Lola Montez

This lady has one of the craziest stories around. Everywhere in Munich and Bavaria you hear stories about "crazy King Ludwig," and they are usually referring to Ludwig II, the young king who built not one but three fairy tale castles, the most famous of which is Neuschwanstein.

However, his grandfather, Ludwig I, had his own set of interesting problems. Who knows if he was crazy, but he was certainly crazy in love with Lola, who was not his wife. The wife of Ludwig I was Therese of Saxe-Hildburghausen. She is famous because the party after their wedding in 1810 turned out to be the first Oktoberfest. And they liked it so much, they've held it every year since then at a large field in the south of Munich called the Theresienwiese.

Now, Ludwig I ended up abdicating the Bavarian throne in 1848 (a time of much unrest in Germany, but that story is for another day) twenty years before his death, partly due to the scandal of his affair with Lola Montez. She purported to be a "Spanish dancer," but in fact she was Irish. Ludwig I made her a Countess, and she had some influence on his political decisions (this was part of the scandal). However, what I found interesting is what she did after she was forced to flee Bavaria in 1848.

She went to many parts of the world (France, London, Australia), but she spent a fair amount of time in, of all places, Grass Valley, California, just outside of Sacramento. Her home is California Historical Landmark No. 292. And among other things, the highest point in Nevada County is Mount Lola, named after her.

Ulm

While my students went off to Prague for the weekend, I went to Ulm on Saturday. It's a very old city - founded around 850 CE - and is situated on the Donau (Danube) River. For some reason I am drawn to the Donau, not only because of the song. There are several cities on the Danube that I'd like to visit, not least of which is BudaPest, and also Bratislava. But they are too far to go for this trip. For now, I'll content myself with visiting the Bavarian cities on the Donau: Ulm, Ingolstadt, Regensburg. Yes, I know that Ulm is in Baden-Württemburg. But it used to be in Bavaria, and, being that Neu-Ulm across the river is in Bavaria, and noting that you are allowed to travel by train to Ulm using your Bayern ticket, I contend that it should count as Bavaria.

Here is a nice view of Ulm from 1572, in which you can see its most outstanding feature, the Ulmer Münster! This is a church that has the highest steeple in the world, measuring 161 m. You can climb to the top, which I did; well, almost the top. The stairs reach 143 m in 768 steps. And it takes about 20 minutes, unless you're very fit, but still you have to contend with people coming down. The first two thirds are "one way" stairs, so you can effectively go as fast as you wish.

However, the top third is a single stairwell climbing up the center of the the spire. As you can see from the photo below, there is a nice superstructure for the spire, with a column in the center, and a spiral staircase in the center of the column. There's not much room to pass, and some young children were a little frightened. And everyone had to take it slow.

Most of the city center was bombed by the RAF in 1944, but amazingly the Münster was essentially untouched. This was fortunate, because it's construction began in 1377, so it is a "cathedral" with much history. It wasn't completed until 1890 (talk about patience), and it also isn't technically a cathedral, since Ulm went Protestant in 1530 (it's now a Lutheran church).

When I got up to the top, the view, of course, was great. The red roofs of the city buildings spread out along the Donau were quite the sight.

In the photo on the left, from lower down (far below the top) you can clearly see the flying buttresses, as in Notre Dame. In the photo on the right, from the top, you can see the entire church, with the two steeples toward the east. I need to learn my cathedral architecture: chapel, nave, altar, etc. Here's one place to learn it.

Finally, the inside was incredibly large, and no pictures would do it justice. They did have beautiful stained glass windows, and I tried to give a feeling for them below. There were several along the sides of the church.

The Pullach Deutsch - Französisches Freundschaftsfest

Yesterday, Freitag 24 Juni, was the start of the 23rd Freundschaftsfest on the Kirchplatz in Pullach im Iasartal, just south of Munich, on the Isar river. The square was closed off for food, drink (lots of bier und wein), and music. My favorite Weissbier (Franziskaner) was served, along with Rotbratwurst (chili hot) and much else. As you can see from the schedule, the fun will continue all weekend.

However, the weather may not cooperate. It's supposed to rain starting tonight, and also on Sunday. Hopefully that won't put too much of a damper on things.

There were plenty of cute kids playing festival games (ring toss, etc), and winning prizes, like stuffed animals and roses.

And there was even a marching band! (Note: below is a 6MB Quicktime Movie)

Prost from Pullach!

