Of covalent bonds and muon catalyzed cold fusion.

Leave a reply

A hydrogen molecule consists of two protons held together by a covalent bond. One way to think of such bonds is to imagine that there is only one electron is directly involved as shown below. The bonding electron only spends 1/7 of its time between the protons, making the bond, the other 6/7 of the time the electron shields the two protons by 3/7 e– each, reducing the effective charge of each proton to 4/7e+.

We see that the two shielded protons will repel each other with the force of FR = Ke (16/49 e2 /r2) where e is the charge of an electron or proton, r is the distance between the protons (r = 0.74Å = 0.74×10-10m), and Ke is Coulomb’s electrical constant, Ke ≈ 8.988×109 N⋅m2⋅C−2. The attractive force is calculated similarly, as each proton attracts the central electron by FA = – Ke (4/49) e2/ (r/2)2. The forces are seen to be in balance, the net force is zero.

It is because of quantum mechanics, that the bond is the length that it is. If the atoms were to move closer than r = 0.74Å, the central electron would be confined to less space and would get more energy, causing it to spend less time between the two protons. With less of an electron between them, FR would be greater than FA and the protons would repel. If the atoms moved further apart than 0.74Å, a greater fraction of the electron would move to the center, FA would increase, and the atoms would attract. This is a fairly pleasant way to understand why the hydrogen side of all hydrogen covalent bonds are the same length. It’s also a nice introduction to muon-catalyzed cold fusion.

Most fusion takes place only at high temperatures, at 100 million °C in a TOKAMAK Fusion reactor, or at about 15 million °C in the high pressure interior of the sun. Muon catalyzed fusion creates the equivalent of a much higher pressure, so that fusion occurs at room temperature. The trick to muon catalyzed fusion is to replace one of the electrons with a muon, an unstable, heavy electron particle discovered in 1936. The muon, designated µ-, behaves just like an electron but it has about 207 times the mass. As a result when it replaces an electron in hydrogen, it forms form a covalent bond that is about 1/207th the length of a normal bond. This is the equivalent of extreme pressure. At this closer distance, hydrogen nuclei fuse even at room temperature.

In normal hydrogen, the nuclei are just protons. When they fuse, one of them becomes a neutron. You get a deuteron (a proton-neutron pair), plus an anti electron and 1.44 MeV of energy after the anti-electron has annihilated (for more on antimatter see here). The muon is released most of the time, and can catalyze many more fusion reactions. See figure at right.

While 1.44MeV per reaction is a lot by ordinary standards — roughly one million times more energy than is released per atom when hydrogen is burnt — it’s very little compared to the energy it takes to make a muon. Making a muon takes a minimum of 1000 MeV, and more typically 4000 MeV using current technology. You need to get a lot more energy per muon if this process is to be useful.

You get quite a lot more energy when a muon catalyzes deuterium fusion or deuterium- fusion. With these reactions, you get 3.3 to 4 MeV worth of energy per fusion, and the muon will be ejected with enough force to support about eight D-D fusions before it decays or sticks to a helium atom. That’s better than before, but still not enough to justify the cost of making the muon.

The next reactions to consider are D-T fusion and Li-D fusion. Tritium is an even heavier isotope of hydrogen. It undergoes muon catalyzed fusion with deuterium via the reaction, D+T –> 4He +n +17.6 MeV. Because of the higher energy of the reaction, the muons are even less likely to stick to a helium atom, and you get about 100 fusions per muon. 100 x 17.6 MeV = 1.76 GeV, barely break-even for the high energy cost to make the muon, but there is no reason to stop there. You can use the high energy fusion neutrons to catalyze LiD fusion. For example, 2LiD +n –> 34He + T + D +n producing 19.9 MeV and a tritium atom.

With this additional 19.9 MeV per DT fusion, the system can start to produce usable energy for sale. It is also important that tritium is made in the process. You need tritium for the fusion reactions, and there are not many other supplies. The spare neutron is interesting too. It can be used to make additional tritium or for other purposes. It’s a direction I’d like to explore further. I worked on making tritium for my PhD, and in my opinion, this sort of hybrid operation is the most attractive route to clean nuclear fusion power.

Robert Buxbaum, September 8, 2022. For my appraisal of hot fusion, see here.

