Strange science time...

Have you all missed my posts on strange/weird science? (Presses ear against monitor but hears nothing.) Thought so!

Anyhow, Mild Colonial Boy brought to my attention The Telegraph's version of last week's story that maybe astronomers have caused the early destruction of the universe by looking at it.

It's a curious idea which I don't understand at all. It's only appeal is that it has a certain urban myth, cautionary horror tale character about it. ("And as they led the girl away, they warned her, 'Don't look back. Don't look back..' But she didn't heed the warning...etc".)

The second science story from last week which made no sense at all was this one from Nature, which revisits Schrodinger's cat:

Johannes Kofler and Časlav Brukner ... say that the emergence of the 'classical' laws of physics, deduced by the likes of Galileo and Newton, from quantum rules happens not as objects get bigger, but because of the ways we measure these objects. If we could make every measurement with as much precision as we liked, there would be no classical world at all, they say.

It's not "decoherence" that solves the problem, they say, but simply the fact that measurements are imprecise on the macro scale:

The researchers show that it depends on the precision of measurement. If the measurements are a bit fuzzy, so that we can’t distinguish one quantum state from several other, similar ones, this smoothes out the quantum oddities into a classical picture. Kofler and Brukner show that, once a degree of fuzziness is introduced into measured values, the quantum equations describing an object’s behaviour turn into classical ones.

.....watching ...quantum jumps between life and death for Schrödinger’s cat would require that we be able to measure precisely an impractically large number of quantum states. For a 'cat' containing 10²⁰ quantum particles, say, we would need to be able to tell the difference between 10¹⁰ states – too many to be feasible.

If correct, it is difficult to see what this would mean. Is it fair to say that, if we had the eyes of God, we would all look like fuzzy wavefunction balls, with no clear edge to our bodies at all? (I am sure that all anti-religion scientists would hate that as an image, as it sounds like it is offering a possible explanation for the reality of Reiki healing, or other New Age-y ideas.)

Alternatively, does it mean that any living thing, if its life is dependent on a quantum outcome, is in reality in a type of simultaneous dead and alive state? In the article, they say:

"We prefer to say that they are neither dead nor alive," say Kofler and Brukner, “but in a new state that has no counterpart in classical physics.”

Well, that's as clear as mud then!

My Coalition leadership wish

I have already made the point over at Caz's blog, but I reckon the best Coalition leadership team would be Turnbull and Julie Bishop. (Pity that the Nationals would have to give up their deputy position for that, but geez they are getting increasingly irrelevant, aren't they?)

The earlobes, the earlobes!

Gillard main.jpg (JPEG Image, 300x383 pixels)

Ever since making an off the cuff comment on Saturday night that Julia Gillard seems to have very large earlobes, my site meter has indicated that there have been half a dozen hits here (at least) resulting from Google searches of "Julia Gillard earlobes".

Doesn't that seem odd?

Anyway, proof that I am right can be found in the picture linked above. It seems to show she has 2 piercings in her left lobe at least. I think she could fit a few more in, easily!

UPDATE: Julia is our new PM, and this has caused a sudden upsurge in the number of hits to this blog by people who specifically Google "Julia Gillard earlobes". I can't decide if I should be honoured or disturbed. Anyway, to keep all such visitors happy, I have found the most explicit ear lobe photo of Julia ever. Knock yourselves out:



UPDATE 2: Maybe it was the lighting. Maybe she's been wearing some particularly pendulous earrings lately. But for whatever reason, Julia's earlobes struck me as particularly big on the "Great Debate" tonight. And more and people seem to be noticing, given the hundreds and hundreds who have arrived here via Google searches. Here's a screenshot from tonight:

Flanagan on Howard

Guardian Unlimited | Comment is free | A decade of John Howard has left a country of timidity, fear and shame

Richard Flanagan puts his typical over-the-top slant on the downfall of John Howard:

Howard had promised that Australia would be relaxed and comfortable under his rule, yet this year Australians had become more fearful and suspicious of each other than ever, a state of affairs that Howard's government seemed happy to exploit.