Germany II

Tomorrow will be the 6th time I will travel to Europe. Summer 1973 to Madrid to live in my uncle's house for one month. Summer 1983 to live in Vitoria with a family for 5 weeks. Thanksgiving 1999 to Brussels to collaborate with J. Lemaire for one week. Fall 2002 to Maastricht for a conference for one week. Winter 2014-2015 to Munich to teach at Hochschule München for 4 months while on sabbatical. And now Summer 2016 to Munich to lead 9 students on a Summer B study abroad. I feel very lucky to have had these opportunities in my life, and I think the perspective that one gains (at least that I have gained) by interacting with people from other countries and cultures is invaluable.

The last time I went to Munich I arrived in the morning, took the S-Bahn to Pullach, just south of the city on the edge of the Isar river, joined some people (who I'd never met) who were visiting for Oktoberfest, and went to the WaWi for lunch (sausages and bier).

So this is now my "Munich routine." The first thing I'll do on Thursday morning when I arrive at the München Flughafen is to take the S-Bahn to Pullach, and have lunch and excellent Bavarian bier at the WaWi.

The best popular science books

I just ran across this post by Steven Weinberg listing the best science books for the general reader. For the most part, I like the list (see below). I own 6 of the books, and have read most of 4 of them. There are some that I think are excellent, like Gamow's The Birth and Death of the Sun, although I prefer One, Two, Three...Infinity by the same author better. Feynman's The Character of Physical Law I think is excellent. But my favorite book, although it's probably best for someone with a technical bent, not a general reader, is Weinberg's own The First Three Minutes. I first read that book between my junior and senior years as a physics major at UC Santa Cruz, and was literally blown away. It had a huge impact on me. Although I had already decided to lead a life in physics, that was at a point where I found everything having to do with physics incredibly cool and interesting.

I was led to Weinberg's article (which is an interesting and well-written article, completely separate from his list of books) by this article by Chad Orzel. To be honest, I wasn't very impressed by Orzel's book on 'how to teach your dog physics.' It may play to the general reader who doesn't know anything about physics, but I'm more interested in books that are geared toward intelligent readers that know something about physics. Along this vein, I hand out such books to students in my introductory (and advanced) physics classes who score well on exams. Especially freshman students taking university-level physics for the first time, I want to expand their knowledge about different kinds of physics and astronomy, and how to actually use the physics that we're learning. Along this line are the three books listed above, or Weinberg's Dreams of a Final Theory, or books by Isaac Asimov, or Lawrence Krauss's The Physics of Star Trek. Given the wide interest among students in string theory, the recent book by Jim Baggot, Farewell to Reality, gives a level-headed picture of what physics (and science) is, and how to think about cutting-edge physics when you are a freshman. I also pointedly do not give out any books by Michio Kaku, because he is definitely part of the problem. I've already mentioned in a previous post one of the best books for clearly stating which physical ideas are speculative, and which have lots of observational evidence.

Orzel gives his own list here, and chides Weinberg for being "in the Whig history mode," whatever that means. His first book is probably the worst science book every for the general reader - defined as someone who is not an expert in any of the science in the book, but hopefully will take away a realistic picture of what the important issues are. This bad book is Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything. First of all, Bryson is not a scientist. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but in Bryson's case it is. He has no understanding of what science is all about, and hence he conveys many wrong things. I've read pieces of the book, and what I read seemed OK, even enlightening. This is probably true because Bryson is such a great writer. (In fact his comedy writing, like A Walk in the Woods, is top notch.) However, then I read an interesting review of the book by a scientist. They said that everything looked pretty good, but when he covered the reviewer's own field of expertise, Bryson got things wrong. So the reviewer asked other scientsist their opinion. They said essentially the same thing: "It's a great book, but when he talks about X [my field of expertise] he doesn't know what he's talking about." This means that the reader thinks he's getting an understanding of some technical issue, but he's getting the wrong understanding. And that's the worst kind of science writing because it's masquerading as good writing.

The only other books on Orzel's list that I've heard of before are Richard Feynman's QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, Kip Thorne's Black Holes and Time Warps, and George Gamow's Mr Thompkins in Wonderland. All three are excellent, but I think the first two are not really for the general reader at all, and would require at least some formal education in physics at the university level, if not an undergraduate degree.

As I said, I give away books to my physics students, and over the past 10-15 years I've given away approximately 150 books. I get them from used book stores, and I often give away duplicate copies of the same book, for example, Steven Hawking's A Brief History of Time. Below I give Weinberg's list of 13 books, and then I give all the books I've given away. There's not much overlap, mostly because I try to give away books that deal with physics and astronomy, either directly or indirectly.