Religions unite to condemn “Life of Brian”, 1979

Leave a reply

Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” presents the fictional story of Brian, someone born in the stable next door on Christmas Day, who is repeatedly mistaken for the messiah by a crowd that never gets the message right. We follow Brain as he grows and preaches wisdom, like “Think for yourselves, work it out, you’re all individuals.” The crowd then answers, in unison, “Yes! We’re all individuals.” Eventually Brian joins the People’s Liberation Front of Judea and is crucified by the Romans. Brian’s thoughts aren’t bad, but the humor is how completely his followers mess them up. Another example, near the end of the film, happens with Brian on the cross. A band of fanatical followers comes to the rescue, his “suicide squad”. They proceed to commit suicide, See it here. Brian can only say, “You silly sots.” It’s comedy. It’s a funny/sad take on religious martyrs, and it provoked a united condemnation by the three great religions because the comedy is relevant, and thus dangerous.

The movie opened in the Us, and was called “blasphemous” by the Catholic Church, and “a crime against religion.” The Catholic film-monitoring office rated it “C” for Condemned. Among Jewish leaders, Rabbi Abraham Hecht of Chabad/Lubovich asked to have the movie banned as a danger to civic peace. Chabad/Lubovich was promoting their own leader as the messiah (he had not proclaimed himself) so the film must have touched a particularly sensitive nerve.

Brian, center top, is thought to be the messiah, and reluctantly accepts the role, only to have it screwed up.

Rabbi Hecht claimed, in The New York Times, Aug 28, 1979, “This film is so grievously insulting that we are genuinely concerned that its continued showing could result in serious violence.” He was joined by the Union of Orthodox Rabbis and the Rabbinical Council of Syrian and Near Eastern Sephardic Communities of America, asking to have the movie banned. They had not asked to have any other movies banned before or since.

The US protestant opposition was headed by Robert Lee of the Lutheran council, who called it “a profane parody” in a broadcast carried by 1,000 radio stations. The religions united to buy a 1 page protest in “Variety,” a rare show of unity. The movie was banned in Italy, Ireland, Chile, Norway, parts of Britain (as a health danger), and likely many other countries. Ireland waited 8 years for a showing; Italy waited twenty years; Aberystwyth, Wales waited thirty years. The ban hasn’t yet been lifted in any of these places, by the way, nor have the religious bans been lifted. It seems that all religions agree you should not think for yourself abut God, or imagine that the leaders might have got things wrong.

The bishop of Southwark, on TV, making the case that “Life of Brian” was an attack on Christianity. It was just an attack on leaders like him.

In Britain, the effort to ban the movie were spearheaded by the “Festival of Lights,” a Protestant group. A leader of that group, Malcolm Muggeridge, debated two of the Pythons on TV, joined by Mervyn Stockwood, bishop of Southwark. See the full Life of Brian 1979 Debate, here. Malcolm Muggeridge had been editor of Punch, Britain’s top humor magazine. He argued that the movie was unfunny. Bishop Stockwood was considered a liberal, known to favor homosexual marriage within the church. He would not tolerate religious deviance, though and argued that the movie was sacrilegious, especially the song at the end. Neither individual seems to listen to anything the Pythons say. Stockwood ended the debate by saying that the Pythons “would get their 20 pieces of silver, that’s for sure”.

Abraham Hecht before the man he claimed was the messiah-king; He called “Life of Brian” a grave danger, and called for Israeli assassinations.

Despite being banned in many countries and by all major religions, the movie was financial success, in part because of the controversy. Its enemies too, in part for their controversy. The Festival of Lights gained notoriety for the protests of sex and violence in the movies. The Catholic Church banned more movies: Shaft, Rambo, Friday the 13th, and all the Borat movies. Rabbi Hecht protested the Israeli rabbinate for making conversion too easy, then pushed the idea that gentiles have to live by a Lubovich interpretation of “The Laws of Noach.” And finally, in June 1995, Hecht pressed for the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres: “Such people should be killed before they can perform the deed.” [the Oslo accords]. Rabin was assassinated five months later — after the accords were signed. Hecht was presented with a 6 month leave from his pulpit. There were no general condemnations of the banners within their sects, though. All seem to agree that religion is about loving your neighbor, and banning or assassinating those who are not loving enough.

