Helen Fisher on Love and the Future of Women

Fascinating!  I'm not sure if she's right about certain things (e.g. men and women had equal amounts of power in pre-history) but it is very interesting nonetheless.  Enjoy!

A Case for Evolutionary Psychology

I have talked to two friends about how evolution played an important role in shaping human behavior.  Both opposed my claim and admitted that they do not believe in it.  I, too, have issues with evolutionary psychology, but for different reasons.  It is incorrect for you to assume that evolutionary psychology is wrong because you find it disturbing (e.g. leads to biological determinism, removes the divine mystery of emotions, etc).  You may think that this is obvious but you would be surprised by how often people buy into this faulty way of thinking.  I am rather unhappy with my college grades but that does not mean that I can think that those grades are not on my transcript.  In this post, I will make a case for why an educated human being should be familiar with evolutionary psychology and its results.  The truth is independent of your opinion of it.

The first thing we have to admit is that we are not born with equal abilities.  This is true physically, but also psychologically.  We know that depression, schizophrenia, alcoholism, and various other mental illnesses are highly heritable.  Intelligence (particularly linguistic proficiency and quantitative reasoning) is largely inherited but so is personality.  This has been confirmed most convincingly by twin studies.  Identical twins who share exactly the same genes are separated at birth and are studied when they meet again as adults.  These studies show that the personalities between the twins are stunningly identical.

(For more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_studies)

I will now discuss where evolutionary psychology is most commonly applied (which also happens to be where it is most controversial): human mating.  Even people who think that most of human behavior is conditioned by the environment will admit that the urge to have sex is innate.  However, there is no good reason for you to stop there.  Every species exhibits sexual behavior that is most certainly NOT learned.  In every sexualized species, the females are often pickier and less promiscuous than the males.  This is because there is a greater cost for a female to engage in sexual intercourse.  A male produces sperm very quickly and abundantly whereas a female only produces one egg per month.  The latter also bears the burden of carrying the developing fetus.  Any biologist will tell you this.  Why would this apply to all the other 5000+ mammalian species but not us?

What about emotions like jealousy?  Jealousy is essential for making sure that your genes are passed on.  This is especially important for men.  The advantage of being a woman is that you know that your children are yours.  This is not true for men.  Thus, men have to be wary to make sure their partners don’t cheat on them.  Men who lacked jealousy would end up raising other men's children and fail to pass on their genes.  Women need to be jealous too because they need to make sure their partners stay and support their children.  This is why men are more agitated by sexual infidelity and women are more troubled by emotional infidelity.

It helps to observe the mating behavior of the other great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans), our closest evolutionary cousins.  (Humans are considered great apes.)  Every adult, male gorilla, also known as a silverback, leads a harem of females and their children.  He is the only one who has sex with the females and attacks any male that tries to copulate with one of the former’s females.  If a silverback wishes to mate at all, he has to kill the silverback of the harem and all of the females’ infants.  This biologically rewires the females to be able to have the new silverback's offspring.  This also explains why gorillas have very small testes.  There is no sperm competition from other males because a female only has intercourse with one male at a time.  Male chimps have very large testes since they frequently participate in group sex.  Interestingly, men’s testes are somewhere in between (not very large but also not very small).

Arguably, male orangutans demonstrate the most disturbing sexual behavior.  Some males are very large, approximately twice the size of females, and females find them highly attractive.  Females willingly have sex with these large males and will even compete for their attention and resources.  However, there are also much smaller males that are no bigger than the females.  They execute a different strategy.  These small males sneak up behind females and forcibly penetrate them.  We know that the females are not willing because they scream, run around, and try to push the males off.  Shockingly, these male orangutans occasionally try to rape women (including Julia Roberts).

For now, I would like to end with the following note.  None of this information morally justifies any human behavior.  If some men have built-in, biological impulses to rape women, that does not exonerate them from punishment.  If these men cannot do anything about it, then they should be quarantined from mainstream society.  It is very difficult to unlearn innate behavior as Ted Haggard, Exodus International, and other “ex-gays” will admit.  I will write more evolutionary psychology posts in the future.  Feel free to comment, correct, or question below.

Ed Witten Explains String Theory

Edward Witten, a leading theoretical physicist at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton, explains the history of string theory and the reasons why string theory is worth studying.

