Q: What are the Intersecting Chord and Power of a Point Theorems?

Mathematician: The Intersecting Chords theorem asks us to consider two intersecting line segments inside of a circle (such that each line segment starts and ends on the edge of the circle). Each line segment can be thought of as being divided in two parts by the point where the two line segments intersect (in the image below these parts are a and b for the first line segment, and c and d for the second line segment). The Intersecting Chord theorem says that when we multiply the lengths of the two parts of the first line segment together, we get the same value as when we multiply the lengths of the two parts of the other line segment together (that is, that a*b = c*d). The Power of a Point theorem generalizes this situation to the case where only one side of each line segment lies on the circle, and the other sides of the line segments can intersect each other outside of the circle. The answer you get is a bit different in this case.

One way to think about why the Intersecting Chords theorem is true is because the triangle formed with  a and d as two of its sides is a similar triangle to (has the same angles as) the triangle formed that has c and b as two of it’s sides. Because the triangles are similar, that implies that a/d = c/b   (that is, the ratio of side lengths should be the same for the two triangles), and if we multiply both sides of this equation by both b and d, we get  a b = c d  which is just the Intersecting Chord Theorem.

For more info see:

An Interactive Example

An Explanation of the Intersecting Chord Theorem

An Explanation of the Power of a Point Theorem

Posted in -- By the Mathematician, Geometry, Math | Leave a comment

Q: How far away is the edge of the universe?

Physicist: If you ever hear a physicist talking about “the edge of the universe”, what they probably mean is “the edge of the visible universe”.  The oldest light (from the most distant sources) is around 15 billion years old.  Through a detailed and very careful study of cosmic inflation we can estimate that those sources should now be about 45 billion light years away.  So if you define the size of the visible universe as the present physical distance (in terms of the “co-moving coordinates” which are stationary with respect to the cosmic microwave background) to the farthest things we can see, then the edge of the visible universe is 45 billion light years away (give or take).  However, that “edge” doesn’t mean a lot.  It’s essentially a horizon, in that it only determines how far you can see.

Of course, if you wanted to know “how far can we see?” you would have asked that.  The picture of the universe that most people have is of a universe enclosed in some kind of bubble.  That is, the picture that most people have is of a universe that has an edge.  However, there are some big problems with assuming that there’s a boundary out there.

If you decide that space suddenly ends at an edge, then you have to figure out how particles would interact with it.  Obviously they can’t keep going, but bouncing off or stopping both violate conservation of momentum, and disappearing violates conservation of mass/energy.  Moreover, if you say that spacetime has a definite edge at a definite place then you’re messing with relativistic equivalence (all of physics works the same in all positions and velocities).  It may seem easy to just put an asterisk on relativity and say that there’s an exception where the edge of the universe is concerned, but the math isn’t nearly as forgiving.

The nicest theories today suggest that there is no boundary to the universe at all.  This leads to several options:

Three possibilities for a homogeneous (same everywhere), edgeless universe.

1) A negatively curved, infinite universe. This option has been ruled out by a study of the distribution of the Cosmic Microwave Background.

2) A flat (non-curved), infinite universe. The measurements so far (devotees may already know how to do these measurements) show that space is flat, or very very nearly flat.  However, infinite universes make everyone nervous.  An infinite universe will repeat everything in the visible universe an infinite number of times, as well as every possible tiny variation, as well as every vastly different variation.  All philosophy aside, what really bothers physicists is that an infinite (roughly homogeneous) universe will contain an infinite amount of matter and energy.  Also, the big bang (assuming that the Big Bang happened) would have had to happen everywhere at once.  As bad as the mathematical descriptions of the Big Bang traditionally are, an infinitely large Big Bang is much worse.

3) A curved, finite universe. This is the best option.  You can think of the universe as being a 3-dimensional space that is the surface of a 4-dimensional ball, in the same way that the surface of a balloon is a 2-dimensional space wrapped around a 3-dimensional ball.  Of course, this immediately begs the question “what’s inside the ball?”.  Well, keep in mind that what defines a space is how the things inside it relate to each other (the only thing that defines space is rulers).  So even if you turned the “balloon” inside-out you’d still have the same space.  Or, if you’re not a topologist, then remember that there’s nothing outside of space, and the surface of the 4-d sphere is space.  Now, be warned, the “3-d surface of a 4-d ball” description isn’t entirely accurate.  Right of the bat, we don’t live in 3 dimensions, we live in 3+1 dimensions (not “space” but “spacetime”), and the metric for that is a little weird.  Also, when you talk about “the shape of the universe”, you probably mean “the shape of the universe right now”, and sadly there’s no way to universally agree on what “now” means in a universe with any rotating stuff in it.  That being said, the “surface of a sphere” thing is still a good way to talk about the universe.