The most contentious part of the movie is the song at the end. It has become popular at funerals and with the terminally ill: “Always look on the bright side of life.” It’s comforting without being preachy: “When you’re chewing on life’s gristle, don’t grumble, give a whistle, and this will help things turn out for the best. And always look on the bright side of life….” Bishop Stockton found this song the most offensive part, and my sense of why is that, as a bishop, he feels he must be seen to stand between you and God. No one like that wants a terminally ill person to look at him and “give a whistle.”

Robert Buxbaum, September 2, 2022. I’ve previous written about the use of miracles in religion, and that total loyalty does not serve the follower, and doesn’t even help the leader.

Ron Weasley plays great chess, better than Voldemort.

Leave a reply

Every now and again a book or movie includes a chess game. Generally, it’s in a story where death is on the line. It’s a literary device used to indicate high mental acumen of the people involved, particularly the one who wins. As an example, in “Sherlock Holmes, A Game of Shadows”, 2011, Holmes plays Moriarty, each calling out moves far advanced for the 1800s. It emphasizes these individuals’ super-smarts. Holmes wins at the end, of course. The Ingrid Berman film, “The Seventh Seal” is similar, with the chess game played against death himself. The knight shows himself a more-than-worth opponent. And that brings us to Ron Weasley in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, book 1 of the series, and movie, Ron Weasley is presented as a sort-of fool throughout the series. He’s mostly as source of background information about wizarding, but in one episode standout, he plays brilliantly with giant-size chess men against a magical intelligence, and wins. After the game, one that is described as one of the best ever, Ron goes back to being the goof-ball he was throughout. His chess skills don’t come up again, or do they. It’s a well written series, so what’s the point of including the game?

Position of pieces in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s stone (movie).

To see how brilliant Ron’s play is, recall that Ron is eleven years old in book 1. He, Harry, and Hermione enter a mysterious room filled with menacing statues. Ron immediately realizes it’s a chess board, and infers that they must win as black to pass through. He further infers that the piece representing Harry must make the checkmate. Two or three pieces are missing, and Ron infers that Harry’s character must replace one of these and become the mating piece. If you’ve ever played a decent computer, you know it’s very hard to win as white (in the 90s you could still win). This ghost intelligence plays quite well, and it’s almost impossible to win if you need to have a particular minor piece make the mate. In the movie, Ron plays as black and reaches the position shown with Harry as the king’s bishop and Hermione as a rook. He is down in material, but has laid a very good trap. The white queen captures the “free pawn” on d3, violently threatening the Harry-bishop. Ron interposes the rook to c3 forcing the white queen to take the rook. At this point, Ron could win by B-c5+, QxB, N-h3 mate, but that would sacrifice Harry and leave Ron as the winning piece. Both Ron and Hermione realize this, and Ron causes Harry to make the checkmate by N-h3+, QxN, B-c5+, Q-f3, BxQ mate. Ron is injured when QxN — a sacrifice in both senses of the word.

Death plays chess, painting by Albertus Pictor, 1480

It’s an impressive display of chess skill, and Dumbledore is right in saying it’s one of the best games. No normal player could manage a game like that, certainly no eleven year old. Normally such a display would be used to present Ron as the group brain, or at least as a very deep thinker. If so, why does the author have Ron revert to his care-free, stupid persona with chess never showing up.

We see that Voldemort, the arch villain, won his game too, and only lost a few pieces doing it. That Voldemort is good at chess is no surprise; it goes with his deep-thinking persona. We don’t see Voldemort’s game, but I can infer that he won via the Trailer gambit. It’s a fairly tricky win, but the only way that I know where you win as black losing only a kings bishop, a rook, and a knight, the pieces that Ron and his friends replaced. The Queen is the winning piece, though, and that’s a lot simpler than winning with a bishop. Ron’s win is far more sophisticated, a surprise given Ron’s behavior and how he is treated.

Perhaps it’s just bad writing, or an effort to show Ron is good at something, but I thought to do a quick re-read of Ron’s early appearance in book 2. Here I find that Ron is bright and motivated, but overshadowed. Early in the book, we find 12 year old Ron picking a lock using a hat pin, and driving a flying car reasonably well. We don’t think this is exceptional because his brothers do all this first, but it is exceptional: imagine tryin to drive a regular car with no instruction at 12. Later we find that Ron learns the fine points of Quidditch without native skill or a coach, just using a book, and we find that Dumbledore picks him to prefect, instead of Harry, a job he does well. Finally, we find that Hermione prefers Ron to Harry. It’s a somewhat surprising turn because she’s supposed to be the brains of the trio. How could she stand to be with Ron? Perhaps she is one of the few people who sees that Ron is bright. Dumbledore is too.