The Story of Our Universe

          “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.  Now the earth was a formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.” –Genesis 1:1-2

            Where are we?  Where did we come from?  How did our universe come into being?  These are the questions that have been asked since the dawn of our existence yet we still have not fully answered them.  A common characteristic of most religions is a creation myth to explain the Beginning.  Humans have often attributed these inquiries to the supernatural and claimed they are eternally beyond the realm of human knowledge.  Despite these claims, creative people have attempted to answer them and have come up with countless theories. In this article, we will explore the evolution of the cosmos.

            In the beginning, there was something.  No one is certain of what that something was but our current understanding of it is that the universe was incredibly small (much smaller than the radius of an atom’s nucleus).  In extremely small scales, quantum physics gives us the best description of the system.  We also know that energy must be conserved, so all of the energy that currently exists existed before in some form (mass, light, thermal motion).  Thus, Einstein’s theory of general relativity must be used to model such massive systems.  Presently, quantum mechanics and general relativity are incompatible so we need a more powerful, more general theory to explain what happened at the beginning.  One of the hopes in theoretical physics is that string theory may provide an answer to what this initial state was.

            Whatever there was in the beginning, a tremendous explosion took place.  It sent particles in all directions, creating a sphere of dispersing energy.  The universe was so hot that all the matter was in the form of elementary particles (they cannot be broken down into smaller pieces; an example would be an electron).  Most of this inflation took place between 10^-36 seconds and 10^-32 seconds after the Big Bang where the universe’s volume increased by a factor of 10^78.

            What is interesting to note is how the dimensions of space came to be the way they are now.  According to some models, our universe has more than three spatial dimensions (e.g. there are 10 spatial dimensions in M-theory).  The reason we do not notice the extra dimensions is because they are tightly curled up within the three macroscopic dimensions.  (From a biological standpoint, our ancestors did not need to develop the ability to perceive more than three dimensions to survive.)  Why did three of the dimensions expand while the other seven remained small?  A theoretical physicist at Harvard, Cumrun Vafa, proposed one solution.  What may have happened was that some of the strings were wrapped around the extra dimensions and constricted them from expanding.  Three of the dimensions were freed because in three dimensions, randomly moving strings are likely to collide into each other.  This caused them to annihilate and the freed dimensions were able to expand.

As the universe expanded, it began to cool down.  At this point, more massive, composite particles like the proton formed and eventually bonded with free electrons to form hydrogen, the simplest atom (one electron orbiting around a single proton).  (A proton is three quarks bound together by the strong nuclear force.  The strong force is the strongest of the four forces; it is 100 times stronger than the electromagnetic force, 10^13 times the weak force, and 10^38 times the gravitational force.)  The stage was set for star systems to form.

Stars are massive spheres of plasma, mostly in the form of hydrogen.  Plasma is like a gas in which some of the atoms have been ionized.  Stars act as giant furnaces where hydrogen undergoes nuclear fusion to produce helium and virtually all naturally occurring elements heavier than helium.  Although gravity keeps most of the star’s mass compacted into the sphere, the weak force that is responsible for the radioactive decay emits particles out of the star as well.  This is why our Sun gives off light at various frequencies and many dangerously energetic electrons and protons.  Fortunately, our planet has a magnetic field that shields us from these “solar winds.”

After many billions of years, a massive star can suddenly collapse and explode.  This is called a supernova.  It is so luminous that it can temporarily outshine the star’s neighboring galaxy.  They play a vital role in creating elements heavier than oxygen and distributing them throughout the universe.  At the same time, they are incredibly dangerous.  Even if a supernova exploded 3000 light-years away from the Earth, every species would evaporate away from the heat.

This covers the first several billion years of the universe’s existence.  There is still much more to discuss: black holes, the geometry of space-time, the universal expansion rate, the formation of planets, the inception of life and its evolution, and the death of the universe (and how we could survive it).  We are made up of the same elementary particles of which planets, moons, asteroids, stars, and galaxies are made.  Through us, the universe is now conscious of its existence begins its quest to discover what it is.  I hope this brief overview encourages you to look deeper into the fascinating nature of everything around us.

A Book That Explains EVERYTHING

I've been reading Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything.  I would urge everyone to go out and get a copy of this book from the bookstore of the library.  Bryson covers cosmology, atomic physics, geology, the history of chemistry, evolution, and cellular biology in a very funny and entertaining way.