Here is Weinberg's list:

Philosophical Letters (1733) Voltaire

The Origin of Species (1859) Charles Darwin

On a Piece of Chalk (1868) Thomas Huxley

The Mysterious Universe (1930) James Jeans

The Birth and Death of the Sun (1940) George Gamow

The Character of Physical Law (1965) Richard Feynman

The Elegant Universe (1999) Brian Greene

The Selfish Gene (1976) Richard Dawkins

The Making of the Atomic Bomb (1986) Richard Rhodes

The Inflationary Universe (1997) Alan Guth

The Whole Shebang (1997) Timothy Ferris

Hiding in the Mirror (2005) Lawrence Krauss

Warped Passages (2005) Lisa Randall

And here is my list:

Abbott	Flatland: A romance of many dimensions
Andrade	Quanta
Andrade	Sir Isaac Newton: His life and work
Andrade	Rutherford and the nature of the atom
Asimov	Quasar, Quasar, Burning Bright
Asimov	Understanding Physics: Motion, Sound, and Heat
Asimov	Atom: Journey across the subatomic cosmos
Asimov	The Collapsing Universe
Aveni	Conversing with the planets
Barrow	Theories of Everything
Barrow	The origin of the universe
Bergreen	Voyage to Mars: NASA's Search for Life Beyond Earth
Bodanis	E=mc2: A biography of the world's most famous equation
Bruce	Schrodinger's Rabbits
Calder	Einstein's Universe
Carter	Latitude: How American astronomers solved the mystery of variation
Chaikin	A Man on the Moon
Collins	Carrying the Fire
Coveney	The arrow of time
Crease	The second creation: Makers of the revolution in 20th-century physics
Davies	The Last Three Minutes
Davies	About Time: Einstein's unfinished revolution
Ehrlich	The cosmological milkshake
Einstein	Relativity: The special and the general theory
Einstein	Einstein's Miraculous Year
Ferris	The Whole Shebang
Feynman	Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman
Fritz	Understanding Cosmology
Galileo	Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo
Gamov	The Great Physicists from Galileo to Einstein
Gamow	Mr Tompkins in paperback
Gamow	One Two Three … Infinity
Gleick	Chaos
Gleick	Isaac Newton
Glenn	We Seven
Gray	Angle of Attack
Greene	The elegant universe
Gribbin	Spacewarps: A book about Black Holes, White Holes, Quasars, and our violent Universe
Gribbin	Schrodinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality
Gribbin	Stardust
Gribbin	Quantum Physics
Guth	The Inflationary Universe
Hawking	Black holes and baby universes
Hawking	A brief history of time
Hawking	A brief history of time: A reader's companion
Helmholtz	On the sensations of tone
Herbert	Faster than light
Jastrow	Red Giants and White Dwarfs
Jones	Physics for the rest of us
Kane	The Particle Garden
Krauss	Fear of Physics
Krauss	The Physics of Star Trek
Levin	How the universe got its spots
Lightman	Ancient Light: Our changing view of the universe
Lindley	The end of physics
Lloyd	Programming the Universe
Magueijo	Faster than the speed of light
Marshall	Who's Afraid of Schrodinger's Cat?
McPhee	The curve of binding energy
Nahin	An imaginary tale: The story of i
Nasar	A beautiful mind
Pagels	The cosmic code
Parker	The vindication of the Big Bang
Peat	Superstrings and the search for the theory of everything
Petroski	To Engineer is Human
Pullman	The atom in the history of human thought
Randall	Warped passages
Reichenbach	From Copernicus to Einstein
Reid	Marie Curie
Rhodes	The Making of the Atomic Bomb
Segre	From falling bodies to radio waves
Shipman	Black holes, quasars, and the universe
Singh	Big Bang: The origin of the universe
Smolin	The trouble with physics
Smoot	Wrinkles in Time
Sobel	Longitude
Stewart	Nature's Numbers
Thorne	Black holes and time warps
Time-Life	The Far Planets
Trefil	The Unexpected Vista
Tufte	Visual Explanations
von Baeyer	Taming the Atom
von Baeyer	The Fermi Solution
Watson	The double helix
Weinberg	Dreams of a Final Theory
Weinberg	The First Three Minutes
Weinberg	The Discovery of Subatomic Particles
Will	Was Einstein Right?
Zee	Fearful symmetry: The search for beauty in modern physics

Rogue Waves and Freak Waves

I just finished reading Susan Casey's "The Wave," a very good book that mostly describes the big wave surfing community of Laird Hamilton and others, and the quest to surf a 100-foot wave. This part of the book is pretty good, and I enjoyed meeting the characters who risk their lives for that giant wave.

The rest of the book focuses on large waves in the ocean that cripple and sink huge ships. These are truly the rogue waves that can form from seemingly out of nowhere. Their source is not really that strange, but the equations that govern fluid waves are non linear, and therefore are very difficult to predict. It is for the exact same reason that the weather in the atmosphere is so difficult to predict more than a week ahead.