Viewed this way, the chess game becomes the first of the examples of Ron’s brainpower, and becomes an important foreshadowing to a surprise at the end of the last book/movie, to the final battle against Voldemort. In that battle, while everyone else is throwing hexes, Ron is the one who realizes that, to win the war, he must go to the basement chamber and collect basilisk teeth. It’s chess thinking: he’s focused on the king, on Voldemort, while everyone else is dealing with side threats. In a sense, it’s Ron who defeats Voldemort. The chess game is a foreshadowing, and fits with Hermione’s choice of Ron over Harry.

Robert Buxbaum, August 26, 2022. If you like chess puzzles, find some here. And in “Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey,” 1991, the brilliance idea is sort-of reversed. Bill and Ted play against death in battleship, twister, and clue, and win. It’s used to show that death is sort of random, and sort of stupid.

Arctic Ice has shrunk 1.5% since ’99 and Gore’s inconvenient truth. Is this bad?

2 Replies

At the 1999 Copenhagen Climate Change Summit, Al Gore announced an inconvenient truth: “There is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.” It was a bold prediction, part of a campaign that got Mr Gore a Nobel Prize and motivated the US to devote billions to stopping global warming. Supposedly 98% of scientists agreed with Mr. Gore and his remedies. Prince Charles and Bill Gates too. Twenty three years later there is still arctic ice, 98.5% as much as in 1999. Two questions arise: 1. Is the ice loss bad? and 2. Why were those 98% of scientists so wrong?

Arctic sea ice extent 1999-2021
Arctic sea ice extent when Al Gore spoke (1999) and since. Not much change, nor clearly for the worse

The second question is far easier than the first: the 98% number was bogus, a lie, like many other climate lies that followed. it was effective at stopping argument, and could not be checked immediately. It bullied scientists who argued that global warming wasn’t bad, or wasn’t man-made, and it gave do-gooders the ability to label their opponents “liars” and “science deniers”. The claim of 98% was used to silence scientists with long, prominent careers. Deniers lost their funding and were no longer published. Other scientists learned to keep quiet. Twenty years later, when the arctic ice wasn’t gone and antarctic ice hit a record extent, the deniers’ careers largely were gone.

Scientists are not stupid, nor independently rich, for the most part. They are dependent on government funding and their employers, the universities are too. As a group they (we) are incapable of stemming the tide of public opinion. This week Biden signed a nearly 1 trillion dollar bill to stop climate change. Every scientist with a chance to get the money will go for it. Whether or not they think a colder earth is good, they will claim it is in their proposals, and imply that their work can stop the natural chaos that is climate. They will ask for their share of the $1T to study the appropriate things: solar cells, corn-based power, and wind turbines. The proposals will not mention the huge costs in mining or land use. Scientists already know they can not get funded for nuclear power, though it works and produces no CO2, nor should can scientists benefit by criticizing China, as the largest source of CO2. That is seen as undermine the green effort at home. When we stop manufacturing at home, BTW, we end up buying the same materials manufactured in China, where they really generate lots of pollution. When asked about this, Biden’s climate chief said not to worry about it, we had to do our part, and Biden would speak to the Chinese. The result is the biggest buildup in coal-fired power plants in the world, with more coming on line.

This second question is at least as important as the first one: is less arctic ice bad? Or, asking more generally, is a warm earth bad? It’s an opinion question; it’s in no way science, impossible to answer definitively. Cold weather is bad for food production, and that’s bad for people, in general. Most people prefer to live where it’s warm, I find. Supposedly polar bears prefer it cold, but I don’t know for sure. I’m not keen to go back to the climate of the ice ages, 10,000- 100,000 years ago when ice covered Canada and you could walk from France to England. I’m not convinced that life was better when the world was 1°C colder. The sea was lower in 1900, but had been higher in the year zero. Less arctic ice means easier shipping. For all I know we may want to make a Northwest Passage. More food and a easier shipping are the convenient truths about global warming.

Robert Buxbaum, August 19, 2022. If you believe any of what I said about Gore/Biden’s green energy, you may like a movie by Michael Moore, Planet of the Humans, see it here. The political greens are not saving energy or cooling the planet, and they know it. It’s a money maker.

