So the rumor is that the whole faster than light neutrino result was actually due to a loose cable. While there may have been other issues with the result, the article that I linked to above claims that it was due to "a bad connection between a fiber optic cable that connects to the GPS receiver used to correct the timing of the neutrinos' flight and an electronic card in a computer." Apparently there was a delay in the equipment that was unaccounted for that equaled roughly 60 ns.
Having dealt with high precision time measurements before I know how difficult this can be. All electronic equipment has a delay and if you don't calculate it right your experiment will be off. It could also be that they had the wrong length of fiber (hey it happens!), but to get a delay that long they would have to have about 18m of extra fiber (again, it could happen). So I am banking on it being an electronics problem that caused the delay. So if this proves to be the case .... wow. Cautionary tale.
Pages
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Monday, February 13, 2012
I Just Hit a Total Twilight Moment
So today while I was grading homework for a numerical techniques class I came across something interesting. I noticed that one of the student's solutions were a little too advanced for their level of experience. This lead me to suspect that they were pulling solutions from other places. I looked up one potential source of solutions and found a slightly modified version of what the student had given to me (or I should say the version that the student gave me was slightly modified. The thing that tipped my off was the use of a Matlab command that I had never seem before and I had to go look it up!). Also the reason why I looked at this potential source is because this is not the first student that has taken solutions from this source (the first two(!) students that copied solutions just did copy and paste). So I was not surprised when I found yet another student used this particular source to copy solutions.
What did surprise me was the name of the student. The first two students that copied solutions shared a similar root to their names, in that (names have been changed) one had the first name "John" and the second had a last name of "Johns". The third student that I just caught today also had a first name of "John". So of the three students that copied solutions from the same source (over three different homework assignments) they all had the same root name in their first or last name, and they are the only ones with that root to their name in the entire class. I mean, of a class of 25 students and the diversity of names in the US, what is the probability of that? I expected pigs to start diffracting through doorways, the Chicago Cubs to win the world series and other equally unlikely events to happen. But nothing did, so I had my little twilight moment and wrote this blog post.
On a related note, how do your schools deal with problems like this? Here at UNC there seems to be a disproportionate response between departments regarding this type of thing. In the chemistry department, I am told, if they find that you so much as talk to another person about your homework then they will give you a zero on the assignment, if you work with someone else then they will penalize you harshly, and refer you to the honor code office. But it is not like that means much since our honor code office has been doing so well in distinguishing themselves (sorry I meant extinguishing themselves). In other departments they rely less on the honor code office, and a majority of professors actually prefer to handle all such cases themselves since they view the honor code office as somewhat of a burden. So how is it where you go to school and have you had to deal with this type of stuff?
What did surprise me was the name of the student. The first two students that copied solutions shared a similar root to their names, in that (names have been changed) one had the first name "John" and the second had a last name of "Johns". The third student that I just caught today also had a first name of "John". So of the three students that copied solutions from the same source (over three different homework assignments) they all had the same root name in their first or last name, and they are the only ones with that root to their name in the entire class. I mean, of a class of 25 students and the diversity of names in the US, what is the probability of that? I expected pigs to start diffracting through doorways, the Chicago Cubs to win the world series and other equally unlikely events to happen. But nothing did, so I had my little twilight moment and wrote this blog post.
On a related note, how do your schools deal with problems like this? Here at UNC there seems to be a disproportionate response between departments regarding this type of thing. In the chemistry department, I am told, if they find that you so much as talk to another person about your homework then they will give you a zero on the assignment, if you work with someone else then they will penalize you harshly, and refer you to the honor code office. But it is not like that means much since our honor code office has been doing so well in distinguishing themselves (sorry I meant extinguishing themselves). In other departments they rely less on the honor code office, and a majority of professors actually prefer to handle all such cases themselves since they view the honor code office as somewhat of a burden. So how is it where you go to school and have you had to deal with this type of stuff?
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
I Am Going To Graduate! (And Possibly Going To Back To Los Alamos.)