Chapter 3, Schrödinger's Wave, is a nice description of some of the NOAA scientists who study these waves. In the ocean, one of the best mathematical descriptions of these waves is the nonlinear Schrödinger equation, or NLS, whose solutions include so-called "solitary" waves that don't exist as part of a wave "train" like you would see at the beach as the sets roll in. These solitary waves also exist in space, and I have recently investigated how they manifest themselves in oscillations of the magnetic field in the solar win (here). A group in Nice, France, has shown that rogue waves appear in plasmas that are randomly driven and dissipative. And a physicist at the University of Sheffield, in England, Michael Ruderman, has investigated how these freak waves can arise in plasmas.

The only criticism that I have is that Casey tends to get too hyped up about the sizes of these waves. It is true that they are large, but in certain situations, she exaggerates. For example, in the chapter on Lituya Bay, an elliptically shaped bay in Alaska, there was an earthquake in 1958 that triggered a landslide and a large wave. The shape of the bay focused the water, causing it to rise up to a great height, which Casey claims was a 1,740-foot wave. However, while it is true that debris from this wave was found 1,740 feet up the hillside of the bay, it does not mean that a coherent wave was actually that high. A geophysics blog at the American Geophysical Union web site (here) describes it like this

The wave had a maximum run-up height (this is the vertical distance that it ran up the valley wall) of 530 metres. Whilst this sounds extreme, there is clear evidence that this was the case from sediments left by the wave and from the removal of trees by the water. This is the highest coastal wave ever recorded, although this very high run-up zone might be considered to be more of a splash than a coherent wave.

 Casey repeats several times the height of this "wave," but doesn't point out that the wave wasn't really this high. It was still spectacular, though.

I recommend this book to anyone interested in being an armchair big-wave surfer!

Gravitational Waves and Science

While looking through some of my books, I came across one of my favorite popular physics or astronomy books of all time, "Black holes, quasars, and the universe," by Harry L. Shipman.

Written in 1980, there was, of course, no observational evidence for gravitational waves, but since  they had been predicted by Einstein's equations in the early 1900s, many calculations had been performed as to what they might look like, and how they might be observed. Shipman discussed gravitational waves in a section of the chapter titled "Frontiers and Fringes." In the chapter's introduction he states

There are a few frontier areas of black-hole studies that are properly called fringes, since they represent speculative ventures far beyond the boundaries of experimentally tested or even testable theory [my italics]. These fringe areas are widely publicized. You see reports that black holes are space warps: You can fall into one and come out somewhere else in this universe or in another universe. Although these ideas could be true, they are, at our present level of sophistication, flights of fancy into the never-never land inside the event horizon. It is very easy to believe that black holes are such strange objects that, if you accept their existence, then anything weird, even space-warp stories, that is said about them is true. Do not fall into this trap. Black-hole research, like most of science, contains some results that are true, some that are probably true, and some that are speculation - published because they are interesting if fanciful ideas and just might be true. I have gathered all these ideas and put them in this latter part of this chapter so that you, the reader, will know what is fact and what is not.

Shipman is very careful to distinguish fact from fiction, and to explicitly tell the reader which is which. Most of the popular physics books today, although they are by eminent physicists like Brian Greene, are not so careful, and they wind up creating more hype than is justified.

"Testing general relativity" and "Gravitational waves" are two subjects listed under Frontiers. Hulse and Taylor had discovered their binary pulsar PSR 1913+16 in 1975 and had measured the decrease in the orbital period in 1978 that was consistent with the loss of energy via gravitational wave radiation. However, Shipman goes on

Gravity waves represent a speculative research frontier. Einstein's general theory of relativity predicts that they do exist. However, they are very weak and difficult to detect. Direct searches for gravity waves have not been successful. The only real detection of this radiation has been an indirect one, based on careful observations of the orbit of a binary pulsar. But even if you believe [convinced by the evidence - belief is not science - ed.] that gravity waves have not yet been seen, they are still within the mainstream of scientific research.

What I especially like about Shipman's exposition is that after all the technical explanations, which I've omitted, he circles back and is very clear about how the non-expert should think about the different stories that are seen in the media.

Finally, at the end of the chapter, he lists all the ideas discussed in preceding chapters, and groups them according to how much weight should be given to them. It is so useful that I often copy it and give it to my students when we discuss the scientific method and how science progresses. Here it is.