Since our best measurements show that space is very flat, if the universe has taken the 3rd “curved, finite” path (it probably has), then it must be really really big.  This is for the same reason that you can easily show that a ball is curved, but may have some difficulty showing that the Earth is curved.

Also, to answer the original question: the universe doesn’t have an edge.

Posted in -- By the Physicist, Astronomy, Physics, Relativity | 79 Comments

Q: Why do superconductors have to be cold?

Physicist: The long answer is really, really long.  Superconductivity comes in a variety of different forms, and there’s a different explanation for each.  To sum them up in a thumbnail sketch of a thumbnail sketch:

In conductors, the primary cause of electrical resistance is the exchange of kinetic energy between the moving electrons and the material they’re moving through.  As a result, the material heats up and the electrons find themselves knocked in random directions so much that you can barely tell what direction they’re supposed to be moving in.  In fact, the net movement of an electron in the direction of the current is often referred to as “drift velocity”.

The exchange of energy makes the material hotter and randomizes the path of the electrons.

By making the material cold there is less energy to knock the electrons around, so their path can be more direct, and they experience less resistance.  So far this is just an argument for why coldness causes lower resistance, but says nothing about superconductance.  Enter quantum mechanics.  As the name implies, quantum mechanics describes how everything in the universe is quantized (not continuous).  The energy that gets exchanged must be in discrete (quantized) chunks that have a minimum size.  If the material is cold enough, then there isn’t enough heat energy available to reach that minimum “chunk”.  So energy is not passed from the material to the electrons, the electrons don’t get knocked around, and they don’t experience any resistance.

Temperature vs. Resistance in Yitrium-Barium-Copper-Oxide, the first "high temperature" superconductor. This was a breakthrough because YBCO can be cooled to superconductive using liquid nitrogen, which is cheap.

It turns out that many materials become a superconductor if cooled down enough.  In fact, superconductivity was discovered accidentally when a sample of Mercury was cooled to 4° K (-452° F or -269° C).  The slick new superconductors also take advantage of the “can’t exchange a chunk that big” technique, but involve lots of QM tricks to force the operational temperature way up.  Figuring out these tricks and putting them together correctly is what makes new higher temperature superconductors so difficult to invent.

It’s worth noting, finally, that the answer above is the most intuitive answer I can come up with, and not the most correct.  A more precise understanding involves a more thorough understanding of the math and wave mechanics (the electrons act more like waves than particles, and the material acts more like a waveguide than a hose).

Posted in -- By the Physicist, Physics, Quantum Theory | 5 Comments

Q: Why does the leading digit 1 appear more often than other digits in all sorts of numbers? What’s the deal with Benford’s Law?

Mathematician: Benford’s Law (sometimes called the Significant-Digit Law) states that when we gather numbers from many different types of random sources (e.g. the front pages of newspapers, tables of physical constants at the back of science textbooks, the heights of randomly selected animals picked from many different species, etc.), the probability that the leading digits (i.e. the left most non-zero digits) of one of these numbers will be d is approximately equal to

 log_{10}(1 + \frac{1}{d}) .

That means the probability that a randomly selected number will have a leading digit of 1 is

 log_{10}(1 + \frac{1}{1}) = 0.301

which means it will happen about 30.1% of the time, whereas the probability that the first two leading digits will be 21 is given by

 log_{10}(1 + \frac{1}{21}) = 0.020

which means it will occur about 2.0% of the time. Note that if we were writing our numbers in a base b other than 10 (i.e. decimal) we would simply replace the log_{10} in the formulas above with log_{b}. Benford’s Law indicates that in base 10, the most likely leading digit for us to see is 1, the second most likely 2, the third most 3, the fourth most likely 4, and so on. But why should this be true, and to what sorts of sources of random numbers will it apply?

Some insight into Benford’s Law can be gleaned from the following mathematical fact: If there exists some universal distribution that describes the probability that numbers sampled from any source will have various leading digits, it must be the formula given above. The reason for this is because if such a formula works for all sources of data, then when we multiply all numbers produced by our source by any constant, the distribution of the likelihood of leading digits must not change. This is the property of “scale invariance”. Now notice that if we have a number whose leading digit is 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9, and we multiply that number by 2, the new leading digit will always be 1. But since this operation is not allowed to change the probability of leading digits, that means that the probability of having a leading digit of 1 must be the same as the probability of having a leading digit of any of 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9. This property is satisfied by the formula given above, since

 log_{10}(1 + \frac{1}{1}) =  log_{10}(1 + \frac{1}{5})  + log_{10}(1 +\frac{1}{6}) + log_{10}(1 + \frac{1}{7}) + log_{10}(1 + \frac{1}{8}) + log_{10}(1 + \frac{1}{9})

Of course, there is nothing special about multiplying the numbers from our random source by 2, so a similar property must hold regardless of what we multiply our numbers by. As it turns out, the formula for Benford’s Law is the only formula such that the distribution does not change no matter what positive number we multiply the output of our random source by.

