| Andrew Cooke | Contents | Latest | RSS | Twitter | Previous | Next


Welcome to my blog, which was once a mailing list of the same name and is still generated by mail. Please reply via the "comment" links.

Always interested in offers/projects/new ideas. Eclectic experience in fields like: numerical computing; Python web; Java enterprise; functional languages; GPGPU; SQL databases; etc. Based in Santiago, Chile; telecommute worldwide. CV; email.

Personal Projects

Lepl parser for Python.

Colorless Green.

Photography around Santiago.

SVG experiment.

Professional Portfolio

Calibration of seismometers.

Data access via web services.

Cache rewrite.

Extending OpenSSH.

Last 100 entries

Brandalism; Table of Shifter, Cassette and Derailleur Compatability; Lenovo Demonstrates How Bad HTTPS Is; Telegraph Owned by HSBC; Smaptop - Sunrise (Music); Equation Group (NSA); UK Torture in NI; And - A Natural Extension To Regexps; This Is The Future Of Religion; The Shazam (Music Matching) Algorithm; Tributes To Lesbian Community From AIDS Survivors; Nice Rust Summary; List of Good Fiction Books; Constructing JSON From Postgres (Part 2); Constructing JSON From Postgres (Part 1); Postgres in Docker; Why Poor Places Are More Diverse; Smart Writing on Graceland; Satire in France; Free Speech in France; MTB Cornering - Where Should We Point Our Thrusters?; Secure Secure Shell; Java Generics over Primitives; 2014 (Charlie Brooker); How I am 7; Neural Nets Applied to Go; Programming, Business, Social Contracts; Distributed Systems for Fun and Profit; XML and Scheme; Internet Radio Stations (Curated List); Solid Data About Placebos; Half of Americans Think Climate Change Is a Sign of the Apocalypse; Saturday Surf Sessions With Juvenile Delinquents; Ssh, tty, stdout and stderr; Feathers falling in a vacuum; Santiago 30m Bike Route; Mapa de Ciclovias en Santiago; How Unreliable is UDP?; SE Santiago 20m Bike Route; Cameron's Rap; Configuring libxml with Eclipse; Reducing Combinatorial Complexity With Occam - AI; Sentidos Comunes (Chilean Online Magazine); Hilary Mantel: The Assassination of Margaret Thatcher - August 6th 1983; NSA Interceptng Gmail During Delivery; General IIR Filters; What's happening with Scala?; Interesting (But Largely Illegible) Typeface; Retiring Essentialism; Poorest in UK, Poorest in N Europe; I Want To Be A Redneck!; Reverse Racism; The Lost Art Of Nomography; IBM Data Center (Photo); Interesting Account Of Gamma Hack; The Most Interesting Audiophile In The World; How did the first world war actually end?; Ky - Restaurant Santiago; The Black Dork Lives!; The UN Requires Unaninmous Decisions; LPIR - Steganography in Practice; How I Am 6; Clear Explanation of Verizon / Level 3 / Netflix; Teenage Girls; Formalising NSA Attacks; Switching Brakes (Tektro Hydraulic); Naim NAP 100 (Power Amp); AKG 550 First Impressions; Facebook manipulates emotions (no really); Map Reduce "No Longer Used" At Google; Removing RAID metadata; New Bike (Good Bike Shop, Santiago Chile); Removing APE Tags in Linux; Compiling Python 3.0 With GCC 4.8; Maven is Amazing; Generating Docs from a GitHub Wiki; Modular Shelves; Bash Best Practices; Good Emergency Gasfiter (Santiago, Chile); Readings in Recent Architecture; Roger Casement; Integrated Information Theory (Or Not); Possibly undefined macro AC_ENABLE_SHARED; Update on Charges; Sunburst Visualisation; Spectral Embeddings (Distances -> Coordinates); Introduction to Causality; Filtering To Help Colour-Blindness; ASUS 1015E-DS02 Too; Ready Player One; Writing Clear, Fast Julia Code; List of LatAm Novels; Running (for women); Building a Jenkins Plugin and a Jar (for Command Line use); Headphone Test Recordings; Causal Consistency; The Quest for Randomness; Chat Wars; Real-life Financial Co Without ACID Database...; Flexible Muscle-Based Locomotion for Bipedal Creatures; SQL Performance Explained

© 2006-2013 Andrew Cooke (site) / post authors (content).

