Physics School Talk update

Have a picture show in the physics school talk.  Show pictures of people. Three types.  Famous physicists.  You know, Einstein, Curie, Dirac, Feynman, Bell Burnell, etc etc.  Famous people who did physics degrees. Merkel, Musk, Kim Jong Un, UWA Chancellor etc etc.  And a third group we'll come to.

But how about the pictures?  Take pictures when they are young.  Preferably aged 16 or so.  Jazz them up a bit - use Snapchat filters etc.

And that third group?  Well if you are doing a school talk, ask the school if you can use some images of their own students, preferably the ones in the talk.  They usually have some images which students have agreed can be used in publicity.  And intersperse the famous with the students.  Sow the seed in their mind that they can be up there.  Make them laugh.  Get them excited - engage them.

I don't know if I mentioned it and I don't know if its relevant to all disciplines, but one thing struck me about physics. I went to school. I played hockey at school and university. I trained for swimming intensively for a few years. I joined a surf club and rowed in a surfboat crew. And it wasn't really until I was doing third year physics at uni when it started to hit me - these were my people. Everywhere else, I was an outsider. And a couple of years later when I did Honours I remember sitting around with the class after going out to play squash (no idea why squash!) it really hit me that for what seemed like the first time in my life I really felt at home with these people.

Now you may already feel like that.  Or you may never feel like that.  But there is something just a bit magical about getting together with the people who love the same thing that you do.

Physics School Talk

So you want to go to a school and encourage the students there to come to your university and study physics. What do you do?

Well, I guess you start with the basics - send out your best and brightest and talk to a class of students doing physics at high school. And while your talk should engage them all, it should have special hooks for the best and brightest - because they are the kids you want to come to uni and do physics.

Now do you tell them the truth? This one is difficult, because the marketing arm of the university definitely doesn't want you to tell them the truth. Marketing will want you to sell the students on careers in physics - careers which for the most part don't exist. To be entirely truthful, the marketing people don't even care about physics - what is the point of attracting a couple of dozen more physics students when you could be getting a hundred more engineering students? So lets ignore the sensibilities of the marketing team. I say that you do tell them the truth, but you tell them the whole truth, the truth that has the bad and the good, and the big truth, about things bigger than them. Have faith in the kids. Let them in on some secret truths.

So you've teed up a talk with a class of 16 year olds. There you are in front of them. What do you say?

The talk.

I'm here today because I love physics, and if you are the sort of person who might love physics, I'm here to tell you to dare to dream.

Why do I love physics? It all started over 400 years ago when people like Galileo decided they wanted to describe the world quantitatively based on experiment, observation and logic. Galileo said that that the distances traversed by a heavy body falling from rest in successive equal times are as the odd numbers 1, 3, 5, 7, …. If you've seen the equation, s=ut+1/2 a t^2, then you are using what he "discovered".  Put a=2, set u=0, and see what distance is travelled in the first second, the second second, the third second...

Ever since, for whatever reason, many of the smartest people on the planet have joined in what he started. They've systematically organised what is known about the world and come up with ingenious mathematical descriptions. These people took ugly descriptions and replaced them with beautiful ones. They took the clumsy and replaced it with the elegant. They took the specific and replaced it with the general. They found different ways of describing the same things that meant they could work with situations that before had been intractable. They looked at the very very big, and the very very small. And they, along with countless other people, laid the foundation for the modern world.

And what they discovered about how the world really is, well, its really weird. Let me give you an example:

<insert your favourite example here> About the example - if you can bring along an experimental apparatus, so much the better. If your example is something that you can explain, but is not part of the high school syllabus, great.  If its something that blows your own mind, so that you remain amazed by it, fantastic.  But you'll need to nail this bit.  You know you'll lose the dull kids, but you don't want to lose the bright kids - so the description and explanation need to be spot on. </end>

Now you know why I love physics. But now I'm going to tell you something a bit disheartening. You aren't going to be a physicist.  I can make that statement and be pretty sure I'm not lying. I can, for the same reason that I can stand here and tell you that you will not play a single game of AFL football, or play for the Australian Diamonds. Oh, you might think you will, but if I'm a betting man, I'd bet against it. Mind you, a kid from my year at Kent Street High School did go on to play very successfully for Carlton, so maybe I should be careful before I bet. The chances are, if you go on to study physics at uni, you'll end up like me, a failed physicist. Just like Elon Musk, Angela Merkel, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian May (Queen guitarist), Brian Cox, Dara OBriain, Ben Miller (Death in Paradise, QI) and Robert French (current chancellor of UWA and former Chief Justice of Australia).

So why start something when the chances of being a success are small? Just ask any kid who wants to play AFL, or NBL, or Netball for Australia, or swim in the Olympics.  Chances are you won't make it, but how will you ever know if you don't try?