There is a problem with the preceding argument, however, since it has been empirically verified that not all data sources satisfy Benford’s Law in practice, so the existence of a universal law for leading digits seems to contradict the available evidence. On the other hand though, a great deal of data has been collected (e.g. by Benford himself) indicating that the law holds to pretty good accuracy for many different types of data sources. In fact, it seems that the law was first discovered due to a realization (by astronomer Simon Newcomb in 1881) that the pages of logarithm tables at the back of textbooks are not equally well worn. What was noticed was that the earlier tables (with numbers starting with the digit 1) tended to look rather dirtier than the later ones. So the question remains, how can we justify all of these empirical observations of the law in a more rigorous mathematical way?

First of all, an important point to note is that when we sample values from some common probability distributions (like the exponential distribution and the log normal distribution) the leading digits that you get already come close to satisfying Benford’s Law (see the graphs at the bottom of the article). Hence, we should already expect the law to approximately hold in some real world scenarios. More importantly though, as was demonstrated by the probabilist Theodore Hill, if our process for sampling points actually involves sampling from multiple sources (which cover a variety of different scales, without favoring any scale in particular), and then group together all the points that we get from all of the sources, the distribution of leading digits will tend towards satisfying Benford’s Law. For the technical details and restrictions, check out Hill’s original 1996 paper.

Perhaps the best way to quickly convince yourself that Hill’s result is true is to look at the graphs found below. Various probability distributions are shown (the first five that I happened to think of) together with the frequency of leading digits (from 1 to 9) that I got when sampling 100,000 points from that distribution (where the frequencies are depicted by the blue bars). For each, the pink line shows what we would expect to get if Benson’s Law held perfectly. As you can see, for some distributions we get a good fit (e.g. the exponential and log normal distributions) whereas for others the fit is poorer (e.g. the uniform, normal and laplace distributions). What the third graph in each table shows is the distribution of leading digits that we get when, instead of sampling just from one copy of each distribution, we sample from 9 different copies (with equal probability), each of which has a different variance (in most cases chosen to be proportional to the values 1 up to 9). Hence, what we are doing is sampling from multiple distributions each of which is the same except for a scaling factor, and then pooling those samples together, at which point we calculate the probability of the various leading digits (how often is 1 the first non-zero digit, how often is two the first non-zero digit, etc). The result in every case shown is that this leads to a distribution of leading digits that fits Benford’s Law quite well.

To conclude, when we are dealing with data that is combined from multiple sources such that those sources have no systematic bias in how they are scaled, we can expect that the distribution of leading digits will approximate Benford’s Law. This will tend to apply to sources like numbers pulled each day from the front page of a newspaper, because the values found in this way will come from all different distributions (some will represent oil prices, others real estate prices, others populations, and so on).

Besides just being generally bizarre and interesting, Benford’s Law has lately found some real world applications. For certain types of financial data where Benford’s Law applies, fraud has actually been detected by noting that results made up out of thin air will generally be non-random and will not satisfy the proper distribution of leading digits.

Distribution Uniform
Probability Density Function

Distribution of Leading Digit Of Samples

Distribution of Leading Digit Taking Samples From 9 Such Distributions With Different Variances

 

Distribution Normal
Probability Density Function

Distribution of Leading Digit Of Samples

Distribution of Leading Digit Taking Samples From 9 Such Distributions With Different Variances

 

Distribution Laplace
Probability Density Function

Distribution of Leading Digit Of Samples

Distribution of Leading Digit Taking Samples From 9 Such Distributions With Different Variances

 

Distribution Log Normal
Probability Density Function

Distribution of Leading Digit Of Samples

Distribution of Leading Digit Taking Samples From 9 Such Distributions With Different Variances

 

Distribution Exponential
Probability Density Function

Distribution of Leading Digit Of Samples

Distribution of Leading Digit Taking Samples From 9 Such Distributions With Different Variances

Posted in -- By the Mathematician, Math | 1 Comment

Q: How does the Monty Hall Problem work?

