text:
Science Forums

# Size Of Observable Universe, Hubble's Constant, Age And Inflation. What Results?

## Recommended Posts

1. Estimated age of the Universe: 13.82 billion years (PLANCK satellite).

2. Hubble's constant: H = 71.06 Km.s-1.MParsec-1. with 1 MegaParsec = 3261600 ligth-years.

3. Radius of Hubble's Universe: R= c/H = 13.77 billion light-years (after which, galaxies recession > c)

4. Radius of observable Universe: 46.508 billion light-years (co-moving distance due to inflation)

5. Age = k. Hubble's radius;   k = 1.00363108 year/ligth-year.

6. Galaxies within observable radius > 2.10+12 galaxies.

7. Average distance between galaxies: 17.2 million light-years.

Edited by rhertz
##### Share on other sites

They all appear to be measurements based on observations using current accepted theories :) does that make sense.

The observable universe is just that, if you keep going to the edge of the currently observable universe, you likely will see another 14 billion light years away, and then another and another ad finitum, the universe possibly has no edge, and no beginning.

The Big Bang and inflationary theory appears to be accepted by the majority of astrophysicists. But other theories do exist with reference to the beginnings of our universe, Roger Penrose has ideas ref separate Aeons between bangs. Quantum Loop Gravity is another theory attempting to explain everything. Many more exist, including theories which indicate a big bang never happened at all, and that the CBR can be explained in other ways. Remember Fred Hoyle coined the phrase Big Bang as a joke :)  The original theory has been altered to include inflation.

##### Share on other sites

- Only 1) and 2) are "measurements", with final numbers delivered by the PLANCK's mission team in 2018.

- The ratio between the ACTUAL observable universe and its age is 1.00. This means that what we "observe"

as far as possible, with current technology, is not something "far away" but something "old that way".

So, in the accepted concept of the universe by today, we don't look at things that are DISTANT to us but

at things that are OLDER than us, here on Earth.

So, if we accept for one instant that c is infinite, what Hubble's telescope and others measure (visible and

not visible wavelengths) is behind us in the timescale, not in the distance-scale.

The ratio almost 1 between age and real observable universe is 1.00, what means that we are looking to

ancient galaxies which, at the edge 1.00, represent the first galaxies created about 200 millions after the BB.

-  The observable universe radius is a crappy estimate for the co-moving galaxies that were formed in the early

universe, and where they should be with an inflating theory involved into calculations. If galaxies at this edge

were at 1 billion light-years from our location when the universe was 200 million years old, then they are now

45.6 times farther away due to the expansion of the universe.

-  The power that emanates from the CBR shell (my calculations) mean that the remnants of energy 200,000 years

after the explosion of the singularity, are radiating 7.55.1048 joules every second (today), what accumulates to

2.38.1056 joules  per year, and it happens without interruption since xxx years?

When will this exudation of energy stop?

- Also, according to the law of the conservation of energy, this residual of energy not transformed in matter has a

temperature (today) of 2.7ºK. The same amount of energy had to exists 13.5 billion years ago, when the

temperature was about 3,000ºK and the universe, by then, was also behaving as a planckian universe (a black body).

It is not that a black body behavior appeared at a given date, but it was always there, after most of energy transformed

into matter.

- The last concept is important, because it means that the temperature of the CBR is decreasing with time, until it reaches

(what?) the absolute zero?

- Also, the estimates of two trillions of galaxies within the observable radius, poses a doubt about the REAL ORIGIN of the

CBR, as each galaxy radiates at every possible wavelength.

- Then, what you have at my 10 points is contradictory information, which has no explanation with current theories.

This is my initial, and very superficial, analysis of those simple numbers.

I also claim that the CBR IS NOT what is believed to be, but a background noise from every piece

of matter and energy in a Hoyle's universe (a steady one), where matter and energy interacts in

actions of extinction and recreation.

So, the universe is steady and self-balancing, and there is not such a thing as a Big Bang or CBR.

The CBR is a background noise from every piece of matter and energy in the universe.

Are you are arguing for a static universe with no expansion of space. How do you explain red and BLUE shifted galaxies.

Are you thinking the CBR is from random particle creation and annihilation in space happening as a continuous process, not unlike Hoyle was suggesting? before his joke caught on, and became standard model :)

Unlike you to make a mistake thats correctly spelt Bollocks :)

##### Share on other sites

The CBR is a background noise from every piece of matter and energy in the universe.

Are you are arguing for a static universe with no expansion of space. How do you explain red and BLUE shifted galaxies.

Are you thinking the CBR is from random particle creation and annihilation in space happening as a continuous process, not unlike Hoyle was suggesting? before his joke caught on, and became standard model :)

Unlike you to make a mistake thats correctly spelt Bollocks :)

It is deliberate. Like Kingsley Amis, I prefer the older spelling, which is closer to its original meaning as a diminutive of balls. :)

##### Share on other sites

I'm in a hurry, but I'd like that you may read this excellent paper:

Remaining Problems in Interpretation of the Cosmic Microwave Background

Hans-Jörg Fahr and Michael Sokaliwska

Argelander Institut für Astronomie, Universität Bonn, Auf dem Hügel 71, 53121 Bonn, Germany

Received 25 June 2014; Accepted 7 April 2015

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/physri/2015/503106/

Joke/Note 1: Don't mess with the germans BBR, they are deep thinkers about their planckian universe, as they call it.

Note 2: Actually, the BBT states that the CBR is the leftover of the radiation soup that didn't transformed into real matter,

and that this leftover discarded about 250,000 after the Big Bang was originally at 3,000ºK. It's not my invention, and it is

the heart of the BBT. Because of that, the CBR is the ultimate proof that BB existed and that the Universe is expanding.

The link makes lots of assumptions, regarding what is expected to be found in the CBR, and then finds that the assumptions cant be supported.

I don't know if it is good idea to give you this link   but then you are an adult and can make your own mind up. There are a lot of alternative theories around ref the origins of the universe. The alternative cosmological group http://cosmology.info/

##### Share on other sites

I've found this link from an astronomy site (I lost the original source), which has the same concept of a initial planckian universe at 3000°K.

https://slideplayer.com/slide/4681143/

If you use the Stefan-Boltzmann law, widely used in astrophysics, you have:

J = a. T4 (in watts/m2)

or  P/A = a. T4 (in watts/m2), with P: radiated power.

Playing a little bit with this, and assuming that the shape of the initial and final CBR can be assimilated to that

of an spherical shell of thickness =1, then the radiating surface is 4.Pi.R2, and you could write:

Pi = 4.Pi.Ri2.a.Ti4    ,13.5 billion years ago, and

Pf = 4.Pi.Rf2.a.Tf4    , now.

Assuming that the CBR energy, at the beggining and now, is composed of energy leftovers that weren't

involved into any process of recombination or any other process involving matter (except black body energy emission

and absorption in the near infrared range), then this energy leftover is bouncing back and forth across the universe

since ever.

In such a case, dividing both equations side by side gives:

1 = Ri2.Rf-2.Ti4 .Tf-4  or

or

Rf . Ri-1 = Ti2 .Tf-2 = 106  , using 3000°K and 3°K

what gives an expansion of 106 of the initial radius of the "black body spherical shell".

Ri  = 15,000 light-years  (300,000 years after the BB)

Also, using another widely used expression in astrophysics (Wien's displacement law)

Lmax.T = b,

we could say that:

LmaxI. Lmaxf-1 = Ti-1Tf = 10-3

or

LmaxI  =  10-3 . Lmaxf = 1 micrometer (being Lmaxf = 1 mm, today).

This displacement toward the microwave range from the near infrared is due to the expansion of the universe.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I'm done with this "crancky thing".

Please, proceed to mock at it (or me) at will. No ofense taken, as I was having fun with things which I don't believe.

But, the equations and conjectures are out there, coming from "academic sources", so............

That's excellent!

So, whether you believe the model or not - and we are all entitled to have our reservations -  we do seem now to have at least a common understanding of what the model proposes.

##### Share on other sites

There are two correction to be made, mainly because I didn't know how to write SIGMA (the Stefan-Boltzmann's Constant),

The correct Stefan-Boltzmann's formula is

j = SIGMA . T4 = P/A  (in Watts/m2)

and there is a real a constant (used in astrophysics), which is called radiation constant (or volume energy density), which is:

a = 4/c . SIGMA    (in Joules.m-3.K-4)

which allows to write the volumetric density of energy irradiated by a black body as:

u = a . T4 = E/V  (in Joules/m3)

Using density of energy per unit volume requires to use the volume of a sphere, instead of its surface. So, by this, final formula

changes to:

1 = Ri3.Rf-3.Ti4 .Tf-4  or

now, the total energy of the BBR radiation remains constant along the time, which gives

Rf3 . Ri-3 = Ti4 .Tf-4 = 1012  , using 3000°K and 3°K for Ti and Tf.

or

Ri = Rf . 10-4 = 15.109.10-4 ly = 1.5 million ly  (radius of the reducted Hubble's Sphere, almost 770,000 years after the BB, and T = 3,000 °K).

Sorry for the mistake. I wasn't aware of the existance of a = 4/c.SIGMA.

With this new formula, the total energy of the initial CBR is preserved along time.

