nice to discover. If it turns out
it's like an onion with millions of layers... then that's the way it is."
-- Richard Feynman from "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out"

Paul Davies' Op-Ed in the New York Times, "Taking Science on Faith"
(November 24, 2007) makes a familiar argument. If he had used the light
version of the argument, I might have agreed. But he uses the strong version
which is just wrong.
The light argument is: Everyone works with metaphysical assumptions. For
example, I have a working assumption that the universe is comprised of matter
and energy -- and everything we experience emerges from those two
properties. Maybe there is more to the universe than I am guessing. I just
haven't seen convincing evidence of anything else yet. So yes, I have a
metaphysical assumption and it might be wrong.
Davies argues a much stronger version of this. He states, "science has its own
faith-based belief system. All science proceeds on the assumption that nature
is ordered in a rational and intelligible way." That is demonstrably false.

Quantum physics is not rational or intelligible. On the quantum scale,

sometimes "if A then B" -- sometimes "if A then not-B." No one understands why
this is the case. But if we perform enough experiments resulting in B or not-B,
we can statistically chart the probabilities. That is a rational approach to
something we don't understand. The use of probabilities delivers extremely
reliable results over the long term. But the actual workings of the quantum
world remain mysterious.
Physicists Richard Feynman and John von Neumann are both attributed
saying, "You don't understand quantum mechanics, you just get used to it."
The world is not so orderly -- and this is already accepted by scientists. There
is a difference between rationality in nature and using rationality to study
nature. Davies conflates the two ideas.

Davies continues, "The laws of gravitation and electromagnetism, the laws

that regulate the world within the atom, the laws of motion — all are
expressed as tidy mathematical relationships. But where do these laws come
from? And why do they have the form that they do?" Davies presents these as
questions that science ignores. Actually, these are vital and pressing questions
in the physics community.
The mathematical relationships that he describes as "tidy" are actually pretty
hairy. The relationship between gravity and electromagnetism has been a
mystery for decades and is the impetus for studies in supersymmetry and string
theory. When relativity and quantum mechanics are combined on the small
scale, they generate messy infinities. The sexiest and busiest theoretical
physics happening from Einstein to today has been the attempt to reconcile
this problem. But Davies portrays the scientists as in a blithe disregard.

Davies reports, "Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues
why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from 'that's not a
scientific question' to 'nobody knows.' The favorite reply is, 'There is no reason
they are what they are — they just are.'"
First, "nobody knows" is perfectly legitimate answer. It's the kind of answer
that gets scientists out of bed in the morning. It's a mystery to solve. Nobody
knows, but maybe we can find out.
Second, we can't assume there is an ultimate explanation. If we found one,
that would be nice, just as Feynman said at the top quote. But we can't
currently assume such an explanation will be found.
Davies rebukes, "The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-
rational." Again, we can't assume that nature has any reasons. But we can still
use our rationality to study nature. Nature is what it is. Our rationality helps us
discover nature. But we should not assume we will find rationality staring back
at us.
Davies argues, "If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock
of reality — the laws of physics — only to find that reason then deserts us, it
makes a mockery of science." No, it just means that some phenomena are
unintelligible -- as in quantum physics.

A few words about the "laws" of physics. The use of the term "laws" carries
some baggage. Plus, it invites additional baggage from those who want to
assume a "lawmaker."
Let's take the law of gravity as an example. The law of gravity is one of the
most respected ideas in physics. Galileo measured falling bodies at 32
feet/sec/sec. But that measurement turned out to be true only locally. Newton
revised this by showing that the strength of gravity is inversely proportional to
distance, and in doing so explained planetary motion. Einstein revised Newton,
describing gravity in terms of space-time geometry -- which fit better with the
Mercury’s orbit around the sun. Now Einstein may be under revision as we try
to understand the apparently accelerating expansion of the visible universe.
Like our secular laws, physical laws are open to revision. What's more, our
current physical laws break down when we go back in time within the Big Bang
model.
Our use of the word "laws" is a relic from science's past. Greater minds may
be able to think up a better word. But it is important to realize that any
scientific explanation is tentative, open to revision, maybe true at one time
but not in another time. Modern cosmology now treats "laws" as mutable.

Davies talks about his science education, "The laws were treated as 'given' —
imprinted on the universe like a maker’s mark at the moment of cosmic birth —
and fixed forevermore." It sounds like that education was a disservice. The Big
Bang and inflationary models contradict these assumptions.
 Leaving the Big Bang aside, let's concentrate on the consistency of scientific
findings. Consistency of experimental results is the norm today and makes
science possible. The current universe, to our best evidence, is very consistent.
That does not necessarily mean that, at its root, the universe is intelligible or
has "laws" for a "reason." Consistency and rationality are two different things.
For example, the quantum world is consistently and dependably irrational.

