Tag: law

Jokes physicists crack — with strings attached

I’m an aspiring physicist. I don;t stand jokes cracked about my kind. And we don;t often crack anything we end up on the wrong end of (no pun intended.) But every now and then the layman would love a sip of all those jokes the physics community shares so I decided to put up ten of the many timeless ones—not too technical, yet not too far from the discipline. I have also added bits of explanation to serve as necessary aid. Read them if you can point to them.

[That last sentence was a rather technical quip, so it is not too much of a problem if you failed to get it. It refers to the one concept around which more jokes have been made than have been made on any other: Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.]


“To understand something means to derive it from quantum mechanics which nobody understands.”

This is a saying that has found its way to perhaps every nook and cranny of the physics community. Nobody knows where it originated.


Apparently, the US is dotted with inns saying stuff like ‘George Washington slept here’ or proclaiming things along the same line. There is an inn in Germany that proudly says, Heisenberg may have slept here.

A quip on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in physics, which states that it is impossible to know both the velocity and position of a particle at a given instant of time, because in measuring one, we would necessarily have disturbed the other.


A neutron walked into a bar and asked, ‘How much for a drink?’ The barista replied, ‘For you, no charge.’

It is alright if you are not laughing yet. The catch is that while most elementary particles like the electron or proton are carry either negative or positive charges, neutrons are neutral i.e. they carry no charge whatsoever.


What did one quantum physicist say when he wanted to fight another quantum physicist?

Let me atom.

A play on the phrase, ‘Let me at ‘em!’ originating most famously from Scrappy-Doo, Scooby’s nephew from the cartoon, Scooby Doo. Physicists do watch cartoons.


Famously known as Murphy’s Ten Laws for String theorists:

Murphy’s Ten Laws for String Theorists: 

  1. If you fix a mistake in a mathematical superstring calculation, another one will show up somewhere else.
  2.  If your results are based on the work of others, then one such work will turn out to be wrong.
  3. The longer your article, the more likely your computer hard disk drive will fail while you are typing the references.
  4.  The better your research result, the more likely it will be rejected by the referee of a journal; on the other hand, if your work is wrong but not obviously so, it will be accepted for publication right away.
  5.  If a result seems to good to be true, it is unless you are one of the top ten string theorists in the world. (By the way, these theorists refer to their results as “string miracles”.)
  6.  Your most startling string-theoretic theorem will turn out to be valid in only two spatial dimensions or less.
  7.  When giving a string seminar, nobody will follow anything you say after the first minute, but, if miraculously someone does, then that person will point out a flaw in your reasoning half-way through your talk and what will be worse is that your grant review officer will happen to be in the audience.
  8.  For years, nobody will ever notice the fudge factors in your calculations, but when you come up for tenure they will surface like fish being tossed fresh breadcrumbs.
  9.  If you are a graduate student working on string theory, then the field will be dead by the time you get your Ph.D.; Even worse, if you start over with a new thesis topic, the new field will also be dead by the time you get your Ph.D.
  10.  If you discover an interesting string model, then it will predict at least one low-energy, observable particle not seen in Nature. 

In summary, anything in string theory that theoretically can go wrong will go wrong, but if nothing does go theoretically wrong, then experimentally it is ruled out.

For the uncertain reader, string theory is a unification model based on the idea that all elementary particles are different vibrations of a microscopic string. Concerning #6, string theories are formulated in various numbers of spatial dimensions, of which nine is the most popular. Concerning #10, the phase “low-energy, observable particle” means that current accelerators are capable of producing and detecting it. 


 A physics professor, who was teaching a graduate course on superstring theory, decided to add an essay question to this year’s final exam. The instructions read, “Describe the universe in 400 words or less and give three examples.”

Understandably, the joke probably came up from (under)graduate students of physics; it is, nonetheless, a remarkably creative one. The catch here is that physicists have found and described—theoretically—tens of thousands of string models that describe the world equally well. There is no feasible experiment to check any of these!


It has been rumored that Edmund Scientific is trying to keep up with the times. The following amusing incident confirms this belief. The Chairman of a Physics Department ordered some lab equipment from the company. When the package arrived, a secretary opened it and found the following warning label: “Despite its superficial appearance, this product at a microscopic level might be made of strings. Manufacturer will prosecute to the maximum extent of the copyright law any attempt to make a supersymmetric version.’