Er, well with all the water gardening murders going on, it's no wonder:

Every mainland capital city now has a water supply crisis so severe that people have been murdered by neighbours for watering gardens.

I think the number of people is precisely "one", isn't it?

Actually, as far as Flanaghan columns go, this one is surprising for actually giving credit that some things he approves of happened under Howard. (Increased immigration, closer ties to Asia, gun laws, the Timor intervention.) Of course, Richard seems to think these happened despite of Howard, not because of him.

Then its back to the bad:

For a decade Howard's power had resided in his ability to speak directly and powerfully to the great negativity at the core of the Australian soul - its timidity, its conformity, its fear of other people and new ideas, its colonial desire to ape rather than lead, its shame that sometimes seems close to a terror of the uniqueness of its land and people.

Yeah, that fits in real well with the list of things you just approved of, doesn't it, you dill.

As you would expect, the big worry for Richard is that Rudd is Howard lite:

Was this Howard's greatest victory: the creation of a Labor party in his own image?

He might be onto something there.

Of course, you can rely on Guardian readers to join in soon with their own horror stories of the True Character of Australia. There aren't many comments yet, but I like this one:

People evaporated off the street.

That must account for the slightly greasy smudges left all across Australian city footpaths. It's all that remains of the evaporated.

In other news...

The New York Times has run a couple of articles indicating that some countries well advanced in the development of wind power are starting to get leery of it:

In the United States, one of the areas most suited for wind turbines is the central part of the country, stretching from Texas through the northern Great Plains — far from the coastal population centers that need the most electricity.

In Denmark, which pioneered wind energy in Europe, construction of wind farms has stagnated in recent years. The Danes export much of their wind-generated electricity to Norway and Sweden because it comes in unpredictable surges that often outstrip demand.

In 2003, Ireland put a moratorium on connecting wind farms to its electricity grid because of the strains that power surges were putting on the network; it has since begun connecting them again.

And in Germany, they are starting to run out of places to put them:

In Germany, where 20,000 wind turbines generate 5 percent of the electricity, advocates say wind will be critical to meeting the government’s goal of generating at least 20 percent of all power from renewable methods by 2020. But the industry’s growth is slowing for a variety of reasons.

Germany is running out of places to put the turbines because of restrictions on the location and height of the devices. And rising raw material prices are making wind farms more expensive to build.

“Under the current circumstances, Germany’s climate protection targets are not achievable,” said Hermann Albers, the president of the German Wind Energy Association.

Remember: Kevin Rudd has promised us the same renewable energy target. Germany has much smaller area over which to send the energy they chose to generate with wind or other renewables, and has been hard at developing it for years. (They also claim they can do it without new nuclear plants.)

I can't see there is a hope in hell that Labor's target is achievable in Australia.

The bad news keeps coming...

Matt Price has died, aged 46. Very, very sad news.

UPDATE: more detail and recollections of friends and colleagues this morning. I noted this too:

It was a measure of the respect that Matt was held in that John Howard took time out during a frantic election campaign last week to visit him at his Mount Hawthorn home.

What a nice gesture. Not reported previously (not that it should have been either,) but still indicates the fundamental decency of the ex PM.

No one saw that coming, did they?

Peter Costello wants the quiet life. So does Downer on Insiders this morning.

Abbott had a bit of a shocker of a campaign. Turnbull is really the only one left.

Sort of appropriate I suppose: relative amateurs for both PM and Opposition. Leader.

One good thing about Kevin Rudd

You only have to draw a round face, cheeks and that chin, and you get something vaguely resembling him. It would have to be the easiest face ever in the history of cartooning.

OK, trust me, I have done better ones than that, but you get the idea.

Speaking of chins, every election night, after staring at Kerry O'Brien's face for 5 hours, I starting wondering about his crater-like chin dimple. It's so round and deep, it looks like it has been surgically enhanced with a donut shaped implant. How on earth does he shave in there?

Election night observations

1. Julia Gillard has been surprisingly non-irritating and pretty gracious on her ABC gig. She seems to have really big ear lobes though.