Atenolol, not good for the heart, maybe good for the doctor.

1 Reply

Atenolol and related beta blockers have been found to be effective reducing blood pressure and heart rate. Since high blood pressure is a warning sign for heart problems, doctors have been prescribing atenolol and related beta blockers for all sorts of heart problems, even problems that are not caused by high blood pressure. I was prescribed metoprolol and then atenolol for Atrial Fibrillation, A-Fib, beginning 2 yeas ago, even though I have low-moderate blood pressure. For someone like me, it might have been deadly. Even for patients with moderately high blood pressure (hypertension) studies suggest there is no heart benefit to atenolol and related ß-blockers, and only minimal stroke and renal benefit. As early as 1985 (37 years ago) the Medical Research Council trial found that “ß blockers are relatively ineffective for primary treatment of hypertensive outcomes.”

End point. Relative risk. 95% CI. All-cause mortality Cardiovascular mortality MI Stroke Carlberg B et al. Lancet 2004; 364:1684–1689.

There lots of adverse side-effects to atenolol, as listed at the end of this post. More recent studies (e.g. Carlsberg et al., at right) continue to find no positive effects on the heart, but lots of negatives. A review in Lancet (2004) 364,1684–9 was titled, “Review: atenolol may be ineffective for reducing cardiovascular morbidity or all cause mortality in hypertension” (link here). “In patients with essential hypertension, atenolol is not better than placebo or no treatment for reducing cardiovascular morbidity or all cause mortality.” It further concluded that, “compared to other antihypertensive drugs, it [atenolol] may increase the risk of stroke or death.” I showed this and related studies to my doctor, and pointed out that I have averaged to low blood pressure, but he persisted in pushing this drug, something that seems common among medical men. My guess is that the advertising or doctor subsidies are spectacular. By contrast, aspirin has long been known to be effective for heart problems; my doctor said to go off aspirin.

The graph at right is from “Trial of Secondary Prevention with Atenolol after transient Ischemic Attack or Nondisabling Ischemic Stroke”, published in Stroke, 24 4 (1993), (see link here). a Thje study involved 1473 at-risk patients, randomly prescribed atenolol or placebo. It found no outcome benefit from atenolol, and several negatives. After 3 years, in two equal-size randomized groups, there were 64 deaths among the atenolol group, 58 among the placebo group; there were 11 fatal strokes with atenolol, versus 8 with placebo. There were somewhat fewer non-fatal strokes with atenolol, but the sum-total of fatal and non-fatal strokes was equal; there were 81 in each group.

“Trial of Secondary Prevention with Atenolol after transient Ischemic Attack or Nondisabling Ischemic Stroke”, published in Stroke, 24 4 (1993).

Newer beta blockers seem marginally better, as in “Effect of nebivolol or atenolol vs. placebo on cardiovascular health in subjects with borderline blood pressure: the EVIDENCE study.” “Nebivolol (NEB) in contrast to atenolol (ATE) may have a beneficial effect on endothelial function …. there was no significant change in the ATE and PLAC groups.” My question: why not use one of these, or better yet aspirin. Aspirin is shown to be beneficial, and relatively side-effect free. If you tolerate aspirin, and most people do, beneficial has to be better than maybe beneficial.

Among atenolol’s ugly side effects, as listed by the Mayo Clinic, there are: tiredness, sweating, shortness of breath, confusion, loss of sex drive, cold fingers and toes, diarrhea, nausea, and general confusion. I had some of these. There was no increase in heart stability (decrease in A-fib). My heart rate went as low at 32 bpm at night. My doctor was unconcerned, but I was. I suspected the low heart rate put me at extreme risk. Eventually, the same doctor gave me ablation therapy, and that seemed to cure the A-Fib.

Following my ablation, I was told I could get off atenolol. I then discovered another negative effect of atenolol: you have to ease off it or your heart will race. If you have A-fib, or modest hypertension, consider aspirin, eliquis, ablation, or exercise. If you are prescribed atenolol for heart issues and don’t have symptoms of very-high blood pressure, consider other options and/or changing doctors.

Robert Buxbaum, August 14, 2022

Curing my heart fibrillation with ablation.