String theory is the idea that the fundamental particles are extremely small vibrating strings. The most interesting types of string theories are superstrings, which are strings that exhibit supersymmetry. Supersymmetry is the idea that there is an approximate symmetry in Nature in which, for every boson (particles spinning with integer units), there is a fermion (particles spinning with half-integer units), and vice-versa. The idea is that an object can be made of normal symmetry as well as a replicated supersymmetry version.


Wanted! Schrodinger’s cat: dead and alive.

Schrodinger’s cat is a famous experiment Erwin Schroding proposed to explain the Uncertainty principle. The idea is that all possibilities (no matter how crazy) are possible mathematically (perhaps in alternate universes) and there is no absolute circumstance/situation until a measurement of it is made. In other words, the outcome of any even is solely based on the observer.

Take, for instance, a cat, put it in a box and close the box. Two valid probabilities are that the cat is either dead or alive. But to find out, you have to make an observation i.e. open the box and look at the cat. The outcome of whether the cat is dead or alive before you open the box is what is strange. Quantum physics (convincingly) shows that the cat has as equal a chance of being dead when the box is closed as is has of being alive.

In Schrodinger’s own words: ”One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter, there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small that perhaps in the course of the hour, one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges, and through a relay releases a hammer that shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.

‘It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a “blurred model” for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.’

In other news, the cat may have gone to the moon. Quantum physics can prove that too.


There was an old lady called Wright
who could travel much faster than light.
She departed one day 
in a relative way
and returned on the previous night. 

This was Einstein’s favourite limerick, although the origin is uncertain, and has been quoted many a time by Stephen Hawking. The physics behind it is that nobody can travel at the velocity of light, let alone supersede it. But, if we did manage it, the laws of special relativity dictate that clocks will then start traveling backwards in time. This is why the lady returns the day before she started!


Anything that does not matter has no mass.

Matter is the stuff objects contain. Mass arises because of the presence of this stuff. So anything without matter…

Bloggers, reporters, journalists and the fine line in-between

 The question as to whether bloggers are journalists is a much-debated and indeed over-blogged one. Try googling the phrase are bloggers journalists and you will quickly find that almost all of the results at the top have the same title and all lead to articles where an extensive examination is carried out on the topic. It makes no difference then, if I did the same. What I want to do instead is, in giving out my opinion, also comment on what I have read so far on the idea of bloggers as journalists.

One reason, perhaps, why the issue is on an all-time high at the moment is because of the Apple Asteroid, a yet-unreleased product which Apple Inc., claims is its trade secret. The big question was thrown to the public openly for the first time recently when three blogs,PowerPageAppleInsider and ThinkSecret carried articles on the product which was never supposed to have fallen to public eyes. The catch? Can the bloggers take cover under laws protecting journalists and legally keep their sources confidential? 


Before we ask ourselves whether bloggers are journalists, we ought to ask ourselves who journalists really are. While the term is so often used and we all seem to know what it points to, we must confess that the clear-cut definition of the word is something we do not know as well as we think.

I am not saying this just as a conjecture or because I suddenly realised I did not know the meaning myself. Rather I make the statement with some responsibility: I tried researching for an answer and to find out what the difference between a journalist and a reporter really is. And I came up with nothing.

In fact, bloggers stand squarely in a long-standing journalistic tradition… their roots go back to the authors of the often-anonymous writings that helped to found America itself

Like most off the hand research attempts (which, personally, I do not advocate) I first went to google and what I found quite shocked me. It appeared as though half the world online was debating the same question. In the pith, nobody really knew what the difference was.

Said one answerer on Yahoo!:“Journalism is a process of gatekeeping–from writers to the editor.” He called it a series of gatekeepers. Then the same person went on to state that“Reporters are those who go out, find news stories, and report them through writing or broadcasting.” He then decided to go a step further by also comparing a blogger. “A blog author,” he said, “may very well be considered a reporter who is not practicing journalism (series of gatekeepers).”

In my opinion, this knowledgeable fellow, while appearing very clear on the topic of journalism, seemed to forget that a blogger who may very well be considered a reporter, will, on such consideration, indubitably also become a journalist. Thus the claim that he need not necessarily be practicing journalism fully breaks down.


After jumping around a few dozen websites looking for a straightforward answer, I decided to gather the facts and come up with an answer myself.

My procedure was simple: find out who a reporter is and what he does, then find out who a journalist is and what he does; and then put two and two together.

It was easier said than done; the whole picture then became clear to me: nobody knew the exact distinction between a reporter and a journalist in the true sense of the words.