2. It's a loss, but in terms of seats to gain for Coalition re-election, it's not going to be as big as it was for Rudd.

3. A lot of seats will be very marginal again, it seems.

4. Most undeserving (and puzzling) loss of the night: Mal Brough.

5. Worst possible outcome (no one knows if it is a possibility yet): Greens get balance of power in Senate.

6. Bob Brown is already thinking he can swing his weight around. I can't stand the man, and I think most journalists and mainstream politicians don't hold him and his tactics in high regard either.

7. Prediction: Peter Costello as Opposition Leader will still often trounce Rudd in Parliament. (Rudd is simply not a good parliamentary performer, and this will be exacerbated when he is PM.)

8. Great concession speech by Howard. What's not to like about him as a person? Appears devoid of bitterness, even when defeated by opportunist media tart (s). The contrast with Keating and Latham's post loss behaviour could not be more stark. Didn't dissolve into public self-pitying blubbering like Fraser either.

9. Of course I would say this, but: I expect community disappointment with Rudd within about 18 months. I expect Labor disappointment to start even earlier.

10. I wonder how Rudd's speech will go. Full of blather I expect.

UPDATE: Rudd seems to have decided his winner's speech is a chance to repeat all of his campaign mantras. Yes, indeed, it's lots of blather, and there seems to be a lot of "I, I, I" in it. Robot Rudd seems to fully appreciate that it will be his government.

We got him out of asking himself questions; now will he please stop saying "and you know something?"

Some of the content seems to not be all that enthusiastically greeted by the audience. Maybe some of them will wake up in the morning and say "Oh my God, I just elected a wannabe John Howard."

Ah well, life goes on.

UPDATE 2: was Rudd still working for Premier Goss when he unexpectedly lost? People need to remember that the voters of Queensland are, shall we say, different. Look at how long Bjelke Petersen hung around, and Goss and Peter Beattie's respective electoral loss and win which neither of them deserved.

There is no doubt that Rudd being a Queenslander accounts for a few percentiles of his swing in this State. But history shows Queensland voters are very fickle, and those that voted for him this time cannot be trusted to be "rusted on" even for the next election.

Ever get the feeling she doesn't like Rudd?

Take me to your leader - Ruddbot wired for power - Opinion - smh.com.au

Annabel Crabbe starts her column like this:

Today, Australia may well elect its first android prime minister. Ruddbot has marched through this campaign like the Terminator, incorporating Coalition policies that suit him and remorselessly amputating Labor sentiments that do not. This is the happy prerogative of the machine.

Finally, the campaign gets interesting

Dispute boils over in Wentworth - smh.com.au

Award winning journalist Caroline Overington hurled abuse at Labor candidate for Wentworth George Newhouse before slapping him across the face at a polling station in Sydney's east, witnesses say.

Donations for art lessons always welcome...

Cancel the anti-depressants?

Newspoll predicts a cliffhanger | The Courier-Mail

One reason to be against a massive win for Labor is purely for entertainment value.

Especially with daylight saving, it can be very annoying to have the beer, a bowl of popcorn and remote control at the ready to channel surf the election coverage, only to find out it has been virtually decided by 7pm Brisbane time.

No, I don't like anyone calling it until 10.30 at the earliest.

We need a law to maximise the entertainment value of election nights: elections should only be held outside of daylight savings periods.

Under darkening skies

Business confidence plunges on election uncertainty - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Like the dramatic post title? Expect more from here over the weekend. I expect to be unhappy.

Annabel's fun column

Such a cute little piglet but then things get curly - Opinion - smh.com.au

Annabel Crabbe does a fine, funny column again today.

And at last, rather than Kevin Rudd's "ping" ad annoying me, I see Fairfax websites today are being blitzed by Liberal ads which are so bluntly negative they make me smile.

Jackie's fine legacy

There must be a case to be made that Jackie Kelly was the luckiest Howard government politician ever. The surprise delivery of an "aspirational" seat to the PM, surviving the challenge and second poll, being made sports Minister for the Olympics as a reward: just the ridiculous luck of running for the right seat at the right time.

But her success made me very cynical about what it takes to be a successful politician in our democracy.