The change in the peak wavelength remains the same, as the ratio of temperature change still is 1/1000.

Question: How is that COBE, WMAP and PLANCK measured a peak wavelength of 1mm, which correspond to NOW,

when the initial peak wavelength (at 3000 °K) was 1 micrometer 13 billion years ago.

Isn't that focusing at the edge of the Hubble's Sphere (13.77 billion ly) we are looking almost equal amount of years into the past?

Why 1 micrometers wasn't measured, after all?

Because the metric has expanded. The effect is that the energy remains the same (no absorption by matter) whereas the volume of space it occupies is a lot greater, so its effective "temperature" is lower.

It is the same effect as the cosmological red shift due to metric expansion. I think. But I'm not a cosmologist.

Edited by exchemist
##### Share on other sites

There are two things to consider; one is the volume of the spherical universe changes according to the cube of the radius so that the number of photons per unit volume is diluted by R^-3 , and at the same time the photons are redshifted by an additional factor of R^-1 as the wavelength gets longer. So, the energy density of the CMB changes according to R^-4.

Incidentally, rhertz’s numbers using the light speed radius of the present universe, rather than the radius of the observable universe of 46 billion lyrs is the reason why his numbers are wrong, but at least he is making an attempt.

The size of the universe at last scattering was 41.8 Mlyr, not the 1.5 Mlyr that he calculated. It makes no sense to me, to use the radius of the universe as 13.77 billion lyr to calculate energy density, when we know it is much larger than that, at 46 billion lyrs!

(But I'm also not a cosmologist)

Well, at least when I crunch the numbers they show the total energy of the CMB is conserved from the time of last scattering until today.

##### Share on other sites

OceanBreeze, it's not that I'm fixated to the idea of using 13.7 Gly (visible universe) instead of 46.5 Gly (observable universe).

I don't understand WHY scientists persist using the radius of the Hubble's Sphere (limit where recession equals the speed of light), but

it is the way THEY DO (It's not my invention).

As with many other data available to check it, I use this link from the NASA's WMAP mission (which followed COBE's):

https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_concepts.html

You can study the WMAP Universe at this link but, exploring it, it has very good and detailed info about intruments, how

the mission was done, etc.

I copy and paste an excerpt from the link I wrote above:

*********************************************************************************************************

Foundations of Big Bang Cosmology

................................

.

Before we discuss which of these three pictures describe our universe (if any) we must make a few disclaimers:

• Because the universe has a finite age (~13.77 billion years) we can only see a finite distance out into space: ~13.77 billion light years. This is our so-called horizon. The Big Bang Model does not attempt to describe that region of space significantly beyond our horizon - space-time could well be quite different out there.
• It is possible that the universe has a more complicated global topology than that which is portrayed here, while still having the same local curvature. For example it could have the shape of a torus (doughnut). There may be some ways to test this idea, but most of the following discussion is unaffected.

*********************************************************************************************************

This is NASA Oficial site for WMAP satellite, and they are telling that the visible universe has a radius of 13.77 billion yl,

and that they can't measure beyond that limit.

Here is another link that you can use (is for a post-graduate course in astrophysics from the Virginia University):

http://people.virginia.edu/~dmw8f/astr5630/Topic16/Lecture_16.html

(7) Distances & Horizons

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Before we start, let's recall two useful/sensible units of time and distance for cosmology:

Hubble time:           tH,o   =   Ho-1   =   10.0 h-1 Gyr   =   13.9 h72-1 Gyr     Hubble distance:   rH,o   =   c / Ho   =   c tH,o   =   13.9 h72-1 G lyr   =   4.26 h72-1 Gpc

they are units comparable to the current age and visible size of the Universe.

..................................................

If you keep reading, they will treat the subject of observable universe, but you can't see or measure beyond the Hubble's radius.

I don't UNDERSTAND WHY cosmologists (and only THEM) keep talking about observable universe.

The only reason that I find is that the Hubble Sphere and the Hubble's Radius ARE NOT RELATIVISTIC.

And the calculations of the observable universe are based on GTR and BBT, being the last one relativistic.

This allows to define co-moving and proper distance at the observable universe, but is a problem that

they went into voluntarily. NOT MY PROBLEM.

"Because the universe has a finite age (~13.77 billion years) we can only see a finite distance out into space: ~13.77 billion light yearsThis is our so-called horizon."

The above statement is quite simply wrong! 13.77 billion years is the light travel time.

The observable universe, also known as the Hubble volume, is the region of space that it is theoretically possible for us to observe, small enough that light from the furthest regions has had sufficient time to reach Earth since the Big Bang. This region of space has a diameter of approximately 92.94 billion light-years, centered on the planet Earth. Each different portion of space has its own visible universe, some overlapping, some not.

There are countless other links saying the same thing.

As I said, when you are calculating the total energy, or the energy density, it makes no sense at all to use the radius of the light travel time, and I don't know of any cosmologists who would do that.

I tell you what; go ahead and do your calculations for energy density and total energy, using the 13.77 Blyr radius as your size, then work out the total energy of the CMB, then work that back to the time of last scattering and show what the size of the universe was then and that the total energy of the CMB is the same, conserved.

Show the numerical answers and show the energy is the same  then and now, if you can.

Maybe you can convince me you are right?

When you are done I will post my numbers for comparison.

Fair enough?

This is nothing personal, but we should both want to get to the bottom of this for a better understanding.

Edited by OceanBreeze
##### Share on other sites

Are we OK?

we're fine. it is the rest of the world that has the problem

P.S.: I promise you that, when I find the mood, I'll try to understand co-moving and proper

distances, and inflation & GTR and its impact on the observable universe of 45.6 Gyl radius.

I'm going to hold you to that, starting now!

First, the radiation constant, $\alpha \quad =\frac { 8{ \pi }^{ 5 }{ k }^{ 4 } }{ 15{ c }^{ 3 }{ h }^{ 3 } }$

Where c is the speed of light, k is Boltzmann's constant, and h is Planck's constant.

Numerically $\alpha \quad =\quad 7.5657\quad E-16\quad J\quad { m }^{ -3 }\quad { K }^{ -4 }$

Photon energy density = $\alpha { T }^{ 4 }$

${ T }_{ now }=\quad 2.728\quad K$

So, energy density of the CMB photons is $4.19\quad E-14\quad J/{ m }^{ 3 }$

All we need now to find the total energy of the CMB photons is the volume of the observable universe.

The Radius is 46 E9 lyrs, = 4.35 E26 m

$Volume\quad =\quad 4/3\quad \pi \quad { r }^{ 3 }$ = $3.453\quad E80\quad { m }^{ 3 }$

Total energy of CMB photons = 1.45 E67 Joules

The object now is to show that this value is conserved; that it is the same now as at the time of last scattering.

To do that, I use the linear scaling factor of 1100. That is, at last scattering the universe’s linear dimensions were 1100 times smaller than today.

That scaling factor also applied to the Temperature, so that 2.728 K today corresponds to 3000 K at decoupling and last scattering.

So, $\alpha { T }^{ 4 }$ at that time was $0.0613\quad J/{ m }^{ 3 }$

Now, here is where it is easy to go wrong . . .

If you calculate the volume of the universe at last scattering by taking the cube of the scaling factor, and dividing that into the present-day volume, you get:

$\frac { 3.453\quad E80\quad { m }^{ 3 } }{ { 1100 }^{ 3 } } =\quad 2.594\quad E71\quad { m }^{ 3 }$

That is of course the correct volume at last scattering, BUT when multiplied by the energy density of $0.0613\quad J/{ m }^{ 3 }$, that will not get back to the total value of energy that must be conserved, that was calculated to be 1.45 E67 Joules.

So what gives? :sorry:

Well, here is a paper that explains why, but the only part that you need to read is the first few sentences, which I quote here:

“According to present cosmological views the energy density of CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) photons, freely propagating through the expanding cosmos, varies proportional to 1/S^4 with S being the scale factor of the universe. This behavior is expected, because General Theory of Relativity, in application to FLRW- (Friedmann-Lemaitre-RobertsonWalker) cosmological universes, leads to the conclusion that the photon wavelengths increase during their free passage through the spacetime metrics of the universe by the same factor as does the scale factor S . This appears to be a reasonable explanation for the presently observed Planckian CMB spectrum with its actual temperature of about 2.7 K, while at the time of its origin after the last scattering during the recombination phase its temperature should have been about 3000 K, at an epoch of about 380 ky after the Big Bang, when the scale of the universe S r was smaller by roughly a factor of S/S r = 1+zr = 1100 compared to the present scale S = S 0 of the universe”

(I strongly advise that you do NOT read the rest of this paper)

So, you see, while the volume varies according to the cube of the scaling factor, the energy density varies according to the fourth power!

The simplest way to apply this is to calculate an “effective volume” of the early universe:

$\frac { 3.453\quad E80\quad { m }^{ 3 } }{ { 1100 }^{ 4 } } =\quad 2.358\quad E68\quad { m }^{ 3 }$

Now, when this is multiplied by the energy density of $0.0613\quad J/{ m }^{ 3 }$,

We find that the total energy of the CMB in the early universe was 1.45 E67 Joules same as today.

I hope that clears up all of your questions while opening up even deeper doubts and confusions! :lol:

##### Share on other sites

When you apply the derivation for energy density u = E/V, you get  E = V.u.