Here is the link: http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Nearly-Everything-Illustrated/dp/0307885151/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1291535501&sr=1-1

Probably the most amusing parts are the descriptions of many scientists' eccentricities.  For example, Newton once stuck a needle in his socket to see what would happen!  Amazingly, his eye ended up being fine.  The Swedish chemist, Karl Scheele was known for tasting poisonous substances (e.g. mercury, prussic acid, and hydrocyanic acid) which sadly led to his death.

If you ever wondered about the history of the universe, the Earth, and human life, definitely check out Bryson's book.

Freedom Is An Illusion

I have recently come across a very interesting book written by the great behavioral psychologist B. F. Skinner:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Freedom_and_Dignity

I haven't finished this book yet but the general gist is that we should start shaping people's behaviors with with psychological technology.  This theme is reflected in A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess, who was opposed to Skinner's proposition.

I have a lot to say about this book but I need to catch up on renormalization for my quantum field theory class...

Learning Quantum Electrodynamics

I am currently taking three graduate level physics courses: Physics 210 (General Relativity), 251a (Advanced Quantum Mechanics), and 253a (Quantum Field Theory).  Of the three, QFT is the most difficult (in my opinion).  This is a subject that people usually don't get the first time around.  I must admit that this is the first class that I have taken where I am really struggling to get through the material.

Fortunately, I have come across two books that have helped my QFT education: Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell by Anthony Zee and QED by Richard Feynman.

http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Field-Theory-Nutshell-Princeton/dp/0691140340/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1289796861&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Princeton-Science-Library/dp/0691125759/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1289796839&sr=1-5


I would highly recommend the first to any physics student interested in learning QFT.  Zee starts off with the path integral formulation of QM and derives many of the results that can be obtained from the alternative method of using perturbation theory (treating particles instead of fields as the fundamental starting point) that is normally taught in a QFT class (at least at Harvard).

I would recommend Feynman's book to both physicists and non-physicists.  This is a compilation of non-technical lectures on quantum electrodynamics given at UCLA in the 1980s.  Feynman was one of the main developers of QED and it is always illuminating to know what this Nobel laureate had to say about the nature of nature.

Dating != Physics

After going on a date every week since the beginning of the semester, I've been on a dating hiatus for about a week now and it has been fantastic.  What has also been great is not going out every weekend.  I highly recommend abstaining from both activities if you want to focus on schoolwork and getting enough rest.  I have started reading up on string theory and cosmology and I am HOOKED!

Here are the books I am reading:

http://www.amazon.com/String-Theory-M-Theory-Modern-Introduction/dp/0521860695/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1289083282&sr=1-7

http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Cosmology-Scott-Dodelson/dp/0122191412/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1289083368&sr=1-1

Note: Try to not take three graduate-level physics courses in one semester.

Einstein's Big Idea

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." (A thousand points to whoever guesses the person who said this.)

I am giving a talk on special relativity at the Harvard Student Lecture Series this Friday.  Let me come up with a quick rundown of the special theory.

1. The laws of physics hold for all inertial frames.
2. The speed of light (c = 3 x 10^8 m/s) is the same for all inertial frames.

Note: An inertial frame is one that is not accelerating (moving in one, straight direction and at constant speed).

The revolutionary claim is the latter.  If you are on the ground and your friend is on a moving train and shining light in the same direction, both of you will observe the light traveling at the same speed.  As a consequence of these two postulates, bizarre effects result: loss of simultaneity, time dilation, length contraction, E = mc^2 and more.

One interesting application is time travel.  You can travel into the future by going on a rocket moving close to the speed of light and coming back to Earth.  If you travel sufficiently fast, a one-week ride can lead you a hundred years into the future or more.  You can achieve this if you travel 99.9999982% of the speed of light.  If the rocket is 100,000 kg, you would need 4.7 x 10^25 Joules of energy.  With this amount of energy, you can sustain 10 billion people for a million years.

If I have enough time, I will write up a qualitative derivation of the results.  If you are interested in this stuff, check out the lecture I will give this Friday at 8pm in the Adams Pool Theater.  Alternatively, look up "special relativity" in Wikipedia.

Why Men are Jerks

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

This post is going to be a bit controversial but I think it needs to be said.  I was walking tonight with my friends and one of them asked why men tend to be more insensitive and make hurtful comments to women.  Here is what I think: men will do what it takes to get laid and having a jerk-like personality helps them achieve that goal.