Our friend from Yahoo! was right in saying reporters go out (although it makes them look like the only ones who really work!) The idea was that a reporter’s job mainly focuses on gathering the news, building sources in hisbeat, witness events and present information to his chosen type of mass media. A journalist collects and disseminates information about current events, people, trends and issues. While a journalist’s job is called journalism, a reporter is one type of journalist.

So the distinction was clear to me: a reporter is a journalist. All reporters are journalists, but the more important idea here is that all journalists are not reporters.

So now comes my argument against calling all bloggers journalists: journalists are of various types and if there was any point in calling a blogger a journalist (because the term would be a very broad categorisation) we would have to specify which type of journalist we have to compare him to. The answer is that a blogger, in our broad understanding of his activities, is closest to a reporter. A blogger, it would therefore make more sense to say,may be called a reporter.

To rephrase myself, a blogger may be called a journalist if, by the term, we refer to that category of journalists who perform the duties of a reporter. A blogger is, therefore, a journalist, in that he is comparable to a reporter. But the matter does not end here by any means.


Blogging does not date back to a time even half as long as that which journalism dates back to. The earliest form of modern journalism can be tracked back to the year 1665, at which time the first regularly published, standard newspaper called the Oxford Gazette(later the London Gazette) came into print.

Modern blogging is a descendent of diary writing or journal keeping. This brings us to two words, diarist and journalist. (The latter refers to a person who maintains a personal journal and, it is needless to say, is not to be confused with the term journalist with reference to mass media.) Diarists/journalists around the early 1990s, with the advent of the Hyper Text Transfer Protocol (HTTP) language, slowly started a mass switch to the same job on the internet. In other words, they began maintaining a diary online. This meant they were to log onto the Web regularly, hence giving rise to the term Web logging which was later blended, after extensive colloquial usage, to blog.

Most blogs rely on other bloggers… this is part of the reason misinformation is spread so quickly online… how reliable is the information? How many degrees from the source of the information is the post you’re reading?

Justin Hall began a blog formally in 1994 when he was a student at Swarthmore College and he is regarded as one of the earliest bloggers in the business (if it may be called so) today.

But Professor Christopher B Daly of Boston University thinks otherwise. I recently happened to come across his article where he believes that ‘in fact, bloggers stand squarely in a long-standing journalistic tradition. In this country, their roots go back to the authors of the often-anonymous writings that helped to found America itself by encouraging the rebellion against Britain.’ He believes that this was the earliest recorded form of blogging, and it dates back to Thomas Jefferson!


At the moment I shall answer this question with respect to a personal blog (not a corporate blog) because that is all that concerns us. A personal weblog, while staying true to the meaning of the word, must really be a log of one’s life on a daily basis, it often veers away to become an effective means of communication between the blogger and the general public.

This means a blogger might want to maintain his unique, personal domain (no pun intended!) while delivering to the readers what they will find interesting to read. And, no matter what niche the blogger blogs in, his readers are nowadays looking to learn his views and often the right information regarding current developments in the niche.

This induces in the modern blogger a sense of responsibility; responsibility to deliver trustworthy news to his readers. So a blogger nowadays not only maintains a personal log/diary to entertain you, but also gives you the latest news. Take a look at most google search results and you will find that they are all weblogs.

Perhaps what will remove most doubt about the latter (that people rely on blogs for news these days and that blogs have a potential to keep up to this demand) is the statistics that, collectively, blogs on the internet have a far higher reach in terms of readership than traditional media! In fact, as of February this year, there were roughly 165 million blogs in existence!

The Gizmodo case

Back in April 2010, technology blog, Gizmodo, managed to obtain a confidential prototype of what was believed to be Apple’s next iPhone. They were skeptical at first but then managed to ascertain that it was the real thing, so they dis-assembled it and reviewed the whole gadget inside-out. The result was this controversial piece of writing on their website.

The device was apparently lost and found at the Gourmet Haus Staudt, a German beer hall in Redwood City, California, and Apple wanted it back. The abovementioned three bloggers also managed to get a hold and the next iPhone was all over the internet–something Apple had neither planned nor anticipated.

In no time a case was slammed over the bloggers and Apple wanted to know how they managed to lay their hands on the gadget, and the Californian judge trying them was faced with a new question: should he order them to give out their sources or should bloggers be allowed to keep up the confidentiality of their sources like journalists/reporters, all in the name of their job?

The case went on for a long time, the judge decided that bloggers could not take cover behind press-protective state laws and asked them to spill the beans. But the fever had caught on in the blogosphere.