As V = 4/3 Pi r3, the total energy depends only on the third power of the sphere's radius (not the fourth).

Energy density depends on the fourth power of the absolute temperature.

So, as u = a.T4, then E = 4/3 Pi r3 a T4, and this is the TOTAL ENERGY within a BLACK BODY CAVITY.

No, and I explained in detail why this is wrong. The energy density of matter does indeed vary with the cubic of the scaling factor, according to the change in volume. But, the energy density of a volume of photon radiation changes according to the fourth power of the scaling factor.

The reason is the wavelength of the photon emission changes according to the same change in scale.

The paper I cited gives a nice explanation:

“According to present cosmological views the energy density of CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) photons, freely propagating through the expanding cosmos, varies proportional to 1/S^4 with S being the scale factor of the universe. This behavior is expected, because General Theory of Relativity, in application to FLRW- (Friedmann-Lemaitre-RobertsonWalker) cosmological universes, leads to the conclusion that the photon wavelengths increase during their free passage through the spacetime metrics of the universe by the same factor as does the scale factor S . This appears to be a reasonable explanation for the presently observed Planckian CMB spectrum with its actual temperature of about 2.7 K, while at the time of its origin after the last scattering during the recombination phase its temperature should have been about 3000 K, at an epoch of about 380 ky after the Big Bang, when the scale of the universe S r was smaller by roughly a factor of S/S r = 1+zr = 1100 compared to the present scale S = S 0 of the universe”

If you don’t like that, (and I know you don't), you can do a search and find many references that support this, unlike your usual unfounded assertions that are based on nothing but your opinion. By the way, using a bold red font to make your unfounded assertions does not make them any less wrong.

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


text:
# Quantum harmonic oscillator inner product

1. Jul 7, 2015

### Dazed&Confused

1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
Using the equations that are defined in the 'relevant equations' box, show that

$$\langle n' | X | n \rangle = \left ( \frac{\hbar}{2m \omega} \right )^{1/2} [ \delta_{n', n+1} (n+1)^{1/2} + \delta_{n',n-1}n^{1/2}]$$

2. Relevant equations
$$\psi_n(x) = \left ( \frac{m \omega}{\pi \hbar 2^{2n} (n!)^2} \right )^{1/4} \text{exp} \left ( \frac{-m \omega x^2}{2 \hbar} \right )H_n \left [ \left ( \frac{m \omega}{\hbar} \right )^{1/2} x \right ]$$
where $H_n$ are the Hermite polynomials.

The questions asks you to use the useful relations:
$$H_n^{'}(y) = 2nH_{n-1}$$ $$H_{n+1}(y) = 2yH_n -2nH_{n-1}.$$
I think that the following is also needed:

$$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} H_n(y)H_{n'}(y) e^{-y^2} dy =\delta_{nn'}(\pi^{1/2}2^n n!).$$

Here $yb = x$ where $$b = \left ( \frac{\hbar}{m \omega} \right)^{1/2}.$$

3. The attempt at a solution

Since $$| n \rangle = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} | x' \rangle \langle x'| n \rangle dx'= \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} | x' \rangle \psi_n(x') dx',$$ $$\langle n' | X | n \rangle = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \langle x | x' \rangle x' \psi_{n'}(x) \psi_n(x') dx' dx.$$

This becomes $$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} x \psi_{n'}(x) \psi_{n} (x) dx.$$

Substituting into $y$, we have $$b^2 A_n A_{n'} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} ye^{-y^2} H_n(y) H_{n'}(y) dy.$$

Using the relations, this becomes $$b^2 A_n A_{n'} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac12 H_{n+1} H_{n'} e^{-y^2} + n H_{n-1} H_{n'}e^{-y^2} \ dy.$$

I'm unsure how to write these integrals. In particular, which number to choose as the $n$ corresponding to the useful integral.

Last edited: Jul 7, 2015
2. Jul 7, 2015

### Dazed&Confused

Ok if I write it like this $$b^2 A_n A_{n'}( \delta_{n',n+1} [\pi^{1/2} 2^n (n+1)!] + \delta_{n',n-1} [\pi^{1/2}2^{n-1}(n-1)!]).$$
The product $A_nA_{n'}$ is $$\frac{1}{b \pi^{1/2}} \frac{1}{ 2^{n'/2} 2^{n/2} (n!)^{1/2} (n'!)^{1/2 } }.$$

If you replace $n'$ with $n+1$ in the first term and $n'$ with $n-1$ in the second, you get

$$\frac{b}{\sqrt{2}} [ \delta_{n',n+1} (n+1)^{1/2} + \delta_{n',n-1} n^{1/2}],$$ which is the correct answer. This makes sense to me, but is it correct?

Last edited: Jul 7, 2015

format: plain


text:
(Stanley) Fish Food for Thought: Aesthetic Reflections

Welcome to Part 3 of PUP’s Stanley Fish series, Fish Food for Thought. All selections are excerpted from Fish’s new book, Think Again: Contrarian Reflections on Life, Culture, Politics, Religion, Law, and Education.

Fish Food for Thought

Part 3: Aesthetic Reflections

2.1 Why Do Writers Write?

February 11, 2007

Fish on the internal satisfaction when writing.

If you’ve found something you really like to do — say write beautiful sentences — not because of the possible benefits to the world of doing it, but because doing it brings you the satisfaction and sense of completeness nothing else can, then do it at the highest level of performance you are capable of, and leave the world and its problems to others, (41)

2.4 The Ten Best American Movies

January 4, 2009

Fish on one of his favorite movies, 1980’s ‘Raging Bull.’

Most boxing movies trace the classic pattern of rise, fall, and redemption…or tell a moral tale about the corruption of the sport… or detail the corruption of the protagonist. Raging Bull offers no triumph and no moral. It just exhibits the self-destructiveness of its central figure again and again…the wonder is that Scorsese was able to make something lyrical out of a polluting self-destructiveness, but that is what he did, (55)

2.6 Larger than Life: Charlton Heston

April 13, 2008

Fish on former Hollywood star Charlton Heston.

The fact is that Heston’s size, his monumentality, was an obstacle he had to overcome in order to become the actor he wanted to be… Not only was Heston capable of playing a small man; the tension between the inner smallness he was portraying and his physical mass added strength and poignancy to the performance,(63)

2.8 Little Big Men

March 1, 2010

Fish on identifying with actors.

Seeing men you know to be small playing big on the silver screen is comforting, even though the comfort depends on a very suspect transference…But you take your comfort where you can get it, and for me, comfort at the highest level would be identifying with a short, tough guy who is also Jewish, (71-72)

2.13 Country Roads

July 1, 2007

Fish on the world of country music.

But if you enter, if only vicariously, into the country music culture, you have to swallow, along with your enjoyment, some stances and attitude that might you pause (or might not, depending on who you are). It’s a man’s world… It’s a Christian world… It’s a white world… It’s a patriotic world… And it is a world that knows everything I have just said about it, revels in it, and puts it all into the songs, (88-89)

Bird Fact Friday – Where do penguins live?

From page 16 of Penguins:

A popular misconception is that all penguins live around the poles. Penguins are actually constrained to the southern hemisphere, but only four species of 18 (or 19, depending on the taxonomy used) form colonies along parts of the Antarctic coastline, remaining at least 1200 km (745 miles) from the South Pole. The entire ‘crested dynasty’ (seven species), live in slightly milder climates, mostly north of the Polar Front, nesting on subantarctic islands. Still others make their homes in Australia, New Zealand, and the Galapagos Islands. Many penguins live in areas so remote that they are rarely observed or photographed.

Penguins: The Ultimate Guide
Tui De Roy, Mark Jones & Julie Cornthwaite

Penguins are perhaps the most beloved birds. On land, their behavior appears so humorous and expressive that we can be excused for attributing to them moods and foibles similar to our own. Few realize how complex and mysterious their private lives truly are, as most of their existence takes place far from our prying eyes, hidden beneath the ocean waves. This stunningly illustrated book provides a unique look at these extraordinary creatures and the cutting-edge science that is helping us to better understand them. Featuring more than 400 breathtaking photos, this is the ultimate guide to all 18 species of penguins, including those with retiring personalities or nocturnal habits that tend to be overlooked and rarely photographed.

A book that no bird enthusiast or armchair naturalist should do without, Penguins includes discussions of penguin conservation, informative species profiles, fascinating penguin facts, and tips on where to see penguins in the wild.

• Covers all 18 species of the world’s penguins
• Features more than 400 photos
• Explores the latest science on penguins and their conservation
• Includes informative species profiles and fascinating penguin facts

Woodrow Wilson Papers to go online with new partnership

Princeton University Press, The Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library, and the University of Virginia Press Partner To Create Digital Edition of THE PAPERS OF WOODROW WILSON

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS (PUP), the WOODROW WILSON PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY(WWPL), and the UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA PRESS (UVaP) announced today an agreement to create THE PAPERS OF WOODROW WILSON DIGITAL EDITION (PWWDE). Edited by Arthur S. Link and published by Princeton University Press, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson will be digitized and made available online in UVaP’s Rotunda American History collection, with the permission of PUP and the generous support of friends of the WWPL.