Space Travel and Astronomy

From: "andrew cooke" <andrew@...>

Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 09:09:32 -0400 (CLT)


physics has grown, over the last three centuries, from practically
nothing, to a beautiful, self-consistent, and almost-complete system. you
can think of it like a web of inter-tangled ideas. at the centre of that
web, which corresponds to our every-day experience, the interconnections
are amazingly thick, delicately interwoven, and pretty much
indestructible. whatever new comes along will not change that, just as it
remained constant through special and general relativity and quantum

out at the edges of the web, things are less constrained. there are tears,
errors, spaces for improvement. but these edges are far from our every-day
experience (the centre). they correspond to, for example, the
fantastically high temperatures and pressures that occur when stars
collapse. in conditions like that we believe that physics becomes simpler
- and that will lead to a unified model of physics.

but such a unified model will not change the practical, every-day use of
physics, because the only differences will, by necessity, be obvious at
those extreme conditions. in normal conditions, the new physics will give
the same answer as the old physics. it has to - the old physics works
perfectly in normal conditions. and this is exactly what we see with
special relativity (same results as newtonian physics at speeds much less
than the speed of light), general relativity (same results as newtonian
physics at energy densities much less that, say, a black hole), and
quantum mechanics (same results as newtonian physics at scales much larger
than an atom).

now "Connections" is largely a story of how the centre was built. it's a
cool program. but the centre is now built. it's done. finished.

if you watched a really cool program that explained how we came to
understand mathematics, would you argue that, because we finally came to
understand that 2+2=4, in the future we will continue making new
discoveries to show that 2+2=5? of course not. maths will continue to grow
in sophistication, but for everyday use, it's already complete. same with


that's history. i also mentioned the difference between physics and other

physics describes the basic facts about the world we live in. it's the
broad sweep, not the fiddly details. when you get down to practicalities,
things can be horribly complex. other sciences are, largely, the
application of physics to complex systems.

it's not easy dealing with complex systems. you need to make
approximations - decide what is important and what can safely be ignored.
you need to find rules that apply "in general" and then see how far those
rules can go. this kind of work - on complex systems - gives us chemistry,
(modern) medicine, engineering, etc. all important fields that will
continue to grow and develop.

BUT. these are all based on physics. physics sets the ground rules.

so we are in a situation, now, where there are many things we don't know
how to do, in practice, with complex systems. but, at the same time, the
ground rules, the "laws of nature" are pretty much fixed.

it's as if physics defines the edges of the map, and then the other
sciences fill in the details.

so we already know that with "human scale" resources, travelling to
another galaxy will require a voyage that must last millions of years. no
amount of advances in chemistry, engineering or medicine can change that.
we don't yet know how it will happen (maybe medicine will find a way to
indefinitely suspend life, say), but we know the basic requirements.

enough about people's foolish ideas of space travel.

what i wanted to argue, finally, is that the sciences of the complex
(chemistry, medicine, engineering, etc) don't need any particular special
conditions to grow. you just need problems and money. and they tend to
give general results. that's why putting a man on the moon really wasn't
that hard - i don't mean to diminish the effort, but it simply applied the
then-current technology to the problem at hand. and current space
exploration (shuttle, space station) uses old technology.

so there's no need to push spaceflight to improve engineering -
engineering will improve anyway, because it's hugely important in so many
areas of our lives, and it has space to grow.


in case it's not obvious, i want to hammer home the conclusion: we gain
little of practical use from astronomy or space exploration. astronomy is
driven by a need to explore extreme conditions because that is where our
knowledge of physics is weak. as i have explained several times above, the
flip side of that is that the new physics will not be different from the
old physics for "every-day" practicalities. but at least astronomy has a
logical justification - those extreme conditions are only found "out

space exploration, in contrast, doesn't even have a decent reason for
existing. there's nothing particularly special about most of the
engineering required (or the medicine, or chemistry). and even if there
were, today's space exploration isn't really pushing the boundaries

ps. i forgot to say: i still have no argument with the approach that
astronomy deserves funding just as much as poetry. we should never forget
to invest in out souls.

Comment on this post