We have not hand just a handful of bloggers reporting events today; in fact we have, as I said before, more bloggers reporting events than journalists. And bloggers are reporting it as much from the scene as journalists. Yet, what makes them different?

Remember the comment we heard above that bloggers do not have gatekeepers? That is what makes a blogger different.

The worry is that a blogger who does not research anything… (but) focuses only on his personal take on events… should call himself a journalist.

Los Angeles Times media critic, David Shaw, recently argued that bloggers should not be considered journalists because ‘they have no experience, they have no editors, and they have no standards.’

I beg to differ: any new journalist would also come under the first category because he still does not have any experience. Blogging is a field where we grow with experience, by writing, and journalism (or reporting, if you will,) is no different. I also believe it is terribly wrong to say a blogger does not have an editor. The essence of blogging is that a blogger is his own editor. The third point comes parenthetical to this one: a serious blogger, (we shall leave out those nincompoop ones) no matter what niche he blogs in, has standards of his own, standards he, himself, has set for himself, to conform to.

Perhaps journalists have an impression of superiority, a heightened sense of their job, that makes them so conservative about the use of that term; and perhaps calling bloggers journalists makes it appear to them like their job can be done by anybody and therefore they suddenly become defensive. Shaw’s statement clearly proves the fact to me. After all, calling all bloggers journalists mean adding another 165 million people to the journalist workforce!


Now whether bloggers can be trusted in the information they give us has been a brick wall behind which journalists have long taken refuge. Can bloggers be trusted as much as professional journalists in their delivering the news?

Whatever you or I may think ourselves, the fact speaks rather gravely. Statistics from a joint study by PRNewswire andPRWeek suggest that 91% of all bloggers turn to social networks eitheralways or sometimes for research purposes, as opposed to the 35% among reporters.

Also, 64% of bloggers and 36% online reporters look to Twitter in this regard, compared to a mere 19% newspaper reporters and 17% print magazine reporters. The catch here, as Jeremy Porter of Journalistics says, is that ‘most blogs rely on other bloggers–and anybody they find on social networks–as sources for their stories. This is part of the reason misinformation is spread so quickly online–many bloggers are copying each other… if bloggers are getting and sourcing all their information from other bloggers, how reliable is the information? How many degrees from the source of the information is the post you’re reading?’


It so happens that the subtleties that make blogging different also make it appear less trustworthy.

The major factor making blogging stand apart is the close contact between the writer and the reader. The writer can write, can receive comments from his readers and reply to them straight away doing two things in the process: one, involving the reader to be a part of the story, and two, letting down his guard as a trusted reporter because, as soon as he involves himself in a discussion, he gives away his personal opinion, making himself appear biased.

At least one of three bloggers is considered a legitimate journalist outside his web log.

A typical journalist, on the other hand, will never get in touch with his readers and neither will the readers directly do so. This makes the journalist’s own views completely invisible (for he cannot express himself in the newspaper or on live television.)

A second important recognition that blogging enjoys is, in fact, this. The blogger can freely show his opinions and it tends to creep in at times making the true facts hazy.

But this is definitely not something to be generalised. There exist bloggers with great control over their expressions–at times greater even than reporters–and they deliver the news, cut, dried and straight.

Therefore, while blogging is different, it has so happened that those few bloggers who express themselves have, unfortunately, become the face of the entire blogosphere. If bloggers want to earn the title of journalists, this is one image they will have to get rid of.


Yet, in the core, bloggers and journalists are not all that different. As EFF attorney Kevin Bankston puts is, “They [bloggers] are people who gather news, and they do so with the intent to disseminate that news to the public. The only distinction to be made between these people and professional journalists at The New York Times is that they’re online only.”

Also, as Jessi Hempel, staff editor at Business Week, New York, tells us, “…some organizations have begun to legitimize Web logs as a valid grassroots form of journalism. In 2004, bloggers… received press passes to cover the conventions during the Presidential elections. They have broken major news stories.”

Nicholas Ciarelli who shut down his blog, ThinkSecret, due to Apple

In fact, Nicholas Ciarelli, who writes ThinkSecret under the pen name of Nick dePlume, is a journalist for the Harvard Crimson. This is surprisingly true in many cases: statistically, at least one of three bloggers is considered a legitimate journalist outside his web log.

When I first went about trying to find from bloggers what they thought about calling themselves journalists, I received an almost alternate yes and no pattern of answers as if the entire blogosphere was equally divided upon this matter. As I later found, I was not very far from the truth because 52% of all bloggers believe, with conviction, that they are journalists.