One glance at the Astro Rumor Mill, where the state of the cosmology/astrophysics jobs are being discussed, you will see that there are several hundred applicants applying for a lesser number of positions. (Which alone is stressful) Now add the fact that you start seeing other people's names get entered onto that page having received offers or being shortlisted while you are receiving rejection letters starting in December and you can get an understanding why come the end of January you might start feeling as stressed as you ever were awaiting the decision of whether you passed or failed the comprehensive exam.
I plan on making a couple blog posts on this as many of you will go through this yourself and I want you to be well prepared. :)
With all that out of the way, a quick glance at that rumor mill and you will find I was offered a Director's Fellowship at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. This is a good offer and it means, among other things: I will be able to graduate this year for sure!!! Graduate school is going to actually come to an end in the coming months!
Now, there is still time to receive other offers, for example the Hubble Fellowships have not yet been named which among many circles are considered a bit more prestigious, so it isn't 100% I will take this offer yet. However, I am very happy to have received this offer as the Director's Fellowship is a great offer and Los Alamos is a great institution to do research at. (And am happy and excited you know what offers you all will have in the coming years.)
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
On Barbed Wire Fences and Internet Freedom
When I was in High School I had an excellent American History teacher. One of the things he taught us about was the role of the frontier in the development of the American psyche. He was of course introducing us to Frederick Jackson Turner's Frontier Thesis which emphasizes the role of the American frontier in the development of American ideas of freedom, liberty, and property. Because of the availability of seemingly endless amounts of open land and resources Americans developed a strong rugged individualism and seemingly boundless optimism than was not present in European societies.
All this began to change when in 1874 Joseph Glidden was granted a patent for wrapping a small wire in between two longer intertwined wires. This short, sharp wire, called a barb, would become the critical part of what is now called barbed wire. This simple invention would radically revolutionize the shape and character of the American West (and would go on to change warfare, fortifications, security and crowd control). Over the next few years barbed wire would divide up the historically open range land and would restrict the free and open movement of people and cattle.
The change was not immediate, but over the next several decades the change came in fits and spurts. In some cases the changing dynamic was manifest in the Range Wars of the late 1800's. The open range cowboys and ranchers fought the fences and farmers for access to water and grazing land. This type of conflict became so typical that it would later be immortalized in the many Westerns made in the 50's and 60's. Perhaps one of the most famous movies in this genre was The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.
Despite all this it was not until 1893 that Frederick Jackson Turner declared the closing of the American frontier, and wondered how the closing would change American society. Even though we "ran out of new land" to populate, Americans were able to find new frontiers. We moved into new technologies. We were inspired to go into space and even reached the moon. For a while space became our final frontier.
Due to some minor issues with space travel it seemed that that frontier would have to wait. This is when the frontier of cyber space opened up to us. Again we had before us a seemingly endless and uncharted territory where we could go and range free. Just as in the 1800's the frontier is being populated and is playing a significant role in the shaping of our society. But just as history repeats itself (or at least rhymes) we are again faced with the barbed wire of our age. It is coming in many forms, and most recently it has made an appearance in the form of two bills before the American Congress.
Some people are staunchly opposed to these bills (or any form of control, for that matter), while others are concerned about the apparent lawlessness of the Internet and think that something must be done. I have seen some comments about how people are just over reacting and that this will not actually change the face of the Internet since the same powers that be that are pushing these bill have an interest in keeping it the way it is. It is hard to say how these bills, or any other approach would change the Internet, but if history is any clue then we are in the midst of a modern day electronic range war. The question is, will the Internet remain open range land or will we accept and keep some form of electronic barbed wire. The are benefits to both, but it is debatable if the American psyche will allow the barbed wire to happen or if it will force the frontier to remain how it is.
Now I must admit that there important differences between the range wars and barbed wire of the 1800's and the issues of Internet freedom but as I mentioned before, even if history does not repeat itself it will at least rhyme. Still, we are perhaps in a pivotal moment in history where our last immediately available frontier may be closing and we are left to wonder how that will affect our lives, our society and our future. Or this may not be the pivotal moment in history, but we won't know until the history books are written.