1 Reply

Two years ago, I was diagnosed with Atrial fibrillation, A-Fib in common parlance, a condition where my heart would sometimes speed up to double its normal speed. I was prescribed metopolol and then atenolol, common beta blockers, and a C-Pap for sleep apnea. None of this seemed to help, as best I could tell from occasional pulse measurements with watch and a finger pulse-oxometer. Besides, the C-Pap was giving me cough and the beta blockers made me dizzy. And the literature on C-Pap did not impress.

So, some moths ago, I bought an iWatch. The current versions allows you to take EKGs and provides a continuous record of your heart rate. This was very helpful, as I saw that my heart rate was transitioning to chaos. While it was normally predictable, it would zoom to 130 or so at some point virtually every day. Even more alarming, it would slow down to the mid 30s at some point during the night, bradycardia, and I could see it was getting worse. At that point, I agreed to go on eliquis, a blood thinner, and agreed to a catheter ablation. The doctor put a catheter into my heart by way of a leg vein, and zapped various nerve centers in the heart. The result is that my heart is back into normal behavior. See the heart-rate readout from my iWatch below; before and after are dramatically different.

My heart rate for the last month, very variable before the ablation treatment, 2 weeks ago; a far less variable range of heart rates in the two weeks following the treatment. Heart rate data is from my iPhone and iwatch — a good investment, IMHO.

The reason I chose ablation over drugs or no therapy was that I read health-studies on line. I’ve go a PhD, and that training helps me to understand the papers I’ve read, but you should read them too. They are not that hard to understand. Though ablation didn’t appear as a panacea, it was clearly better than the alternatives. Particularly relevant was the CABANA study on life expectancy. CABANA stands for “Catheter ABlation vs ANtiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation – CABANA”. https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/clinical-trials/2018/05/10/15/57/cabana.

2,204 individuals with persistent AF were followed for 5 years after treatment, 37% female, 63% male, average age 67.5. Prior hospitalization for AF: 39%. The results were as follows:

  • Death: 5.2% for ablation vs. 6.1% for drug therapy (p = 0.38)
  • Serious stroke: 0.3% for ablation vs. 0.6% for drug therapy (p = 0.19)
  • All-cause mortality: 4.4% for ablation vs. 7.5% for drug therapy (p = 0.005)
  • Death or CV hospitalization: 51.7% for ablation vs. 58.1% for drug therapy (p = 0.002)
  • Pericardial effusion with ablation: 3.0%; ablation-related events: 1.8%
  • First recurrent AF/atrial flutter/atrial tachycardia: 53.8% vs. 71.9% (p < 0.0001)

I found all of this significant, including the fact that 27.5% of those on the drug treatment crossed over to have ablation while only 9.2% on the ablation side crossed to have the drug treatment.

I must give a plug for doctor Ahmed at Beaumont Hospital who did the ablation. He does about 200 of these a year, and does them well. Do not go to an amateur. I was less-than impressed with him pushing the beta-blocker hard; I’ll write about that. Also, get an iWatch if you think you may have A-Fib or any other heart problem. You see a lot, just by watching, so to speak.

Robert Buxbaum, August 3, 2022.

Three identical strangers, and the genetics of personality

1 Reply

Inheritability of traits is one of the greatest of insights; it’s so significant and apparent, that one who does not accept it may safely be called a dullard. Personal variation exists, but most everyone accepts that if your parents are tall, you are likely to be tall; If they are dark, you too will likely be dark, etc., but when it comes to intelligence, or proclivities, or psychological leanings, it is more than a little impolite to acknowledge that genetics holds sway. This unwillingness is glaringly apparent in the voice-over narration of a popular movie about three identical triplets who were raised separately without knowing of one another. The movie is “Three identical strangers”, and it recounts their meeting, and their life afterwards.

Triplets, raised separately, came out near identical.

As one might expect, given my introduction, though raised separately, the three showed near identical intelligence, and near identical proclivities: two of them picked the same out-of-the way college. All of them liked the same sort of clothes and had the same taste in women. There were differences as well: one was a more outgoing, one was depressed, but in many ways, they were identical. Meanwhile, the voice-over kept saying things like, “isn’t it a shame that we never saw any results on nature/nurture from this study.” Let me clear this us: genetics applies to psychology too. It’s not all genetics, but it is at least as influential as upbringing/ nurture.