“This partnership among two university presses and a presidential library harnesses the intellectual investment and publishing expertise represented in the great documentary editions of the last century,” said Peter Dougherty, Director of Princeton University Press, “and makes them more accessible and valuable through this century’s digital technologies.”

Princeton University Press published the print edition of the Papers of Woodrow Wilson, consisting of 69 volumes with a 5-part index, between 1966 and 1994. The edition’s editor, Arthur Stanley Link (1920–1998),Edwards Professor of History Emeritus at Princeton University, was widely considered a pioneer in the field of documentary editing as well as the foremost scholar of Woodrow Wilson, the 28th President of the United States. The Link edition includes Wilson’s personal correspondence, academic works, and speeches, minutes of the Paris Peace Conference, and diary entries of close associates Edward House, Cary Grayson, and Josephus Daniels, totaling approximately 38,400 documents from a vast range of government and academic sources. The most significant sources of Wilson material in the published volumes are stored in the Library of Congress and Princeton University.  The Journal of American History described the Papers of Woodrow Wilson as “an unprecedented illumination of Wilson’s activities and ideas.”

Woodrow Wilson is one of the most accessible presidents in American history due to the precise organization, annotation, and indexing of the Papers of Woodrow Wilson. The Rotunda digital edition will enhance discovery of Wilson’s papers by adapting the documents, annotation, and indexing created by Arthur Link and his fellow editors to a state-of-the-art electronic publishing platform. “Inclusion in Rotunda not only provides the most up-to-date digital publishing technology,” said Mark H. Saunders, Director of UVaP. “It puts the Wilson material in conversation with other important figures in American political history, from the Founding Fathers to participants in the civil rights and Vietnam eras. Comparing the view of Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson, and Lyndon Johnson on a subject such as race or presidential power can provide new scholarly insights that were hard to imagine in an age of analog information or siloed digital repositories.”

The WWPL anticipates digitizing further materials in its collection and the collection of the Library of Congress, including a selection of Wilson’s correspondence during World War I and documents from Wilson’s later public career, and making them available in the coming years. “There is a vast array of important Wilson material that could not be included due to the constraints of a print edition,” said Don W. Wilson, President of WWPL Foundation. “Those documents will now be made available to scholars, students, and the interested public.” Additional collections held at Princeton University, among them letters between Woodrow Wilson and his wives, Edith and Ellen, and his daughter Jessie Sayre, would also be added to the PWWDE.

Press contacts:

Emily Grandstaff : ekg4a@virginia.edu

Debra Liese: Debra_Liese@press.princeton.edu

Vote, or else? Jason Brennan on why moral obligations shouldn’t be enforced

Ethicist Jason Brennan is writing a series of posts for the PUP blog offering unique perspectives on ethics, voting, not voting, democracy, public policy and strategy. He is currently Flanagan Family Associate Professor of Strategy, Economics, Ethics, and Public Policy at the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University, and is writing Against Politics, under contract with Princeton University Press. You can read his first post on “why smart politicians say dumb things” here–PUP Blog Editor

Turnout in American elections is low compared to some other advanced democracies. Should we force people to vote?

Brookings Institute analyst William Galston thinks so. In a recently published Op-Ed at Newsweek, Galston offers a host of arguments on behalf of compulsory voting.[1] None of the arguments are very good.

Galston’s right about one thing: Compulsory voting works. It’s clear that compulsory voting does in fact get more people to vote. But everyone agrees that alone isn’t enough to justify compulsory voting. A basic tenet of liberal democracy, or, really, fundamental human decency, is that it’s wrong to force people to do anything without a strong justification for doing so. Thus, proponents of compulsory voting bear a strong burden of proof. They must produce some reason why it’s permissible to force people to vote.

Does Compulsory Voting Lead to Moderation?

Galston argues that moderates are underrepresented. People belonging to ideological extremes are much more likely to vote than people with middle-of-the-road views. He claims that compulsory voting would thus lead to more moderate political outcomes.

He’s right that moderates vote less. Ample empirical work (e.g., see Ilya Somin’s Democracy and Political Ignorance for a review) shows that political moderates participate less than people with more extreme views. But, that same work also shows that this is because political moderates care less about politics, hold their beliefs more weakly, and also are less informed about politics.

But does compulsory voting actually lead to more moderate political outcomes? The available research (e.g., see Sarah Birch’s Full Participation for a review of the empirical literature) does not support this result. Perhaps it’s because the extremes already tend to balance each other out, and what we actually get from Congress or the president are moderate outcomes and compromise positions.

Indeed, it’s not clear compulsory voting does much of anything. It has no significant effect on individual political knowledge, individual political conservation and persuasion, individual propensity to contact politicians, the propensity to work with others to address concerns, participation in campaign activities, the likelihood of being contacted by a party or politician, the quality of representation, electoral integrity, the proportion of female members of parliament, support for small or third parties, support for the left, or support for the far right.[2]

Is Voting an Enforceable Duty?

Galston believes you have a duty to vote. I disagree,[3] but suppose he’s right and you do have a duty to vote. It doesn’t follow from the mere fact that something is a moral obligation that it’s permissible to force people to do it.

On the contrary, many moral duties—aside from duties to avoid violating others’ rights—are unenforceable. You might have moral duties to keep promises, to be nice to strangers, to buy your mom a birthday present, to be faithful to your boyfriend or girlfriend, to give to charity, to improve your moral character, to apologize for your past wrong-doing, to avoid becoming a member of the KKK, and to avoid using racist language. Nevertheless, these moral obligations are unenforceable—it would be wrong for the government to force you to fulfill these duties, even though they are (Galston and I both agree) moral duties.

So what makes voting special? Why is it an enforceable duty, rather than an unenforceable duty?

Galston says that voting is an expression of gratitude, which makes his defense of compulsory voting all the more perplexing. We often owe it to each other to express gratitude. If you buy me a present, I should say thanks. But in general, the duty is express gratitude is unenforceable. If I don’t send you a thank you note, you shouldn’t call the police and ask them to throw me in jail.

The Public Goods Argument: Are Non-Voters Free Riders?

In an earlier New York Times Op-Ed, Galston describes non-voters as free-riders: “Requiring people to vote in national elections once every two years would reinforce the principle of reciprocity at the heart of citizenship.[4] The idea here is that people who don’t vote are like people who don’t pay their taxes. Non-voters benefit from the good government provided for them by voters, but they don’t do their part in helping to provide that good government. That’s unfair. So, just as it’s permissible to force everyone to pay her fair share of taxes, maybe it’s permissible to force everyone to pay for good government by voting.

On the contrary, I think Galston has an overly narrow view of how citizens fulfill their civic obligations.

Imagine Superman were real. Now imagine Superman never votes or participates in politics. Imagine Galston said to Superman, “You’re a jerk. You free ride off of voters’ efforts. You benefit from good government but don’t do your part.” Superman could respond, “Remember all the times I saved the world? That’s how I did my part.”

Let’s take a less extreme case. Suppose there is a medical genius, Phyllis the Physician. Phyllis is such a genius that she produces new medical breakthroughs hourly. If Phyllis cares about serving the common good, helping her fellow citizens, or paying off some “debt to society”, she has little reason to vote. An hour at the voting booth is worth less than an hour at the lab. Now, imagine Galston said to Phyllis, “You’re a jerk. You free ride off of voters’ efforts.” Phyllis could respond, “No, I’ve paid voters’ back by producing my research. I don’t owe them anything more.”

Superman and Phyllis are extreme cases that illustrate a general point. Each of us in our daily lives as workers, artists, managers, parents, truckers, musicians, priests, teachers, or whatnot, does things that make distant others better off. We’re not just taking; we’re giving. We’re already doing things that make it so that the world and our fellow citizens are better off with us than without us.

There’s no obvious reason to assume that non-voters specifically owe a debt to voters, that the only way we citizens can “pay” for good government is to vote, or that the only way to avoid free-riding on voters’ efforts is to vote ourselves.  If we have a debt to society, or a duty to compensate voters for their efforts, we could instead hold that this debt can be paid, and that voters can be compensated, any number of ways. For any given citizen, given what other citizens are doing and are good at doing, there will be an optimal mix of political and non-political ways for her to pay her debt. For some citizens, this will mean heavy political engagement at the expense of other pursuits. For other citizens, it will mean complete disengagement so as to free the citizen to pursue non-political activities. For most citizens, the optimal mix will be some combination of political and non-political engagement.  Though each citizen might contribute in different ways, they can all pay their debts.

The Best Argument for Compulsory Voting

In the end, the best argument for compulsory voting begins by noting that under a voluntary voting regime, the people who choose to vote are unrepresentative of the population at large.

Voters and abstainers are systematically different. The old are more likely to vote than the young. Men are more likely to vote than women. In many countries, ethnic minorities are less likely to vote than ethnic majorities.[5] More highly educated people are more likely to vote than less highly educated people. Married people are more likely to vote than non-married people.[6] Political partisans are more likely to vote than true independents. In short, under voluntary voting, the voting public—the citizens who actually vote—are not fully representative of the voting eligible public. In general, the privileged are proportionately more likely to vote than the underprivileged. The worry, then, is that because the privileged are more likely to vote, government is likely to be unfairly responsive to their interests. Because the underprivileged are less likely to vote, governments are likely to ignore or underrepresent their interests.