Davies then touches on the multiverse speculation. This is the idea that our
universe is only one of many universes. The other universes may have different
physics which may or may not be stable or hospitable to life.
He writes, "In this 'multiverse,' life will arise only in those patches with bio-
friendly bylaws, so it is no surprise that we find ourselves in a Goldilocks
universe — one that is just right for life. We have selected it by our very
existence."
Davies is responding to a line of questioning often called the anthropic
principle. "Why is the universe so suited for our existence?" is a way of
summarizing the idea. The problem with the anthropic principle is that
explores the universe by looking through the wrong end of the telescope. In the
novella Candide, Voltaire ridicules this kind of thinking with the character Dr.
Pangloss. Pangloss argues we live in the best of all possible worlds. Evidence
for this assertion is that our noses are perfectly designed for resting eyeglasses.
Actually, most of the universe is hostile to human existence. We are not
adapted to survive in the vacuum of space (the vast majority of the universe).
And if the earth happened to form near the center of our galaxy, the
turbulence may have made it impossible for creatures to evolve to the point
where they could ask teleological questions.
A better question might be "Why is our universe productive enough to create
life at all?" That might be interesting except that it's likely unanswerable. Our
sample set of universes is limited to one. And we don't know what portion of
this one is visible to us.
While it's unlikely we are the first life in the universe, we're the only ones we
have found. The universe is not teeming with life forms except very locally. A
few miles up or a few miles down and you're escaping our humble biota.
If Davies is dissatisfied with speculating on a multiverse, we are in
agreement, except...

Davies argues, "Both religion and science are founded on faith — namely, on
belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained
God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of
unseen universes, too."
Wow.
This misconstrues the search for "physical laws" as necessarily appealing to
something "outside" the universe. And it throws in the problematic multiverse
idea for good measure.

Then comes the zinger, "For that reason, both monotheistic religion and
orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence."
This is a subset of the general rule: "no one can provide a complete account
of physical existence."
This is not a controversial point. The advantage of scientific inquiry is that it
admits this ignorance. But Davies tries to use our shared ignorance as a basis
for false equivalence.
There is a difference between saying "The universe seemed to start with a Big
Bang, I wonder why?" and "The universe seemed to start with a Big Bang, I
wonder who made it?" The second question assumes a particular kind of
answer. The first question is more open-ended and parsimonious.
Davies' argument falsely equates the two. It does this by misrepresenting the
quest for physical "laws" as a faith-based initiative. Today's cosmology is not so
certain.

If Davies was arguing that we are all ignorant of any full explanation of
physical reality and we do our best with our assumptions, I would agree. But he
goes further to argue that all scientific inquiry is like religion.
In practice, the answer "God made it that way," tends to stop inquiry (and
generates an unwarranted amount of certainty these days). On the other hand,
all scientific knowledge is tentative.
Currently, physicists are using ideas of symmetry to gain an understanding of
the subatomic world. They are exploring it as a good hunch. But maybe it's not
true, maybe nature is not symmetric. Symmetry in nature does have a good
track record, but even a good track record is not the final word in science. On
the other hand, the idea that "a creator made it so" has not produced anything
usefully testable.
Even a discovery as well revered as gravity is under continuous scrutiny and
revision. Under what circumstances does the God speculation get revised?

SONGS

THE LATEST GUESS OF EVERYTHING

By Patrick McComb 2001
G G7 F#aug Faug F#aug
Long ago when scientists were ancient and Greek

C Eaug A G#aug Gdim

You could learn to whole of physics in the course of a week

G G7 C D
Earth, air, water and fire

G G7 Em Faug
Were everything you needed if your heart desired elementals
G G7 F#aug Faug F#aug
Centuries later, these elements changed

C Eaug A G#aug Gdim

And the Periodic Table has them neatly arranged

G G7 C D
But as dozens of atoms came into the sprawl

G G7 D
Perhaps those elements weren’t elemental at all

Chorus
G F# F E E7
We kept on discovering more

C C# D D7
Varieties increased until

G F# F E Bdim
We knew we hadn’t reached the core

C Cmaj7 C Cmaj7 C E7 D7 F#aug G

It must be made of something else, a something else that’s tinier still

G7 Gdim F#aug

So we gave those atoms a look-and-see

To find their subatomical constituency

Protons, neutron and electrons provide

Everything you needed if your heart desired fundamentals

That theory worked until we tested the guess

Smashed some atoms all apart and measured the mess

Tiny bits of matter scattered copiously

A zoo of quantum particles we didn’t foresee

Chorus
We kept on discovering more

Varieties increased until

We knew we hadn’t reached the core

It must be made of something else, a something else that’s simpler still

Now we’re asking questions in the quantum range

Where the old-school science rules begin to change

Energy, matter, cause and effect

Uncertainly break down to waves of accidents and incidentals

We measure all this randomness with complex math

As we seek a simple pattern in the cosmic bath

Supersymmetric ten-dimensional strings

Provide the latest guess addressing everything

Chorus
We keep on discovering more

Varieties increase until

We know we haven’t reached the core

It must be made of something else, a something else more elegant still

In this loopy point of view some problems persist

Predicting universes that don’t seem to exist

Walking the Planck-space

Vibrating at a scale too small to test

Creating more dimensions than our brains can address

Gyrating to the rhythm of our latest guess of everything

Our latest guess of everything

HOW LONG IS THE COAST OF BRITAIN?