This movie also included pairs of identical twins, raised separately, they also showed strong personality similarities. It’s a finding that is well replicated in broader studies involving siblings raised separately, and unrelated adoptees raised together. Blood, it seems, is stronger than nurture. See for example the research survey paper, “Genetic Influence on Human Psychological Traits” Journal of the American Psychological Society 13-4, pp 148-151 (2004). A table from that paper appears below. Genetics plays a fairly strong role in all personal traits including intelligence, personality, self-control, mental illness, criminality, political views (even mobile phone use). The role is age-dependent, though so that intelligence (test determined) is strongly environment-dependent in 5 year olds, almost entirely genetic in 25-50 year olds. One area that is not strongly genetic, it seems, is religion.

In a sense, the only thing surprising about this result is that anyone is surprised. Genetics is accepted as crucial for all things physical, so why not mental and social. As an example of the genetic influence on sports, consider Jewish chess genius, Lazlo Polgar: he decided to prove that anyone could be great at chess, and decided to train his three daughters: he got two grand masters and an international master. By comparison, there are only 2 chess grand masters in all of Finland. Then consider that there are five all-star, baseball players named Alou, all from the same household, including the three brothers below. The household has seven pro baseball players in all.

Most people are uncomfortable with such evidence of genetic proclivity. The movie has been called “deeply disturbing” as any evidence of proclivity contradicts the promise of education: that all men are equal, blank slates at birth that can be fashioned into whatever you want through education. What we claim we want is leaders — lots of them, and we expect that education will produce equal ratios of woman and men, black and white and Hispanic, etc. and we expect to be able to get there without testing for skills, — especially without blind testing. I notice that the great universities have moved to have testing optional, instead relying on interviews and related measures of leadership. I think this is nonsense, but then I don’t run Harvard. As a professor, I’ve found that some kids have an aptitude and a burning interest, and others do not. You can tell a lot by testing, but the folks who run the universities disagree.

The All star Alou brothers share an outfield.

University heads claim that blind testing is racist. They find that some races score poorly on spacial sense, for example, or vocabulary suggesting that the tests are to blame. There is some truth to these concerns, but I find that the lack of blind testing is more racist. Once the test is eliminated, academia finds a way to elevate their friends, and the progeny of the powerful.

The variety of proclivities plays into an observation that you can be super intelligent in one area, and super stupid in others. That was the humor of some TV shows: “Big Bang Theory” and “Fraser”. That was also the tragedy of Bobby Fischer. He was brilliant in chess (and the child of brilliant parents), but was a blithering idiot in all other areas of life. Finland should not feel bad about their lack of great chess players. The country has produced two phone companies, two strong operating systems, and the all time top sniper.

Robert Buxbaum, May 15, 2022

Girls are doing better, Boys are doing far worse.

Leave a reply

When I began college in 1972, the majority of engineering students and business students were male. They from the top of their high school classes, and from stable homes mostly; they went on to high paying jobs. Boys also dominated at the bottom of society. They were the majority of the criminals, drug addicts, and high-school dropouts. Many went off to Vietnam. Some, those who were handy, went to trade schools and a reasonable life, productive life. Society did not seem bothered by the destruction of boys in prison, or Vietnam, or by drugs, but there was an outcry that so few women achieved high academic levels. A famous presentation of the problem was called “for every 100 girls.” An updated version appears below showing the status as of October, 2021. A more detailed version appears further down.

From the table above, you can see that women are now the majority of those in college, the majority of those with a bachelors degree or higher, and a majority of those with advanced degrees. Colleges added special tutoring, special grants, and special programs. Each college had a Society of Women Engineers office, and similar programs in law and math. All of these explicitly excluded men or highly discouraged their presence. The curriculum was changed too; made more female-friendly. Dirty, and physical experiments were removed, replaced with group analysis of the social interactions — important aspects of engineers that boys were far-less adept at doing well. Perhaps society and engineering is better off now, but boys (men) are far worse off. This is particularly seem by the following chart, looking at the bottom. Boys/men provide the vast majority of the prison population, of those diagnosed as learning disabled, of those expelled, or overdosed, and among the war dead.

I’ve previously noted that a majority of boys in school are considered disruptive, and that these boys are routinely diagnosed as ADHD and drugged. It is not at all clear that this is a good thing, or that the drugs help anyone but the teacher. I’ve also noted that artwork and attitudes that were considered normal for boys are now considered disturbing and criminal like saying I wish the school was blown up. The cure here, perhaps is worse than the disease. I’m not saying that we should encourage boys to say such things, but that we should acknowledge a difference between an active and a passive wish. And we should find a way to educate boys/men so they don’t end up unemployed, addicted, or dead. Currently boy, particularly those at the bottom are on the scrap-heap of society.