• FACT 
• White-dwarf stars exist
• Neutron stars are pulsars and exist
• Evolution of stars though the red giant stage
• Theoretical model of a classical black hole (possibly including rotation)
• Black holes have no hair
• PROBABLE FACT
• Cygnus X-1 is a black hole *
• Low-mass stars -> planetary nebulae -> white dwarfs *
• WORKING MODEL
• Medium-mass stars -> supernovae -> neutron stars *
• Massive stars may become black holes *
• Black holes evaporate (very slowly)
• Gravitational radiation exists **
• Einstein's theory of gravitation (general relativity) **
• CONTROVERSY
• Is Epsilon Aurigae a black hole?
• Are globular-cluster x-ray sources giant black holes or neutron stars?
• Are most x-ray sources in the Milky Way galaxy related to dying stars?
• How do pulsars produce radio emission? 
• How massive can a neutron star be?
• SPECULATION
• Wormholes, white holes, and space warps

I've placed stars on some of the statements to indicate that today, most scientists view them as more definite than in 1980, and the number of stars indicates how many categories they should "move up." For example, 'massive stars may become black holes' is now a 'probable fact,' and 'gravitational radiation exists' is now a 'fact'. Of course, the word "fact" in science has a meaning that is not 100%, like a mathematical statement. The statement 1 + 1 = 2 is a true mathematical statement, but since science works inductively rather than deductively, there is always the possibility that another explanation will come along that will change our views. But at the present time, these things are 'facts.'

Gravitational Waves!

At last! 100 years after Einstein developed his field equation for general relativity, one of its key predictions, gravitational waves, have been directly detected. On February 11, 2016, the LIGO team announced the discovery. Among the many news reports, this one, from physicsworld.com, is accurate. And here is a list of other good public expositions. Although, as is to be expected, there are some who like to spout hype without really saying anything. One of the prime suspects is Michio Kaku (see his bluster here and a brief description of it here), and I warn all my students to stay away. Reading him is a waste of time. Better to read (and learn something from) Steven Weinberg, for example.

Other predictions of general relativity, like the bending of starlight by the sun, the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, and time dilation due to the strength of the gravitational field, have become standard observations for many years. Gravitational waves, on the other hand, while they were indirectly detected back in 1974 (for which a Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded in 1993 to Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor), have not been "seen" directly.

Hulse and Taylor discovered the first binary pulsar (the discovery paper is here), which is a pair of neutron stars orbiting each other . As any two masses orbit each other, they emit gravitational waves, similar to the electromagnetic waves that are emitted when two electric charges orbit each other. A very nice exposition of the physics of pulsars and gravitational waves can be found in this Scientific American article by Taylor.

In 1911, when Ernest Rutherford (with help from Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden) discovered that the structure of atoms could be described as a massive positively charged nucleus, surrounded by very light, negatively charged electrons. It was assumed that these electrons orbited the nucleus similar to the planets orbiting the sun (hence this model was called Rutherford's planetary model of the atom. However, Maxwell's theory of electromagnetics, known since 1865, predicted that such a structure would be unstable. For example, take the hydrogen atom, with a single proton for a nucleus and a single orbiting electron. Maxwell's theory predicted that the electron would emit electromagnetic waves, lose energy, and spiral into the proton in about 10^-11 s (one one-hundredth of a nanosecond!). Hence, atoms should not be stable, and people should not exist. Obviously we do, so Niels Bohr, in 1913, postulated that the atom was governed by the laws of quantum mechanics, which meant that the electron could exist in a particular energy state and be "stationary," and not radiate electromagnetic waves.

Gravity (as described by general relativity) appears not to be quantum mechanical (or at least we haven't yet discovered the quantum mechanical version, although physicists are trying), and orbiting masses do lose energy by emitting gravitational waves. For example, the Earth radiates about 200 watts of power as it orbits the sun. This points out the difficulty with detecting such waves: they are extremely weak! They are weaker than electromagnetic waves for two reasons. First, the gravitational force is about a billion billion billion billion times weaker than the electromagnetic force (10^-36 times weaker). Second, there is only one kind of mass (positive), while there are two types of electric charge (positive and negative). In technical terms, this means that electromagnetic radiation can be of the "dipole" form, which the strongest gravitational radiation is "quadrupole." Quadrupole radiation is weaker than dipole radiation by a factor of (v/c)², where v is the speed of the orbiting object and c is the speed of light. For an electron in a hydrogen atom v/c = 0.007, and for the Earth orbiting the sun, v = 29 km/s, which is about 0.0001 times the speed of light.

This means that the vibrations in the masses that are used to detect these gravitational waves are about one one-hundredth the size of a proton (0.01 fm)! It was an amazing technical feat that was achieved.

Here is a plot of the detector positions as a function of time from both the Washington and Louisiana sites.