As Galston summarizes the argument:

The second argument for mandatory voting is democratic. Ideally, a democracy will take into account the interests and views of all citizens. But if some regularly vote while others don’t, officials are likely to give greater weight to participants. This might not matter much if nonparticipants were evenly distributed through the population. But political scientists have long known that they aren’t. People with lower levels of income and education are less likely to vote, as are young adults and recent first-generation immigrants.[7]

Let’s put the argument in a more rigorous form. Let’s call this the Demographic Argument for Compulsory Voting:

1.     Voters tend to vote for their self-interest.

2.     Politicians tend to give large voting blocs what they ask for.

3.     When voting is voluntary, the poor, minorities, the uneducated, and young people vote less than the rich, whites, the educated, or older people.

4.     If so, then under voluntary voting, government will tend to promote the interest of the rich, of whites, and of the old, over the interests of the poor, of minorities, or of the young.

5.     Under compulsory voting, almost every demographic and socio-economic group votes at equally high rates.

6.     Thus, under compulsory voting, government will promote everyone’s interests.

7.     Therefore, compulsory voting produces more representative government.

8.     If compulsory voting produces more representative government than voluntary voting, then compulsory voting is justified.

9.     Therefore, compulsory voting is justified.

This argument appears powerful and persuasive at first glance. Nevertheless, as I’ll explain in my next post, it’s unsound. It rests on a number of false empirical assumptions.

Note, however, that Galston cannot consistently advance both the Public Goods and the Demographic Argument for Compulsory Voting. The Public Goods Argument treats voters as cooperators. One person’s vote tends to benefit others, while abstention comes at their expense. The Public Goods argument says that non-voters take advantage of voters. But the Demographic Argument treats voters as competitors. One person’s vote tends to harm other voters (by reducing the power of their vote), while abstention helps them (by strengthening the power of their vote).  The Demographic Argument assumes that non-voters advantage voters, while voters take advantage of non-voters.

At most, one of these arguments is sound. If the Public Goods Argument is sound, then when I (a privileged, upper-middle class, married, white, heterosexual, cisgendered male) abstain, most voters should be mad at me. But if the Demographic Argument is sound, then when I abstain, I do women, blacks, Latinos, the poor, the unemployed, and so on, a favor, by making it more likely the government will represent their interests rather than mine. Galston can’t have it both ways.

[1] http://www.newsweek.com/should-voting-be-compulsory-376905

[2] Sarah Birch, Full Participation: 140; Benjamin Highton and Raymond Wolfinger, “The Political Implications of Higher Turnout,” British Journal of Political Science 31 (1) (2001): 179-223, 179.

[3] See Jason Brennan, The Ethics of Voting (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011), chapters 1 and 2.

[4] William Galston, “Telling Americans to Vote, or Else,” New York Times, 6 November 2011, SR9.

[5] In the United States, African Americans typically have a lower overall turnout than whites. However, there is some evidence that, once we control for socioeconomic status and other factors that influence voting turnout, African Americans actually vote in higher rates than whites. For instance, African Americans vote less than whites, because they are more likely to be poor, not because they are African American. However, this probably does not matter for the purposes of the Demographic Argument. See Jan E. Leighley and Jonathan Nagler, “Individual and Systematic Influences on Voter Turnout: 1984,” Journal of Politics 54 (1992): 718-40.

[6] For a review of the empirical literature establishing the claims of this paragraph, see Jocelyn Evans, Voters and Voting: An Introduction (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2004): 152-6.

[7] Galston, “Telling Americans to Vote”: SR9.

(Stanley) Fish Food for Thought, Part 2: Reflections on Liberal Arts Education

Welcome to Part 2 of PUP’s Stanley Fish series, Fish Food for Thought. All selections are excerpted from Fish’s new book, Think Again.

Fish Food for Thought

Part 2: Reflections on Liberal Arts Education

7.1 Why We Built the Ivory Tower

May 1, 2006

Fish on the difference between the academic and advocacy worlds.

In short, don’t cross the boundary between academic work and partisan advocacy, whether the advocacy is yours or someone else’s. Marx famously said that our job is not to interpret the world, but to change it. In the academy, however, it is exactly the reverse: our job is not to change the world, but to interpret it. (301)

7.4 Devoid of Content

May 31, 2005

Fish on teaching language structure, not content, in the classroom.

Students who take so-called courses in writing . . . are learning how to marshal arguments in ways that will improve their compositional skills. In fact, they will be learning nothing they couldn’t have learned better by sitting around in a dorm room. . . . They will certainly not be learning anything about how language works; and without a knowledge of how language works, they will be unable to either spot the formal breakdown of someone else’s language or to prevent the formal breakdown of their own. (313)

7.6 Will the Humanities Save Us?

January 6, 2008

Fish on the purpose of humanities courses.

To the question, ‘Of what use are the humanities?’, the only honest answer is none whatsoever. And it is an answer that brings honor to its subject. Justification, after all, confers value on an activity from a perspective outside its performance. An activity that cannot be justified is an activity that refuses to regard itself as instrumental to some larger good. The humanities are their own good. There is nothing more to say, and anything that is said . . . diminishes the object of its supposed praise.(323)

7.7 The Uses of the Humanities

January 13, 2008

Fish on why he teaches humanities subjects.

Why do I do it? . . . I don’t do it because it inspires me to do other things, like change my religion or go out and work for the poor. If I had to say, I’d say that I do it because I get something like an athletic satisfaction from the experience of trying to figure out how a remarkable verbal feat has been achieved. . . . [I]t is like solving a puzzle—but the greater satisfaction is the opportunity to marvel at what a few people are able to do with the language we all use. (324325)

7.10 Deep in the Heart of Texas

June 21, 2010

Fish on recognizing a quality education.

But sometimes (although not always) effective teaching involves the deliberate inducing of confusion, the withholding of clarity, the refusal to provide answers. . . . And sometimes that disappointment, while extremely annoying at the moment, is the sign that you’ve just been the beneficiary of a great course, although you may not realize it for decades. (340)

Patterns are math we love to look at

This piece by Frank Farris was originally published on The Conversation.

Why do humans love to look at patterns? I can only guess, but I’ve written a whole book about new mathematical ways to make them. In Creating Symmetry, The Artful Mathematics of Wallpaper Patterns, I include a comprehensive set of recipes for turning photographs into patterns. The official definition of “pattern” is cumbersome; but you can think of a pattern as an image that repeats in some way, perhaps when we rotate, perhaps when we jump one unit along.

Here’s a pattern I made, using the logo of The Conversation, along with some strawberries and a lemon:

Repeating forever left and right.
Frank A Farris, CC BY-ND

Mathematicians call this a frieze pattern because it repeats over and over again left and right. Your mind leads you to believe that this pattern repeats indefinitely in either direction; somehow you know how to continue the pattern beyond the frame. You also can see that the pattern along the bottom of the image is the same as the pattern along the top, only flipped and slid over a bit.

When we can do something to a pattern that leaves it unchanged, we call that a symmetry of the pattern. So sliding this pattern sideways just the right amount – let’s call that translation by one unit – is a symmetry of my pattern. The flip-and-slide motion is called a glide reflection, so we say the above pattern has glide symmetry.

A row of A’s has multiple symmetries.
Frank A Farris, CC BY-ND

You can make frieze patterns from rows of letters, as long as you can imagine that the row continues indefinitely left and right. I’ll indicate that idea by …AAAAA…. This row of letters definitely has what we call translational symmetry, since we can slide along the row, one A at a time, and wind up with the same pattern.

What other symmetries does it have? If you use a different font for your A’s, that could mess up the symmetry, but if the legs of the letter A are the same, as above, then this row has reflection symmetry about a vertical axis drawn through the center of each A.

Now here’s where some interesting mathematics comes in: did you notice the reflection axis between the As? It turns out that every frieze pattern with one vertical mirror axis, and hence an infinite row of them (by the translational symmetry shared by all friezes), must necessarily have an additional set of vertical mirror axes exactly halfway between the others. And the mathematical explanation is not too hard.

Suppose a pattern stays the same when you flip it about a mirror axis. And suppose the same pattern is preserved if you slide it one unit to the right. If doing the first motion leaves the pattern alone and doing the second motion also leaves the pattern alone, then doing first one and then the other leaves the pattern alone.

Flipping and then sliding is the same as one big flip.
Frank A Farris, CC BY-ND

You can act this out with your hand: put your right hand face down on a table with the mirror axis through your middle finger. First flip your hand over (the mirror symmetry), then slide it one unit to the right (the translation). Observe that this is exactly the same motion as flipping your hand about an axis half a unit from the first.

That proves it! No one can create a pattern with translational symmetry and mirrors without also creating those intermediate mirror symmetries. This is the essence of the mathematical concept of group: if a pattern has some symmetries, then it must have all the others that arise from combining those.

The surprising thing is that there are only a few different types of frieze symmetry. When I talk about types, I mean that a row of A’s has the same type as a row of V’s. (Look for those intermediate mirror axes!) Mathematicians say that the two groups of symmetries are isomorphic, meaning of the same form.

It turns out there are exactly seven different frieze groups. Surprised? You can probably figure out what they are, with some help. Let me explain how to name them, according to the International Union of Crystallographers.