By Patrick McComb 1997
with thanks to Benoit Mandelbrot
Finger 6ths, maj7ths and 2nds

E F# B7 B B6 E
One day I found myself engrossed Within the length of Britain's coast.

E F# B7 B Ab
I thought I'd map it by the mile And circumnavigate the isle

F# B B6 E
But I missed details all the while

E F# B7 B Ab
So then I measured by the yard Caught my precision off it's guard

A C#m A C#m A C#m C# F#

'Cause all those rocky zigs and zags that my straight-edge couldn't reach

B7 B B6 E
Still scribbled out along the beach

A E
My calculations grew exotic

A F# B7+ B7 B7+ B7
The closer my eyes scrutinized the more that shore turned asymptotic

E F# B7 B Ab
My next solution was a cinch, or so I thought I'd map the coastline by the inch
 A C#m A C#m A C#m C# F#
But all that sandy granulation my straight-edge missed before

B7 B B6 E
Still wriggled 'round along the shore

INSTRUMENTAL
The instrumental fingers 7ths, #9ths and 4ths
(instead of fingering 6ths, maj7ths and 2nds, as in the rest of the song)
Em-E F# B Ab C# F# B E F#-G-Ab-A

A E
Some call it fractional dimension

A F# C7 B7 C7 B7
It makes your lines in nature pay more length the more you pay attention

E F#
I found the answer to my hope (my sense of length restored)

B7 B Ab
In an electron microscope (I thanked the quantum lord)

A C#m A C#m A C#m C# F# F#-F-E-B7

Now all those micro-nanometers around old England's girth

B7 B Ab
Could circumnavigate the Earth

F# B B6 E C#
10,000 times for what it's worth, (and I'm still counting)

F# B B6 E E7
1 million times around the Earth

MECH AND MANABOZHO

By Patrick McComb 2000
Em C13 Em A AaddBb A
Old Manabozho was a crafty shape-shifter

C7 C#7 C7 B7
Who met a funny gadget named Mech one day

The machine said, “Let me make your life go swifter

You look so inconvenienced in your primitive way”

Old Manabozho was hungry for adventure

And hadn't seen a creature like Mech before

He didn't know the gadget was a masterful entrencher

The cost of it's admission wasn't marked on the door

A G# G G# A G# G G#
Manabozho then elected to step inside to see what Mech did

He got deep-fried, heat-convected, spliced, rewinded, vivisected

Unqualified and unexpected,

F F# F B7 C7 Em
The shiny new machine had swallowed Manabozho whole

Old Manabozho was feeling kind of tired

Shrink-wrapped, freeze-framed and singin' the blues

He found a naked wire and then he got inspired

“A fire in this belly is a thing I could use”

Well the machine named Mech laughed “Don't you even try it

I heard that story yesterday

My memory remembers and my processors apply it

Evolving adaptation is the natural way”

Old Manabozho changed his voice, he said, “You're the shiniest suit I've seen

Your belts and gears are my style of choice

I'll be handsome when I'm fashioned in my new machine”

Manabozho changed his shape and the new machine retaliated

They both fought and sparred and spated, sneak-attacked and counter-invaded

Deconstructed all the day ‘til

The shiny new machine had finally given up the ghost

Old Manabozho was a crafty shape-shifter

Who fashioned a mechanical suit one day

He's worn it ever since and he's always moving swifter

Accelerating pranks in his mechanical way

He lives inside your switches, knobs and spools

Ink pens, toasters and walking sticks

If something funny happens with any of your tools

C9 B9 C7 B7 Em
You'll know that Manabozho is playing one of his many tricks
Information Graphics:
Chord Head - Instructional Guitar Chord Posters:
Two-Digit Math (from The How Gate site, 1999 tinyurl.com/yrcnvu)
Counting and arithmetic can be done with just 0 and 1.

HIT PRINT:
Since this page deals with the kind of math we all learned in school, it will be more
useful on a paper print-out. There are some math problems on this page which are more
easily handled with a pen or pencil as your interactive medium. ;-)

DON'T PANIC:
The difficulty of doing math with binary is the numbers all look the same. 111011 and
1110111 look pretty similar. But the quantities they represent are 59 and 119,
respectively. When you get into larger numbers, it gets tough guessing the quantities.
Below, there will be an explanation of how to translate between binary and base-ten.