But there is more to this story than simple personal ambition. You live in a world that is, in many ways, incredibly different and better than the world of my youth. And most of the improvements have not happened because of people selling real estate (though we should not discount their importance!). They've happened because of changes brought about through fundamental science. When you scan items at the shop, you are using a laser, which was invented in 1960. When you use a mobile phone, you are using technology that did not exist when your parents were young. When you use that fuddy duddy old fashioned email, you are using something that Australian Universities were just starting to use in the 1980's. Microwave ovens - late 1970's. And you won't believe just how bad cars used to be!

Many of the things which your kids are going to take for granted haven't been invented yet. Quantum computers. Devices based on graphene. Devices that depend on the manipulation of individual atoms. Devices that exploit our growing understanding of the quantum world.

And it will be people at the forefront of physics (and chemistry, and data science, and material science and AI, and...) who will play a big part of making the world a better place. And given the huge benefits of a successful discovery (wifi anyone?), a sensible society will happily have 100 researchers producing nothing if it means one success. And given that automation is getting rid of traditional jobs at a rate of knots, having lots of research jobs makes sense. And that means lots of people training them and supporting them.

But we are getting ahead of ourselves. We are all going to die. And we owe it to ourselves to do some cool things before that happens. And if for you, a cool thing is getting your head around 400 years of physics, then you know what you have to do. And after that you can go off and be the best barista, glazier, hairdresser, real estate agent, financial adviser, hedge fund manager, physics teacher, car mechanic, office manager, actor, comedian, chancellor, inventor, musician, or whatever you can.

Autism treatment

Very specifically I have a friend who has a 24 year old son with autism. Aspergers. Basically he has the classic one track mind that focusses on some very specific thing. His topic of conversation is himself. I mean, this is true of basically everyone, but most of us manage to talk about ourselves in ways that other people get something from. Not him. Rather like some other mentally ill people his self obsession is not about the human condition, its just about him, and so its draining.

His behaviour has always been challenging, and as an adult its downright dangerous. He's fought with both his parents and that his Mum hasn't been seriously hurt is down mainly to luck.  So he's now part of the mental health system. But they don't know what to do with him. They argue that he doesn't have a mental illness because he is not psychotic. He doesn't hear voices. He's not bipolar, at least not in the classic way of having mania and depression. So the mental health profession want his problems to be considered "behavioural".

So lets go through the behaviour.

1. He's got the classic autism one track mind.
2. That track often turns out to be about something really important to him - like losing his virginity.
3. He catastrophises. Not only is he a virgin now, but he always will be. And having sex is the whole point of life. And he's going to die unfulfilled.
4. As he catastrophises he gets anxious. "What if I never have sex?" "Can you imagine how awful that will be for me?" And as he can't let go out of his deep groove, his anxiety becomes more and more uncomfortable until..
5. His impulse control is gone and...
6. He hits someone or some thing.

And he can't seem to learn, because he doesn't seem to have any control over these things.

I figure that if you can eliminate any of these stages you can improve his chances of not needing to be locked up for the safety of others.

Its not likely that you can fix 1. He's been like this since he was less than 2 years old. But there are mind altering drugs (e.g. marijuana) that might diminish the control of that part of his brain that enforces his "one track mind" and leaves him more open to the experience of his senses.

And I don't think 2 will be amenable either. But maybe this is defeatist thinking. What if there is a way to stop people engaging in an unhealthy obsession with themselves?

3 is a possibility. What is the process of catastrophising? Why do some people do it but others don't? Is there any treatment?

4 - can we control the anxiety?  In the extremes of his anxiety he is probably feeling like you would if confronted by a vicious dog. Terrified and willing to do pretty well whatever it takes to defeat the monster.  So do we drug him so that he wouldn't feel like running away if confronted by a tiger?

5. Can anything be done to improve his impulse control? Again, imagine the terror of being attacked by a wild dog. Now try controlling your impulses. Not really going to work.

6. You just need to stop before you get this far.

It seems to me that you need to interrupt the processes in 1, 2 or 3. After that the sort of drugs you'd need would be too powerful.

Ideas anyone?

ALP election campaign

At the crux of it the Libs believe in looking after yourself. And they believe that if you are good at looking after yourself, you should receive the benefit. That benefit includes access to better schools and hospitals. There are other schools and hospitals, the ones you and your children won't go to, but that are nonetheless funded by your taxes. And that isn't fair. In this hypercompetitive world, giving away your tax dollars could be the difference between your child getting into medicine and failing. It could be the difference between you sailing in the Sydney to Hobart, rubbing shoulders with the rich and famous, and watching it on TV. It could be the difference between your wife loving you because of the nice new house, or nagging you because she's embarrassed to have people round.

Look at this logically. There are some in Australia who are of limited ability and poor disposition. They will never be well off. They'll use government schools and public hospitals. They'll get discounted fares on public transport, cheap prescriptions at the chemist, live in shitty rental housing with bad neighbours (maybe they are bad neighbours themselves), and work intermittently. If they reach old age, it will be uncomfortable and with bad food and cranky nursing home staff. These people probably vote Labor, although the more stupid will vote One Nation.