All this began to change when in 1874 Joseph Glidden was granted a patent for wrapping a small wire in between two longer intertwined wires. This short, sharp wire, called a barb, would become the critical part of what is now called barbed wire. This simple invention would radically revolutionize the shape and character of the American West (and would go on to change warfare, fortifications, security and crowd control). Over the next few years barbed wire would divide up the historically open range land and would restrict the free and open movement of people and cattle.The change was not immediate, but over the next several decades the change came in fits and spurts. In some cases the changing dynamic was manifest in the Range Wars of the late 1800's. The open range cowboys and ranchers fought the fences and farmers for access to water and grazing land. This type of conflict became so typical that it would later be immortalized in the many Westerns made in the 50's and 60's. Perhaps one of the most famous movies in this genre was The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.
Despite all this it was not until 1893 that Frederick Jackson Turner declared the closing of the American frontier, and wondered how the closing would change American society. Even though we "ran out of new land" to populate, Americans were able to find new frontiers. We moved into new technologies. We were inspired to go into space and even reached the moon. For a while space became our final frontier.
Due to some minor issues with space travel it seemed that that frontier would have to wait. This is when the frontier of cyber space opened up to us. Again we had before us a seemingly endless and uncharted territory where we could go and range free. Just as in the 1800's the frontier is being populated and is playing a significant role in the shaping of our society. But just as history repeats itself (or at least rhymes) we are again faced with the barbed wire of our age. It is coming in many forms, and most recently it has made an appearance in the form of two bills before the American Congress.
Some people are staunchly opposed to these bills (or any form of control, for that matter), while others are concerned about the apparent lawlessness of the Internet and think that something must be done. I have seen some comments about how people are just over reacting and that this will not actually change the face of the Internet since the same powers that be that are pushing these bill have an interest in keeping it the way it is. It is hard to say how these bills, or any other approach would change the Internet, but if history is any clue then we are in the midst of a modern day electronic range war. The question is, will the Internet remain open range land or will we accept and keep some form of electronic barbed wire. The are benefits to both, but it is debatable if the American psyche will allow the barbed wire to happen or if it will force the frontier to remain how it is.
Now I must admit that there important differences between the range wars and barbed wire of the 1800's and the issues of Internet freedom but as I mentioned before, even if history does not repeat itself it will at least rhyme. Still, we are perhaps in a pivotal moment in history where our last immediately available frontier may be closing and we are left to wonder how that will affect our lives, our society and our future. Or this may not be the pivotal moment in history, but we won't know until the history books are written.
What I Meant to Say...(aka Cultures for Quals)
Not long ago I posted about passing the PhD qualifying exam. Hooray! I provided a rather informational view of the prelim process (what you'd find on our Aerospace Dept. web page at the University of Michigan), and then a recapitulation of some of the culture surrounding the process.
As every student can attest, the culture surrounding professors, exams, and classes is usually fairly loaded with tradition, and reputation for the class itself, the tests, and the professors teaching. The culture surrounding the PhD qualifying exam is even more encumbered with these traits because of the gravity associated with arguably the most important test in a student's career. In our dept. the PhD qualifying exam was recently changed (as I mentioned in the first post), and unsurprisingly the culture surrounding the exam changed alongside it.
In years past (so I'm told) students got together many months in advance and began studying. Practice sessions were numerous with plenty of example problems. Those practice sessions were often conducted by students who previously passed the exam. A camaraderie was established between those students that lasted far beyond the exam. Despite the individual nature of the exam, the students made a group effort, and there was strength in numbers. Celebration afterwards consisted of a night of binge drinking followed by a solid month of surfing the web in lieu of research (well that's what I've been led to believe ;-) ).