The naming symbol uses the template prvh, where the p is just a placeholder, the r denotes rotational symmetry (think of a row of N’s), the v marks vertical qualities and the h is for horizontal. The name for the pattern of A’s is p1m1: no rotation, vertical mirror, no horizontal feature beyond translation. They use 1 as a placeholder when that particular kind of symmetry does not occur in the pattern.

What do I mean by horizontal stuff? My introductory frieze was p11g, because there’s glide symmetry in the horizontal directions and no symmetry in the other slots.

Another frieze pattern, this one based on a photo of a persimmon.
Frank A Farris, CC BY-ND

Write down a bunch of rows of letters and see what types of symmetry you can name. Hint: the persimmon pattern above (or that row of N’s) would be named p211. There can’t be a p1g1 because we insist that our frieze has translational symmetry in the horizontal direction. There can’t be a p1mg because if you have the m in the vertical direction and a g in the horizontal, you’re forced (not by me, but by the nature of reality) to have rotational symmetry, which lands you in p2mg.

A p2mg pattern based on some of the same raw materials as our first frieze pattern.
CC BY-ND

It’s hard to make p2mg patterns with letters, so here’s one made from the same lemon and strawberries. I left out the logo, as the words became too distorted. Look for the horizontal glides, vertical mirrors, and centers of twofold rotational symmetry. (Here’s a funny feature: the smiling strawberry faces turn sad when you see them upside down.)

One consequence of the limitation on wallpaper groups is that honeybees cannot make combs with fivefold symmetry.

In my book, I focus more on wallpaper patterns: those that repeat forever along two different axes. I explain how to use mathematical formulas called complex wave forms to construct wallpaper patterns. I prove that every wallpaper group is isomorphic – a mathematical concept meaning of the same form – to one of only 17 prototype groups. Since pattern types limit the possible structures of crystals and even atoms, all results of this type say something deep about the nature of reality.

Ancient Roman mosaic floor in Carranque, Spain.

Whatever the adaptive reasons for our human love for patterns, we have been making them for a long time. Every decorative tradition includes the same limited set of pattern types, though sometimes there are cultural reasons for breaking symmetry or omitting certain types. Did our visual love for recognizing that “Yes, this is the same as that!” originally have a useful root, perhaps evolving from an advantage in distinguishing edible from poisonous plants, for instance? Or do we just like them? Whyever it is, we still get pleasure from these repetitive patterns tens of thousands of years later.

Frank A Farris, Associate Professor of Mathematics, Santa Clara University. He is the author of Creating Symmetry.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

An interview with Louise Fresco on “Hamburgers in Paradise”

In Louise Fresco’s new book, Hamburgers in Paradise, the term “Paradise”, in her own words, is “a metaphor that refers to the landscapes on our planet, the collective Garden of Eden which, according to some views, we have irreversibly destroyed through large scale food production.” It is a view shared by many in a world simultaneously plagued by food shortages and GMO fears. In such a climate, is there room for optimism? Fresco looks at our food situation in all its complexity, taking the stance that there is no one perfect way to produce or consume food, and that balance and trade-offs between different goals are central to any long term solution. You can see her TED talk here, and the English subtitled version to a documentary she made about the food industry here. Recently Fresco took some time to answer some questions about her book.

What’s new in this book?

LF: Human history has been one of continuous scarcity. The abundance of food that has emerged for the majority of the world population in the last decades is so unique that we have not yet learnt to deal with it. We are still scared that there will not be enough, and that we will destroy our environment. Scarcity is our default mode, and that of our bodies, hence our difficulties to balance our diets and to reduce our ecological footprint. Abundance is a triumph of science and trade; it allows us to shed our fears of shortages. But the book argues that we require new ways of thinking, to reign in our needs (for example of meat) while producing food sustainably for all, with new methods (for example through recycling or using algae). The book demonstrates in detail that there is not one perfect way to produce and consume food, but that we always have to balance the trade-offs between different goals, such as large scale production (i.e. low food prices) and biodiversity. What is best depends on our goals and our insight in unintended side effects (we may like to see free roaming chickens but they may be more prone to disease that way).

Can you explain the title Hamburgers in Paradise?

LF: The title refers to a thought experiment: if Eve were alive today, what food would she offer Adam as a temptation? Paradise as a metaphor also refers to the landscapes on our planet, the collective Garden of Eden which, according to some views, we have irreversibly destroyed through large scale food production. These semi-conscious images of a pre-Industrial and idealized past are still guiding many of our reactions to modernization. The hamburger, of course, is the iconic food that symbolizes the rise of the modern middle class, from suburban America to places like Moscow or Mumbai, as well as the critical counterforces: slow food, vegetarian and organic products. The hamburger illustrates also the adaptation to new demands: fat and salt contents have been lowered, information on calories and nutritional values are published, wrappings are made of recycled materials and advertising to children is limited. In the most recent twist of history, the hamburger becomes popular once again in upper class restaurants, dipped in liquid Nitrogen, or in a vegetarian reincarnation.

Food is the source of much confusion today, we hear so many, contradictory stories about what we must or mustn’t eat and why. What is the reason for this confusion?

LF: Food and agriculture are the basis human survival. Food conjures up strong feelings, based on individual memories, strict convictions and long traditions, especially in times of rapid modernization. Many people, even in rural areas, are hardly aware of how food is really produced and how it lands on their plates. Nearly all of us rely on others, often far away, to feed us. Ignorance and dependency make us feel vulnerable and worried about food.

But we can also turn this around: behind every meal there is a story, one that is nearly always fascinating and often complex, but always worth telling. Food connects us with the past and the future.

Is there room for optimism?

LF: With current knowledge, we can feed nine or ten billion people quite easily. This doesn’t mean that there is no world food problem. Even if enough food can be produced this is not easy and more production does not mean food reaches people automatically. The current gap between actual and attainable yields is still enormous. At the same time, agricultural research and innovation continue to be needed to tackle specific problems of animal and plant diseases, poor soils and climate variation. The application of existing knowledge is hampered by poor infrastructure, unavailability of irrigation or fertilizer, dysfunctional markets and policy.

Food shortage is more a matter of distribution than just production. Hunger is caused by poverty, so creating employment is essential. The great improvements in agricultural production since the 1970s have benefitted the urban poor more than the rural poor. These improvements involve higher yields, through better agricultural techniques such as irrigation, leading to lower food prices that benefit those who buy food (those living in cities), while farmers selling foods are at a disadvantage. Today more than 850 million people go hungry and perhaps as many as 2 billion may lack balanced nutrition. Most of the hungry live in areas of civil war or frequent natural disasters, so peace and resettlement are priorities.

There seems to be much concern about Genetically Modified Organisms, is this concern justified?

LF: This is a very complex issue about which it is impossible to generalize and about which there are many misunderstandings. For example, if cows are fed genetically modified soy bean, their milk does not become genetically modified, even if some people fear this. The modified genes and cells do not survive the gut. What the effects and risks are depends very much on what crop or animal, what genes are used for what purpose and where. Certain problems, for example diseases in banana, can only be tackled with biotechnology, a large toolkit which does not necessarily result in GMOs. There are two types of risk, for human and animal health. While we need to continue to monitor the situation, there are no indications that GM crops lead to additional food related risks in human beings or animals. So far, there are no indications of environment effects (such as insect mortality or genes “escaping “), but ecosystems are complex and difficult to monitor. Finally, there is also the issue of intellectual property rights: while a fair reward is needed for the companies developing the biotechnology or GMOs, we must also make sure that farmers and scientists and breeders elsewhere can keep access to varieties or breeds. Here the U.S. and EU legislation and traditions do not coincide.

What about chemical inputs such as fertilizer. Are we not destroying the land?

LF: Plants and animals need food just as we do. These nutrients come nearly exclusively from the soil (and through water, transported from soils elsewhere). Only very few soils can sustain production for long periods and their nutrient reserve needs to be built up through other sources of nutrients. Whilst manure from animals can be used for this, this does not solve the problem, it just means that animals have to graze somewhere from where they take up the nutrients. Almost without exception agriculture requires fertilizer to be sustainable. Fertilizer has a bad name mainly because it has been overused in the past with detrimental effects on surface water, but in itself, if wisely used, it is a blessing. More land is depleted through lack of fertilizer than is affected through its use.

Is fast food the source of all evils?

LF: Fast food is part of a complex process of transformation of society: greater mobility, work pressures, urbanization, diversification through trade, smaller and singe households, greater affluence of young, ubiquitous equipment like microwaves and fridges people all lead to out of home eating and pre-packed meals. As with all foods, it is not the individual item that is “bad” but the pattern. Eating fast food from time to time is acceptable in an otherwise healthy lifestyle. However, fast food often contains too many calories and we should be concerned if there are no other options, In so-called food deserts, neighbourhoods devoid of shops selling vegetables, fast food is often the recourse for single parents.

What type of agriculture is most sustainable?

LF: There is no blueprint for an agricultural model that fits all situations. Agriculture is the art of the location-specific and always depends on soils, climate, geography, culture and economics. Agriculture is forever changing, adapting to new consumer demands and new technology. However, using resources as efficiently as possible is essential to avoid wasting labour, water, land, fertilizer, seeds or animals as well as reducing post harvest losses in the entire value chain. Efficiency is often misunderstood as large-scale and anonymous, but it applies at all scales. No farmer can afford to waste resources, nor can we as humanity. The World will need 50% more calories in 2030.