Here is some source material for the above:

Robert Buxbaum, May 28, 2022

Induction

Leave a reply

Most of science is induction. Scientists measure correlation, for example that fat people don’t run as much as thin people. They then use logic to differentiate cause from effect that is do they not run because they are fat, or are they fat because they don’t run, or is everything base on some third factor, like genetics. At every step this is all inductive logic, but that’s how science is done.

The lack of certainty shows up especially commonly in health work. Many of our cancer cures are found to not work when studied under slightly different conditions. Similarly with weight los, or heart health. I’d mentioned previously that CPAPs reduce heart fibrillation, and heart filtration is correlated with shortened life, but then we find that CPAP use does not lengthen life, but seems to shorten it. (see a reason here). That’s the problem with induction; correlation isn’t typically predictive in a useful way.

Despite these problems, this is how science works. You look for patterns, use induction, find an explanation, and try to check your results. I have an essay on the scientific methods, with quotes from Sherlock Holmes. His mysteries are a wonderful guide, and his inductive leaps are almost always true. Meanwhile, the inductive leaps of Watson and Lastrade are almost always false.

Robert Buxbaum, May 9, 2022

Biden stops fracking and gas prices go up 300% — Surprise!

Leave a reply
Natural gas prices for June 2022 as of May 6, 2022.

Natural gas prices have quadrupled in the last 17 months. It’s gone from $2.07 per million BTU in mid January 2021 when Joe Biden took office, to nearly $9 today. It’s a huge increase in the cost to heat your home, and adds to the cost of any manufactured product you buy. Gasoline prices have risen too, going from $2/gallon when Biden took office to about $4.40 today. Biden blames the war with Russia, but the rise began almost as soon as he took office, and it far outstrips the rise in the price of wheat shown below (wheat is grown in Ukraine — it’s their major export). The likely cause is Biden’s moratorium on fracking, including his decision to stop permitting oil exploration and drilling on federal land. In recent weeks Biden has walked back some of this, to the consternation of the environmentalists. On April 15, 2022, the Interior Department announced this significant change including its first onshore lease sale since the moratorium.

Biden also cancelled the Keystone XL oil pipeline that would have brought tar-sands oil from Canada and North Dakota to Texas for refining. Blocking the pipeline helped increase gas prices here and helped cause a recession in Alberta and North Dakota. The protesters who claimed to speak for the natives are not affected.

Another issue fueling price increases is that Biden is printing money. Bidenflation is running at 8%/year. It’s not hyperinflation, but it’s getting close. It’s money taken from your pocket and from your savings. Much of the money is given to friends: to groups that Biden thinks will use it virtuously, but inflation is money taken from us, from our pockets and savings. Another beneficiary are those who are rich enough to take no salary, but live by borrowing against their real estate and corporate equity. The richest people in the US do this, earning $1 per year or less, (here’s a list compiled by Bloomberg, it’s basically every rich person). They pay no taxes, as they have no income. The only way to tax them is by tariffs, taxing what they import, but the government is against tariffs.

What you can do, personally about energy-cost inflation is not much. I would recommend insulating your home. I plan to repaint the roof white, and put in a layer of roof insulation. I also have fruit trees: an apple tree and a peach tree, grapes and a juneberry. They provide summer shade, and you get a lot of fruit with minimal work. Curtains are a good investment. Another thought is to buy solar cells. A vegetable garden is fun too, but it’s unlikely to pay you back.

Winter wheat prices are up by about 40%, likely due to the loss of supply from Ukraine and Russia

Speaking of wheat prices, they are up. They increased 40% when Russian troops invaded Ukraine, and have held steady at that level since. This is far less increase than for natural gas. Corn and rice prices are up too, but nowhere near as much. Fertilizer prices are up 300%, though, and Biden has indicated he’d like to push for a sustainable alternative; is that poop? There is a baby formula shortage too. We can handle it, I think, unless Biden get involved, or starts a hot war with Russia.

Robert Buxbaum May 10, 2022. As a fun sidelight, here is Biden answering questions about Pakistan when someone in a Bunny costume grabs him and walks him away from the reporters. Who is that masked handler? What’s going on in Pakistan?