For those of you who aren’t familiar with The Monty Hall Problem: You’re on a game show where there is a prize hidden behind one of three doors (A, B, or C), and the objective is to guess the correct door.  After you make a guess the host of the show always opens another door (that is not the one you picked) that has no prize behind it.  You are now given the option to stay with your original guess or switch to the remaining unopened door.  The “paradox” is that if you stay you’ll have a 1 in 3 chance of getting the prize, but if you switch to the remaining door you’ll have a 2 in 3 chance.


Mathematician: In my opinion, the easiest way to understand the Monty Hall problem is this: Suppose there are three doors, A, B and C and you originally chose door A. If you stay with your original door, then the only way that you win is if originally the prize was behind A, which has a chance of 1 in 3. If the prize was originally behind door B on the other hand (which also has a chance of 1 in 3), then when you pick door A, door C will be removed. Hence, if you switch you will be switching to door B, and therefore you will win. Finally, if the prize was originally behind door C (which again has a chance of 1 in 3) then door B will be removed, and if you switch you will be switching to door C and therefore will win. Hence, if you stay with your original door, you win if and only if the prize was originally behind door A. If you switch though, you win if it was originally behind either door B or door C. Since the chance of the prize being behind door A from the get go is 1 in 3, whereas the chance of it being behind either B or C from the get go is 2 in 3, you are better off switching!

Posted in -- By the Mathematician, Brain Teaser, Math | 13 Comments

Q: How/Why are Quantum Mechanics and Relativity incompatible?

Physicist: Quantum Mechanics (QM) and relativity are both 100% accurate, so far as we have been able to measure (and our measurements are really, really good).  The incompatibility shows up when both QM effects and relativistic effects are large enough to be detected and then disagree.  This condition is strictly theoretical today, but in the next few years our observations of Sagittarius A*, and at CERN should bring the problems between QM and relativity into sharp focus.

Relativity comes in two flavors: special and general.  Special relativity describes how time and distance are affected by movement (especially fast movement), and it replaces Newtonian mechanics, which is only accurate at low speeds.  Einstein came up with it by looking at the mathematical repercussions of the fact that all of physics works the same way, independent of movement (constant speed is the same as no speed).  Special relativity has been exhaustively tested (relativistic effects have been verified all the way down to walking speed), and works so perfectly that it is now held up as the yardstick against which all new theories are tested.  In fact, QM would make grossly inaccurate predictions if Dirac hadn’t shown up and tied QM together with special relativity to create “relativistic QM”.

General relativity, on the other hand, describes the stretching and bending of space and time by gravity.  Einstein came up with it when he thought about what the universe would be like if inertial and gravitational acceleration were the same (turns out they are).  By the way: gravitational acceleration is what pushes you toward the ground, and inertial acceleration is what pushes you back into the car seat when you step on the gas.  It’s general relativity that causes the problems.  Here’s two (of a possible untold many):

1) Smooth vs. Chunky: General relativity needs space to be “smooth”, or at the very least continuous.  So if you have two points side by side, then no matter how close you bring them together you can still tell which one is on the right or left.  Quantum mechanically you have to deal with position uncertainty.  At very small scales you can’t tell which is right or left.  In addition (as the name implies) QM requires everything to be “quantized”, or show up in discrete pieces.  You see this clearly with atoms, photons, and even phonons (which is quantized sound!  How awesome is that!?).  Less clear is the quantization of space, which would require space to be “chopped up”.  This choppiness will never be directly measured.  The predicted “chunky scale” should be no large than 10-35 m.  For comparison, a hydrogen atom is about a million, million, million, million times larger (10-24).

2) The Information Paradox: According to general relativity when stuff falls into a blackhole everything about it’s existence (with the exception of mass, charge, and momentum) is completely erased.  That doesn’t sound so bad.  We tend to think of blackholes as being like galactic garbage disposals.  However, if all the information about something is destroyed, then you lose time-reversibility.  Time-reversal is the idea that if you run time backwards, all the basic physical laws of the universe continue to work the same.  More obscurely, you can predict the future based on what you know now, and time reversal means that you can derive what happened in the past as well.  QM requires that time-reversibility (or “unitarity”, to a professional) holds.  So QM requires that blackholes cannot destroy information.  One way around this is amazingly complicated entanglement between all of the in-falling matter, and all of the Hawking Radiation that comes out later.  Again, we’ll never be able to measure this.  To get results we would have to exactly measure at least half of all of the photons generated by Hawking radiation over the essentially infinite life time of the blackhole (every blackhole that exists today will be around long, long after the heat death of the universe).

Posted in -- By the Physicist, Entropy/Information, Physics, Quantum Theory, Relativity | 33 Comments