Would the world be better off if all meat would be prohibited?

LF: No, meat is necessary for certain groups such as pregnant and lactating women, children, the elderly and sick and of course the malnourished. Meat is not only a source of proteins but also of essential nutrients such as iron and certain vitamins (B12). Humans evolved as omnivores; vegetarians, even in India, have always been a small minority. Also, there are areas in the world where nothing else can be produced but grazing land and animals. The growth in demand for meat and fish is expected to increase faster than the growth in population, especially in Asia and Africa.

However, there are major problems associated with meat production: environmental (water, emissions, production and transportation of feed) veterinary public health, human health (diseases associated with high red meat intake and overuse of antibiotics) as well as animal welfare. These can all be solved with adequate research and regulation. Reducing meat consumption through substitution of animal proteins in healthy individuals in affluent societies is part of that.

Louise O. Fresco is president of Wageningen University and Research Centre in the Netherlands. The author of several books, she is a member of the Council of Advisors for the World Food Prize and has worked extensively in developing countries for many years. She lives in Amsterdam.

Kierkegaard in Space

NASA image: Earth as viewed from outer Space

Andreas Mogensen is the first Danish astronaut. Mogensen was sent to the International Space Station for a ten-day mission on September 2, 2015. As the first Dane in space, Mogensen brought a number of items typical of Danish culture to share with his fellow astronauts. These items included: some Legos, some Danish ryebread-based porridge, and readings from Hans Christian Andersen and the 19th century philosopher Søren Kierkegaard. The Kierkegaard reading was from his popular and very accessible work, The Lily of the Field and the Bird of the Air, published in 1849.

As explained in the British newspaper, The Guardian:

“Prof Niels Jørgen Cappelørn, from Copenhagen University, recommended Kierkegaard’s classic The Lily of the Field and the Bird of Air, telling the Guardian: “It’s all about silence, obedience and joy – something I thought would be an inspiration in space – and an important theme in these texts is passion, which you need to be an astronaut.”

Mogensen, who was to read a ten-minute selection from the work to his fellow astronauts on board the spacecraft, brought along a first edition of Kierkegaard’s work, but because the work was written in Danish, Mogensen also brought along University Connecticut Kierkegaard scholar and translator Bruce H. Kirmmse’s recent English translation of the work to read aloud to his audience. Kirmmse’s translation of The Lily of the Field and the Bird of the Air is slated to be published by Princeton University Press in February 2016.

Floating in the black void of space hundreds of miles from Earth, one might have thought Mogensen would have chosen Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling or The Concept of Anxiety. But his fellow astronauts may just be glad he didn’t bring The Seducer’s Diary.

Rob Tempio is Executive Editor for Philosophy and Humanities Group Publisher. He oversees the Press’s many Kierkegaard publications.

(Stanley) Fish Food for Thought: Personal Reflections

From 1995 to 2013, Stanley Fish’s provocative New York Times columns consistently generated passionate discussion and debate. In Think Again, he has assembled almost one hundred of his best columns into a thematically arranged collection with a substantial new introduction that explains his intention in writing these pieces and offers an analysis of why they provoked so much reaction. Welcome to the new weekly blog series,Fish Food for Thought. Each week, we will feature particularly memorable quotes and excerpts from  Think Again: Contrarian Reflections on Life, Culture, Politics, Religion, Law and Education. You can also check out his weekly opinion pieces in The Huffington Post.

Fish Food for Thought

Part 1: Personal Reflections

1.1 My Life Report

October 31, 2011

Fish on what he’s done well and what he’s learned along the way.

I was lucky, and that, I believe, made all the difference … So that’s what I did well. I arrived at places at the right time and had enough sense to seize the opportunities that were presented to me … even the opportunity to write for this newspaper [New York Times] … as usual, I didn’t have the slightest idea of what to do, but I said yes anyway to this newest piece of luck, (4)

1.2 ‘Tis the Season

December 21, 2009

Fish on feeling guilty giving to others during the Holiday season.

No deed a fallen man or woman might perform is free of what George Herbert called the ‘tincture of the private.’ Apparently selfless acts are always done in the service of the ego’s enhancement … In short, however much you try – indeed, because you try – you can’t be good or do good, (9)

1.5 My Life on the Court

March 22, 2009

Fish on the pleasures of playing basketball.

The marvel is that focused intensity can be achieved even in the act of failure, even by someone who knows what to do next but most of the time can’t quite do it … In those moments of surrender to the game, all one’s troubles, all one’s strivings, all one’s pretty irritations fall away. And if, occasionally, you actually do set the hard pick or deliver the perfect pass or make the improbable shot, well, that’s just icing on the cake,(20)

1.8 I am, Therefore I Pollute

August 3, 2008

Fish on being environmentally friendly.

I don’t want to save the planet. I just want to inhabit it as comfortably as possible for as long as I have… I am wholly persuaded by the arguments in support of the practices I resist. I believe that recycling is good and that disposable paper products are bad. I believe in global warming. I believe in Al Gore. But it is possible to believe something and still resist taking the actions your belief seems to require, (26-28)

1.11 Moving On

May 27, 2013

Fish on departing with all of his books.

What I saw on the shelves was work to which I would never return, the writings of fellow critics whom I will no longer engage, interpretive dilemmas someone else will have to address. The conversations I had participated in for decades have now gone in another direction (indeed, several other directions), and I have neither the time nor, if truth be told, the intellectual energy required to catch up. Farewell to all that. So long, it’s been good to know you. I’m sure you’ll do fine without me, (33)

A Letter From Your Publicist

Happy pub date to you, happy pub date….

Congratulations on your new book! Whether you’ve just put the finishing touches on your first book or have been down this road before, you’re probably eager to see what you can do to help to give your baby a proper send-off into the wild world of book critics and Amazon reviewers alike. Though I may not be your publicist, here’s hoping this guide can address the publicity questions you have, but were hesitant to ask.

Will you send my book out for review?

Absolutely! We are as invested in seeing your book land in the right hands as you are. Many months ago you should have filled out an Author Promotion Form (APF). Every press calls these forms something different, but this is an opportunity for you to share any suggestions for publications or special contacts that should receive a copy of your book. Didn’t fill it out? Don’t fear. You can contact your publicist at any time with leads for reviewers. Your publicist has also been familiarizing herself with your book and compiling a list of contacts that are just right for the target audience. Your book will be sent to a well-curated list. We also send out press releases and targeted email pitches.

My book is out and I haven’t seen any reviews in journals. What’s going on?

Don’t despair. Reviews in scholarly journals can happen at a glacial pace. Often they appear many months (or even a year) after publication date. This is also the case for major publications like the New York Review of Books, The London Review of Books, and the Times Literary Supplement.

What can I do to help?

A lot. One of the best things you can do after writing a book is… write some more! If your book’s research can be leveraged to comment on current events and you’re able to write a short (750 words) piece with a definite argument, you can pen an op ed positioning yourself as an expert, mentioning your book in the byline. Your publicist can help you  to get this into the hands of the right people. Never written an op ed before? Start by reading them.

Notice they are free of jargon, written for a general audience, and feature a strong point of view. Here’s a good place to read about the dos and don’ts of op ed writing.

Take advantage of other writing opportunities too. Guest blog if you are asked. Respond quickly to reporters who solicit your expertise. Reach out to personal contacts and colleagues who may have an affinity with your work and be interested in covering it.

Should I promote my book on Facebook/Twitter? Something else?

If you’re already active on social media, get more active now. The three months following the publication of your book is no time for modesty. You can follow people working on or writing about similar topics, retweet your book’s reviews or your own opinion pieces, use twitter to engage with others on your topic, or simply tweet ‘thanks!’ at someone for sharing your piece. If you know of an organization or individual that might be interested in your book, you can tag them in tweets to let them know about it.  But whatever you do, make sure to use your twitter feed to do more than self promote. Pay attention to what others are writing and be generous. If you share someone else’s work, there’s a good chance they’ll pay attention to the next thing you write as well. Finally, don’t worry about jumping onto every social platform there is. Use whatever is most comfortable for you, and where you have a natural following.

Should my book have its own hash tag?

Probably not.  Instead, use a popular tag on a topic you cover (like #edchat or  #behavioraleconomics).

I’ve never used social media and feel silly tweeting. Do I have to?

There is no pressure at all to engage in these activities. If you’re on the fence about social media, now might be a time to give it a whirl. But if social media use is painful for you, forcing yourself into that territory it isn’t likely to benefit you or your book. No need to worry. Your publicist and press’s social media manager will be pushing out posts on your book themselves. Just sit back and enjoy the show.

Can my university help?

Definitely leverage the power of your university. Be in touch with your communications office to see what resources or plans they may have to promote your book. Some will share special features on social media, put out a press release on your book, post interviews with you their own website, or even be willing to produce a video interview or book trailer. Make sure to keep your book publicist in the loop about any plans to avoid duplication of effort, and offer both your university and your publisher opportunities to cross post.

I was interviewed, but the reporter used my quote without mentioning my book. How can I make sure my book is mentioned next time?

Just ask. Most reporters are amenable to referring to you as ‘author of…’ when using your quote. Don’t be shy about making the request.