You see, how do I put this politely: based on some past experience with her, I always took the view that she was the ultimate example of the triumph of style over substance.

For all I know, she was a good local member. I don't think it takes much to do that if you have good staff, go to lots of local meetings and actually help some constituents with personal problems. All politicians work hard in terms of the time they have to put in. But a Minister? Bah.

Anyway, I find it funny (in a schadenfreude sort of way) that this current Muslim leaflet debacle has involvement from her own home (her husband). If Howard loses, what a weird set of bookends to his government Jackie will have made.

I should have emailed Howard with a warning when she won her seat. (Although I am not even sure I had an email account way back then!)

UPDATE: a perhaps even more damaging claim from the past by a Liberal about Jackie Kelly.
And she is being completely ridiculed by every commentator in the land for her performance on the media this morning. Schadenfreude overload!

Having said that: of course this doesn't make me change my vote. I wish the examples of famous Labor dirty tricks at the electorate level would come to mind, but I am sure they are there. I thought the Libs were looking at losing Lindsay anyway.

Good point

Rudd reckons it would have been easy being Howard

A pithy and accurate post by Andrew Bolt, even though I still blame him for much of the Coalition's problems in this election.

Red Kerry

I say there is no way anyone can credibly deny that Kerry O'Brien's approach to interviewing Rudd tonight was (yet again) less aggressive, softer and more forgiving of avoidance than his approach with Howard the night before. (Even though I thought Kerry's thanks to Howard at the end did show a degree of respect.)

For whatever reason, there has been little criticism of ABC bias in this campaign, but it's been there. The only thing I take comfort in is that even an ABC journalist like Barry Cassidy can find Rudd's tactics annoying.

Keeping Deveny happy

Australians have a chance to prove they're not all that bad - Opinion

Catherine Deveny has a column condemning one half of Australia for daring to have voted Coalition in the last few elections. It's truly eye-rolling stuff.

It's so easy to ridicule, I can't be bothered.

I will just make the point that she typifies what I have said for many years: those who support the Coalition generally think that people intending to vote Labor are simply unwise. A significant chunk of Labor supporters, on the other hand, think that those who vote for the Coalition are insanely stupid and morally depraved.

Life lessons from the Duke

Like the Duke, just get on with it | Libby Purves - Times Online

Libby Purves thinks we can learn something from the attitude of Duke of Edinburgh. (Stop second guessing what could have been, and just get on with life.)

Not a bad attitude.

Tony Abbot made similar sense when he recently made the point that in times of strong employment, unhappy employees are generally better off just getting a new job elsewhere rather than seeking to punish their boss through litigation. (Of course, there are extreme cases where bosses should be pursued, but the great majority of unfair dismissal cases are not like this, I feel sure.)

I have personally seen an unfair dismissal case which followed what I suspect to be the typical pattern for small businesses:

1. young employee claims boss said "X",
2. young employee with parental encouragement and free legal assistance starts action in State Industrial Relations system;
3. at first "mediation" at the tribunal, boss strongly denies she would ever say that to anyone, and it was not the reason for ending employment anyway;
4. being honest, boss admits she did not take notes of the disputed conversation at the time. (She didn't know what was going to be alleged at that time, after all)
5. industrial relation commissioner rolls her eyes at how silly it was for boss to not have written down such details immediately;
6. boss pays employee "go away money".

Expect more of this again if Federal Labor gets in.

Parents who encourage their adult children to take such action have always bothered me. There was a much worse case I also had some involvement with years ago, where the employee performed a patently stupid and dangerous prank which resulted in physical, possibly permanent, injury to another employee. Disciplinary proceedings ensued, employee admitted he was guilty and was duly punished. Afterwards, his parents became involved in a protracted complaint about how his whole career had been mismanaged by the service. I couldn't believe it. He was (as I recall) in his early to mid-twenties, and still he has parents who are fighting his battles for him. (They made it pretty clear that they figured that his dangerous act of stupidity was somehow caused by boredom due to his career mismanagement.)

Parents with such attitudes drive me crazy. Be like the Duke. Take personal responsibility. Move forward. And encourage your children to do the same.