There are other Australians who are talented, hard working, attractive, who have a lot of good connections they made at their private school and who are lovely people and make a shitload of money. They go to private hospitals when they need to, send their kids to private schools, work for charities.  Actually, these people need not have come from privileged backgrounds, just got lucky when talent and work ethic were handed out. But it wouldn't hurt if they come from money either. These people probably vote Liberal, but not necessarily, as they can afford to be generous and think of those less fortunate than themselves.

These are the extremes. But elections aren't fought at the extremes, they are fought in the middle.  Those who are near the top, say in the top 10 - 25%, they are highly likely to vote Liberal. But somewhere in the middle are the crew who aren't sure. And these people win elections.

So we need to paint a picture for these people. A picture of how bad it will be for them if they don't quite get a foothold on the ladder of success and end up having to rely on public transport, public hospitals and government schools. And I'm thinking we should tell them the truth. The total wealth of Australia is rapidly increasing, but the fraction of the population getting a "fair share" of it is falling. They risk being part of the "have nots". But let's not only sell on fear, but on generosity and "bigness".

Paint two pictures, and in both of these pictures our voter has "made it". In one picture he/she has a nice house and are comfortably off. They live in a nice suburb. The schools, private and government, are nice. The hospitals, private and government are nice.  Of course the private are better than the government, but you get the feeling that no one is seriously disadvantaged by the government option.

In the other picture, the house is bigger. The car is more expensive. There is a jet ski. The schools (private) are lovely.  The hospitals (private) are lovely. The parks are lovely. But the suburb is walled, and on the other side of the wall is poverty and despondency, shared both by those who nearly made it, and by the total no-hopers. The hospitals are third world. The schools are run down, as are the teachers. The parks are dry, dusty and unloved.

Now you might wonder where you'll be able to shoot the "third world" hospitals. Well, you'll find them in every capital city. RPH in Perth, for example.  And you may wonder about the rundown schools, and if it hadn't been for the "building the education revolution" funding during the gfc, they'd be everywhere. You'll still find them.

And these pictures are pitched to the people in the middle. The ones who have the fear of not "making it" and ending up on the scrap heap. The ones who think they will make it, but don't want the huge chasm between the rich and the poor. Let's sell the generous version of Australia. It must be a higher taxing version of Australia. That is why the people at the margins must be generous to vote for it. It may well be against their immediate financial interests. And these people need to feel generous and embiggened.  Not, as the Murdoch media will tell them, angry at the "tax heist". We need to sell them a picture of the better selves. Not all of them have to be convinced. Just enough so that Labor can win an election without promising irresponsible tax cuts.

How to study?

At uni we give students access to past test papers.  They are all multiple choice questions.  And sometimes I don't put the answers up, so that students don't know whether they have a question right or not.  Because I figure that I really want them to absolutely convince themselves that they are right.

But when I do that the complaints roll in.  Apparently I'm hurting their study if I don't tell them the answers. 

Anyhow this year I've published the questions from last year, but rather than just put the pdf up, I've made it an online quiz, and haven't mentioned that the questions are from last years test.  The students do the quiz, and get a mark.  They don't find out which answers are correct, at least not for a week or two.  Somewhat hopefully I'm expecting them to go to the online forum and argue about which answers are correct.  But why do it like this?

Well the normal way of studying is to do a past test question, and decide that "C" is the correct answer.  Then you look at the actual answer and discover that it is "D".  So you convince yourself that you understand why "D" is correct and "C" is not.  And you move onto the next question.  Actually for many students I'm gilding the lily.  They just look at the question, look at the answer, and think, "Yeah, that makes sense".

Can you see why I hate these approaches?  Because a student can do it this way and not have learned much.  Not have really, really worked to understand.  I'd prefer them to actually think about the problem.  And not telling them the answers straight away, that should push them to think.

The other thing about making it an online quiz is that they get a score.  And if its a low score, that should come as a shock. A shock they won't get if they just look at questions and answers and think, "Yeah, I get that". So I'm trying not to let them kid themselves that they are doing ok when they aren't.

Howards End

So I'm watching Howard's End.  And I wish I'd read it instead.  Although I have totally fallen in love with our heroines.  There are two of them.  The older sensible one and the younger more emotional hot headed one.  And of course its the younger I identify with.  She's most surely wrong and stupid and unrealistic. But at least in fiction you can choose how you want the world to be...

Peak life?

Look, we are all going to die.  And when you are 20, that is unthinkable.  But as I've well passed my half century, I'm getting closer to the inevitable.

And one thing strikes me.  I'm never going to be as strong, clever or funny as I have been in the past.  Or handsome, or sexy.  I will end up old and weak, and though people may say that my mind is still sharp, they won't mean its really sharp, just that its good compared to other old people.

In short, I'm on the downward part of life.  About the only thing going for me is experience, but since I don't remember stuff as well as I used to, I think its safe to assume that even my experience is going downhill.

Its a bit depressing really.  And it suggests the need to find a better way to look at life.