Help! My book got a bad review! Should I respond?

Some reviewers may draw conclusions about your research that you think are off base; in rare cases, they may even write caustic takedowns. There is no absolute rule covering how or whether to respond, though in many cases, the best response is no response at all. At times, we may counsel authors to reply, especially in the New York Review of Books, which has a long tradition of spirited exchanges between reviewer and author in their “Letters” section. Above all, if you do respond, you should keep it respectful and stick, as much as possible, to correcting errors of fact. Avoid the polemics the reviewer may have engaged in. You’ll come off better if you take the high ground. Kill’em with kindness.

I still feel frustrated.

Completely understandable. Post the offending review to your personal Facebook wall if you’re inclined, where no doubt your friends and colleagues will rally to your cause. But don’t feel the need to reply to everything, rectify every misunderstanding, or haunt the comments section under your own op eds. Remember the old chestnut that even bad publicity is good publicity? It’s true. The interest of readers and other reviewers is likely to be piqued by the very controversy that has you steaming, and that can only be a good thing.

Thanks for the tips, but I wish I could talk to another author. Someone who’s traveled this road before.

You’re in luck! For another perspective and more ideas on how you can get creative with book publicity, check out this post by Michael Chwe, whose exuberant, hands-on efforts helped his book, Jane Austen: Game Theorist, to garner widespread attention. This is a man who said he’d stop at nothing—not even Jane Austen kitten memes—to get his scholarly book out there.

If you’re not as proactively disposed as Chwe, don’t worry. Successful publicity campaigns come in many forms. Remember, too, that your book is supported by the collaborative efforts of multiple people and departments. Although every new author’s journey comes with a bit of anxiety, take a deep breath, set up a Google alert for your name, and raise a glass to yourself. Whatever you do, try to enjoy the ride.

Sincerely,
Your Publicist

Nicholas Higham on Mathematics in Color

We are excited to be running a series of posts on applied mathematics by Nicholas Higham over the next few weeks. Higham is editor of The Princeton Companion to Applied Mathematics, which is out this month. A slightly longer version of this post on color in mathematics can be found on Higham’s blog, and it has been cross posted at John Cook’s blog, The Endeavour. —PUP Blog Editor

Color is a fascinating subject. Important early contributions to our understanding of it came from physicists and mathematicians such as Newton, Young, Grassmann, Maxwell, and Helmholtz. Today, the science of color measurement and description is well established and we rely on it in our daily lives, from when we view images on a computer screen to when we order paint, wallpaper, or a car, of a specified color.

For practical purposes color space, as perceived by humans, is three-dimensional, because our retinas have three different types of cones, which have peak sensitivities at wavelengths corresponding roughly to red, green, and blue. It’s therefore possible to use linear algebra in three dimensions to analyze various aspects of color.

Metamerism

A good example of the use of linear algebra is to understand metamerism, which is the phenomenon whereby two objects can appear to have the same color but are actually giving off light having different spectral decompositions. This is something we are usually unaware of, but it is welcome in that color output systems (such as televisions and computer monitors) rely on it.

Mathematically, the response of the cones on the retina to light can be modeled as a matrix-vector product $Af$, where $A$ is a 3-by-$n$ matrix and $f$ is an $n$-vector that contains samples of the spectral distribution of the light hitting the retina. The parameter $n$ is a discretization parameter that is typically about 80 in practice. Metamerism corresponds to the fact that $Af_1 = Af_2$ is possible for different vectors $f_1$ and $f_2$. This equation is equivalent to saying that $Ag = 0$ for a nonzero vector $g =f_1-f_2$, or, in other words, that a matrix with fewer rows than columns has a nontrivial null space.

Metamerism is not always welcome. If you have ever printed your photographs on an inkjet printer you may have observed that a print that looked fine when viewed indoors under tungsten lighting can have a color cast when viewed in daylight.

LAB Space: Separating Color from Luminosity

In digital imaging the term channel refers to the grayscale image representing the values of the pixels in one of the coordinates, most often R, G, or B (for red, green, and blue) in an RGB image. It is sometimes said that an image has ten channels. The number ten is arrived at by combining coordinates from the representation of an image in three different color spaces. RGB supplies three channels, a space called LAB (pronounced “ell-A-B”) provides another three channels, and the last four channels are from CMYK (cyan, magenta, yellow, black), the color space in which all printing is done.

LAB is a rather esoteric color space that separates luminosity (or lightness, the L coordinate) from color (the A and B coordinates). In recent years photographers have realized that LAB can be very useful for image manipulations, allowing certain things to be done much more easily than in RGB. This usage is an example of a technique used all the time by mathematicians: if we can’t solve a problem in a given form then we transform it into another representation of the problem that we can solve.

As an example of the power of LAB space, consider this image of aeroplanes at Schiphol airport.

Original image.

Suppose that KLM are considering changing their livery from blue to pink. How can the image be edited to illustrate how the new livery would look? “Painting in” the new color over the old using the brush tool in image editing software would be a painstaking task (note the many windows to paint around and the darker blue in the shadow area under the tail). The next image was produced in
just a few seconds.

Image converted to LAB space and A channel flipped.

How was it done? The image was converted from RGB to LAB space (which is a nonlinear transformation) and then the coordinates of the A channel were replaced by their negatives. Why did this work? The A channel represents color on a green–magenta axis (and the B channel on a blue–yellow axis). Apart from the blue fuselage, most pixels have a small A component, so reversing the sign of this component doesn’t make much difference to them. But for the blue, which has a negative A component, this flipping of the A channel adds just enough magenta to make the planes pink.

You may recall from earlier this year the infamous photo of a dress that generated a huge amount of interest on the web because some viewers perceived the dress as being blue and black while others saw it as white and gold. A recent paper What Can We Learn from a Dress with Ambiguous Colors? analyzes both the photo and the original dress using LAB coordinates. One reason for using LAB in this context is its device independence, which contrasts with RGB, for which the coordinates have no universally agreed meaning.

The Princeton Companion to Applied Mathematics

Nicholas J. Higham is the Richardson Professor of Applied Mathematics at The University of Manchester, and editor of The Princeton Companion to Applied Mathematics. His article Color Spaces and Digital Imaging in The Princeton Companion to Applied Mathematics gives an introduction to the mathematics of color and the representation and manipulation of digital images. In particular, it emphasizes the role of linear algebra in modeling color and gives more detail on LAB space.

An interview with poet Fiona Sze-Lorrain on “The Ruined Elegance”

© Dominique Nabokov, 2015, Paris

Fiona Sze-Lorrain is a poet, literary translator, editor, and zheng harpist. In her new collection—an intercultural journey that traces lives, encounters, exiles, and memories from France, America, and Asia—she offers a nuanced yet dynamic vision of humanity marked by perils, surprises, and transcendence. Recently she took the time to answer some questions about The Ruined Elegance.

Can you speak a little about your writing process or how these poems came about?

FS: Almost every poem in this collection behaved like a beast. I lost whenever I tried to fight it, until I realized how far I missed the mark. “To question the options of elegy, I’ve probably chosen the wrong epic.” [from the poem “Back from the Aegean Sea”] Several verses and their poetic narratives were deviating at the start, in part because I had tried to be clever about a “lyric/anti-lyric.” I wanted silence and music. What better paradox could there be?

It did feel like a crisis when I could only pick these poems up from their “ruins.” I censored words and images even before saying them out loud or putting them down on the page. Part of my illusion had to do with my folly of “writing to tame vulnerability and speechlessness” on the page. While finding ways to cope, I felt drawn to reading poems that were gentle yet could sustain a certain emotional rawness and moral jolt. To recenter myself, I walked — from one arrondissement to another.

What colors come to mind when you revisit the poems in The Ruined Elegance?

FS: Violet, vermillion, and shades of gray-green. No vintage “black and white.”

Why not?

FS: Because I hope to have the poems operate beyond witnessing, documenting or commenting about their socio-historical sources, even if some of the thematic concerns relate to specific political events — these poems believe in history, but they don’t live in the past.

Why poetry?  What would you like to be if you weren’t a poet, literary translator, or zheng harpist?

FS: I didn’t plan to “be a poet.”  Poems and Bach bring me as much joy as doubt, though sometimes not as much company as would horses and trees.

Why poetry — because it can still resist greed and social constructs.  Were I not a poet or musician, I would like to play bridge professionally or practice herbology and phytotherapy.

What are some of your poetic influences?

FS: Dickinson, Lowell, Rimbaud, Milosz, Lorca, Białoszewski, Montale… as well as translations of Buddhist scriptures and Latin texts.

Please offer some reading recommendations for our readers.

FS: Proust’s À la recherche du temps perdu: it is my perennial “drug” or ritual.

I also recommend C.G. Jung’s The Red Book, Aesop’s Fables, photography catalogues of Tina Modotti, Susan Stewart’s On Longing, Pico Iyer’s The Open Road, Mark Strand’s Collected Poems, Simone de Beauvoir’s Une mort très douce [A Very Easy Death], and photographs of the Baudelairian Paris by Eugène Atget.

An excerpt from The Ruined Elegance. Note, the first line is after the last verse of her translation “Mirror,” by contemporary Chinese poet Zhang Zao, forthcoming from Zephyr Press:

Chapter one is available here.