Don't believe me?  Think about nerds and jocks (both male).  Nerds respect women more than jocks do.  Why?  When a girl gives a nerd attention, he will value it more since he is not used to it and wants to get laid.  A jock is not hesitant to blow a girl off since he's got girls lined up for him.  Despite the difference in respect, most girls pick the jock.  The nerd comes off as being too nice, uninteresting, and desperate.  The jock comes off as being dominant, challenging, and sexual.

We are a very intelligent species.

Sex at Harvard

The Harvard Independent came up with a very interesting sex survey done on Harvard students.  I was talking about this with my friend David the other day and supposedly a third of Harvard students never had sex in college.  Another third had one or two sexual partners.  Only 10% had several sexual partners during their four years.  I was pretty amazed by how low this was.  I thought that most of my peers have had much more.

Does this sound like atypical college behavior?  Perhaps other schools are not as chaste as Harvard...

A Physicist Gives Life Advice

Here is an interesting clip of Stephen Hawking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4I-XT5nH7g

Advice that Stephen Hawking gave to his children:
1. Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet.
2. Never give up work. Work gives you meaning and purpose and life is empty without it.
3. If you are lucky enough to find love, remember it is rare, and don't throw it away.

Truer words have seldom been spoken.  Stephen Hawking is a modern-day oracle.

The Necessity of Education Reform in America

Today was the first day of student registration for Harvard's High School Studies Program.  We had well over a hundred students coming in to take various classes, from quantum mechanics and geometry to digital art and American political parties.

It really is unfair how (at least in our country) some people are able have a great education while others within the same city are functionally illiterate.  To elaborate, most people can read words like "hamburger" and "Wal-Mart" but many cannot understand an article in the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal.  Our nation is the wealthiest in the world yet has a Gini coefficient comparable to Mexico's (The Gini coefficient is a measure of a country's income inequality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient).  I genuinely wish for more college-educated Americans to go into changing our education system, making it more efficient and rigorous.  It would be fantastic to have more programs like Teach For America to send our best and brightest to the people who need them the most.  What we need right now is more people who are capable of critical thinking and generating innovative ideas in virtually every sphere of human intercourse (technology, academia, politics, religion, the arts, you name it).

How could we improve the American education system?  I am guessing that raising teacher salaries would be a good start.  Feel free to comment on any other suggestions or thoughts.


IMPORTANT: I would like to thank all of the board members who helped organize today's student registration, including Stephanie Bachar and also Michael Price for staying up so late to fix website bugs.

The Decline of Music

This is going to be a bit of a rant, but hear me out.

Not too long ago, an ex of mine told me about a trend in the music scene where metal bands are fusing elements of techno into their music to create a new sound.  This sounded quite ridiculous and I didn't really understand what she meant until my brother showed me this video: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDzt6yI3Dw8&ob=av3n

Needless to say, I was absolutely appalled to witness such a disgraceful act of musical heresy.  I would not have been able to conjure up such horribleness even in my worst nightmares.  Pay particular attention to 2:46 onwards.  Seriously, this is not funny nor is it very amusing.  As a music fan and a supporter of rock bands, I can say that if this is what people are listening to for their musical enjoyment, our generation has lost a certain aesthetic appreciation.

However there are bands like this that give me some hope: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OjTspCqvk8

How to Keep Your Sanity in the Dating Game

I assume most of you have figured this out but this was a revelation to me.  Here is how to avoid wasting all sorts of mental energy while dating: DON'T THINK.

I am not joking; don't think about it.  Don't think about why the person was signaling interest the week before but not yesterday.  Don't think about why he/she didn't reply to your e-mail or text message.  Don't think that you screwed up and now someone is upset at you.  It's not a big deal.  There's no way that you can possibly figure out precisely what is going on in a person's life for you to really know anything.  Just move on and do more important things in your life (which you surely must have).  Meet different people.  It is such a simple rule of thumb and it just occurred to me recently.  Then again, this is easier said than done but it is good to have in mind in the back of your head.

Feel free to disagree but I think most people would agree with me about this point.

Human Mating Strategies

One of the most fascinating (and in my opinion, the most complicated) aspects of our species is courtship.  People tend to have different strategies, some being more successful than others.  One thing I noticed about myself is that I get attached easily, more so than others.  My roommate Ryaan is also like this.  I also have other friends who don't get very emotionally attached and prefer to have fun and not be so serious about the whole dating thing.

My questions for you: Do you find yourself getting emotionally invested quickly?  If so, why and if not, why not?  Do you think it has to do with your past experiences or more of an innate, biological mechanism?  Is it more advantageous to see many people and not get so caught up in relationships early on?