Today's culture is a bit different. The group camaraderie isn't quite as strong, the celebration shorter, the preparation more individual, and to my knowledge few students having passed the exam are willing to donate their time to the cause of future quals takers. Perhaps this is good to some extent. At least one important upshot of the change is the large number of practice sessions generously conducted by the faculty. Those practice sessions, without doubt, for me, were the most important part of preparation for the PhD qualifying exam. Were they tortuous as one professor regularly joked about? Yes. Were some professors hard on us? Yes. Did they bring out a slew of tricky problems not covered in class? Yes. But I don't believe for a second that any of us who took the exam would deny the importance of being instructed, especially in such a small group setting, by admittedly some of the world's best experts in our area of education. Let me be crystal clear here: despite whatever "torture" was inflicted, despite being pushed to the limits, and feeling that self-destruction was inevitable for being forced to derive the EOMs of a glider (which I of course learned how to do after the fact, which I think is the point of all this education anyway), the benefits far outweighed the costs, and I sincerely doubt my ability to pass that exam without the help I received in this regard. My feeling is that these practice sessions (a far cry from merely being a chance to torture pathetic grad students) really represent the desire of faculty to help promising researchers be successful and appropriately represent the institution they know and love.
This is one aspect of the culture of our quals that I really hope sticks around. The binge drinking can go (I don't drink anyway), and I'd get bored after about a week of surfing the web. But the instruction provided here in our dept. from top-notch faculty really is unparalleled and I would be sad to see those faculty conducted practice sessions stopped, especially if faculty felt it was unappreciated.
For my own part, I think it is important to show that former quals takers recognize the importance of and are willing to conduct practice sessions with the next gen quals takers. Rekindling that camaraderie, the passing of the torch, and the support from generations past creates the potential for developing strong relationships, increase academic prowess, and represent the university even better.
...and that's what I really meant to say.
As every student can attest, the culture surrounding professors, exams, and classes is usually fairly loaded with tradition, and reputation for the class itself, the tests, and the professors teaching. The culture surrounding the PhD qualifying exam is even more encumbered with these traits because of the gravity associated with arguably the most important test in a student's career. In our dept. the PhD qualifying exam was recently changed (as I mentioned in the first post), and unsurprisingly the culture surrounding the exam changed alongside it.
In years past (so I'm told) students got together many months in advance and began studying. Practice sessions were numerous with plenty of example problems. Those practice sessions were often conducted by students who previously passed the exam. A camaraderie was established between those students that lasted far beyond the exam. Despite the individual nature of the exam, the students made a group effort, and there was strength in numbers. Celebration afterwards consisted of a night of binge drinking followed by a solid month of surfing the web in lieu of research (well that's what I've been led to believe ;-) ).
Today's culture is a bit different. The group camaraderie isn't quite as strong, the celebration shorter, the preparation more individual, and to my knowledge few students having passed the exam are willing to donate their time to the cause of future quals takers. Perhaps this is good to some extent. At least one important upshot of the change is the large number of practice sessions generously conducted by the faculty. Those practice sessions, without doubt, for me, were the most important part of preparation for the PhD qualifying exam. Were they tortuous as one professor regularly joked about? Yes. Were some professors hard on us? Yes. Did they bring out a slew of tricky problems not covered in class? Yes. But I don't believe for a second that any of us who took the exam would deny the importance of being instructed, especially in such a small group setting, by admittedly some of the world's best experts in our area of education. Let me be crystal clear here: despite whatever "torture" was inflicted, despite being pushed to the limits, and feeling that self-destruction was inevitable for being forced to derive the EOMs of a glider (which I of course learned how to do after the fact, which I think is the point of all this education anyway), the benefits far outweighed the costs, and I sincerely doubt my ability to pass that exam without the help I received in this regard. My feeling is that these practice sessions (a far cry from merely being a chance to torture pathetic grad students) really represent the desire of faculty to help promising researchers be successful and appropriately represent the institution they know and love.
This is one aspect of the culture of our quals that I really hope sticks around. The binge drinking can go (I don't drink anyway), and I'd get bored after about a week of surfing the web. But the instruction provided here in our dept. from top-notch faculty really is unparalleled and I would be sad to see those faculty conducted practice sessions stopped, especially if faculty felt it was unappreciated.
For my own part, I think it is important to show that former quals takers recognize the importance of and are willing to conduct practice sessions with the next gen quals takers. Rekindling that camaraderie, the passing of the torch, and the support from generations past creates the potential for developing strong relationships, increase academic prowess, and represent the university even better.
...and that's what I really meant to say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)