For now, you can ignore the quantities.

Instead, pay attention to how the methods of counting and arithmetic apply to binary
numbers.

COUNTING:

0123456789
These symbols form the base-ten Arabic* system we all use.
After 9, the numerals turn over to 10
which we pronounce "ten."

01
These symbols form the base-two binary system our computers use.
After 1, the numerals turn over to 10
which we can pronounce "two."

0000 is zero
0001 is one
0010 is two
0011 is three
0100 is four
0101 is five
0110 is six
0111 is seven
1000 is eight
1001 is nine, and so on.

If you look closely, you can see some patterns in the number sequence.
• Each power of two (4, 8, 16...) is a round number. (100, 1000, 10000...).
• Each even number ends in a 0.
• Each odd number ends in a 1.
• The right-most column of digits reads down as 010101010101.
• The next column over reads down as 001100110011.
• And the next column: 000011110000.
These patterns are true throughout the binary set of whole numbers. (These kinds of
patterns also exist in our base-ten system, but they are more pronounced when we count
out numbers in binary.)

Can you write out the numbers one through twenty in binary?
Writing out the binary number sequence can help you get the hang of how they operate.

ARITHMETIC:

Binary numbers can be added, subtracted, multiplied and divided just like
Arabic numbers.

For example:
In base-ten we can add 3+4+5. This equals twelve (12).
So we write down a 2 and carry the 1 over to the next column.

In binary, we can add 1+0+1. This equals two (10).

So we write down a 0 and carry the 1 over to the next column.

ADDITION

Here is an addition problem. In the highlighted column you can

see we are adding 1+1+1. The sum, three, is "11" in binary. So
we write down 1 and carry the other 1. Just as in normal addition,
we are following the same rules of adding and carrying.
Try adding 1101 and 11.

SUBTRACTION

This subtraction shows how borrowing works in binary.

When a 0 borrows a 1, its value becomes "10" -- two.
In binary, 11(three) minus 1(one) equals 10 (two)
and 10 (two) minus 1 (one) equals 1 (one).
Try subtracting 10101 from 100011.
MULTIPLICATION and DIVISION

The basic methods apply also to

multiplication and long division.
Once you get past the strangeness of working
with a two-digit notation,
the math starts to make sense.

In the problem to the left, you can see a

column of four 1's getting added together.
In binary, four is written as 100. In this case,
you write the last digit, 0, then carry the 10.
Try multiplying 100001 by 100001 in binary.
What does 11111111 divided by 11 equal?

The methods we use when we work out math on paper are a series of logical steps.
These steps can be mechanized with logic circuits.
The adder is a basic circuit that calculators and computers use to do math.

TRANSLATING BETWEEN BINARY AND ARABIC

Here's a math trick.

Turning any Arabic number into a binary number.

1. Draw a horizontal line where you can keep a tally of the 1's and 0's.
Fill the tally from right to left.
2. If the number is EVEN, write a 0 in the tally.
3. If the number is ODD, subtract 1, write a 1 in the tally.
4. Divide the Arabic number in half. Go back to step 2
5. Stop when you are down to 0
Let's take the number 2001 and see what it looks like in binary.
2001-1
1000
500
250
125-1
62
31-1
15-1
7-1
3-1
1-1
0
TALLY: 11111010001
This will work with any number. In fact, a number of primitive tribes handle problems of
multiplication and division using a system similar to this.

Here's another trick.

Turning any binary number into an Arabic number.

Let's start with any old string of 1's and 0's:

1|0|0|0|1|0|1|0|1|1
1. Divide up the number into digit places, like above.
2. Starting on the right, label the first digit place with a 1. Label the second
with the 2, the next with a 4, the next with an 8. Keep doing this, doubling the
value of each label, until you reach the left end.
3. You can ignore the digit places with 0's in them.
4. Take the digit places with 1's in them and add up the labels.

In this case, we have:

512 + 32 + 8 + 2 + 1 = 555
Go to the arithmetic problems above and see if you can translate them into Arabic*
numerals.

* "Arabic numerals" is actually a bit of a misnomer. The Hindus developed our modern number system.
Al-Kwarismi, an Arab mathematician, traveled through India and upon his return wrote the book, On The
Hindu Art Of Reckoning. Hindu numerals became standard in the Arab world about 1000 years ago.
Al-Kwarismi also gave us al-jabr or algebra. The term translates to "the transposition" (jabr is a word for
the silt that deposits annually along the banks of the Nile). As for al-Kwarismi himself, his name has been
immortalized in the word "algorithm."

Patrick McComb 2009