Yet, just because half the bloggers say they are journalists, it does not make them so, says Porter rightly.

In spite of all this, the opinion seems to hold true even in case of a generalisation. Indeed the Californian judge alone seems to have a conservative, radically meaningless outlook.

Dan Gilmore of the San Jose Mercury

Dan Gilmore, ex-tech columnist, San Jose Mercury

Dan Gillmore–technology columnist at the San Jose Mercury News for a decade before leaving last year to found Grassroots Media, a project to encourage citizen-based published content–writes on his blog,‘By [the judge’s] bizarre and dangerous standard, I apparently stopped being a journalist the day I left my newspaper job after a quarter-century of writing for newspapers.’

 One comment I found on a discussion regarding this topic quite clearly sums it all up: You obviously use all the means and tools that have been considered the domain of the journalist all this time and are a journalist in every way except that the platform you use is a blog and not a newspaper. In every way you work like a journalist, except you have the freedom to bring in as much of your opinion as you like.

The worry is probably more that a blogger who does not research anything at all and focuses only on his personal take on events he hasn’t even been present at should call himself a journalist. Or believe that most news is opinion.


My opinion? (As a blogger I would rather have it called my verdict!) While you may, presently, get neither press protection nor press privileges, as a blogger, the ultimate decision to call yourself a reporter while being well founded, is still in your hands. If it gives you the sense of being a higher authority in writing than just another one of a million bloggers, then by all means go around town calling yourself a reporter. If what matters to you is your writing and if you are satisfied with it, my own belief that blogging is a whole new art must suffice. All in all, it should really not matter what you title yourself as so long as you write something worth my time.

But this question will remain open for a long time to come, in my opinion, so feel free to debate it below–even if we will never arrive at a definite decision that will satisfy every single person, blogger or not.

What is your stand on bloggers and journalists? Is blogging a whole new level? Are bloggers right in calling themselves journalists? Can the laws of journalists be used justly by bloggers?

Your Facebook profile may be worth €15.000!

Quite a shocking revelation (or should I say calculation?) regarding the average Facebook profile:

Today, Cologne-based lawyer Christian Solmecke draws our attention to an interesting area of copyright: the social networks. Perhaps this article is especially relevant for parents of young surfers.

Millions of teenagers are currently communicating on the new social networks. Typically, they pimp up their profile with pictures of movie stars, music, songs or other copyrighted material. The German lawyer predicts chasing Facebook-profiles could be big business for companies or lawyer with an aggressive game plan.

While the general public is becoming more and more aware of the existence of legal limits to what they can and cannot do online, this doesn’t seem to apply to young people on platforms such as MySpace and Facebook.

Solmecke advises parents to take copyright violations seriously and to occasionally check their children’s Facebook profile, to see if their entertainment collection is growing out of control. Coming from a German lawyer, this parental advice seems slightly out of place. However, Solmecke predicts lawsuits against Facebook users that display “too much” copyright-protected content on their page. This would be particularly sad for the parents of young users, since the amounts of money in intellectual property cases often exceeds the average pocket money.

“Millions of people, especially kids, maintain a Facebook profile,” said the media law expert, “They do this for private purposes, but because they often display content to a few hundred friends, we reach the limits of what can be called private use of the footage.” According to Solmecke, it is just a matter of time before somebody argues that “Facebookers” should be treated as journalists. “If you look at the quantity and scope of copyrighted material that is posted without the blink of an eye, I’d say the average Facebook profile is worth as much as €15,000,- to a smart lawyer.”

Solmecke recommends Facebook-users (and their parents), to keep an eye on pictures of celebrities, YouTube videos, My Music Videos, lyrics and quotes of famous people. Although this seems feasible, it will undoubtedly be an arbitrary call to determine when the line is crossed. Let alone legal debates on the privacy and image rights of all people whose photo appears somewhere on the social network… In short, the advice from Cologne is: Pimping your profile is fine, but don’t exaggerate.

Article courtesy Future of Copyright. Read the original article here.

Bloggers, reporters, journalists and the fine line in-between

The question as to whether bloggers are journalists is a much-debated and indeed over-blogged one. Try googling the phrase are bloggers journalists and you will quickly find that almost all of the results at the top have the same title and all lead to articles where an extensive examination is carried out on the topic. It makes no difference then, if I did the same. What I want to do instead is, in giving out my opinion, also comment on what I have read so far on the idea of bloggers as journalists.

One reason, perhaps, why the issue is on an all-time high at the moment is because of the Apple Asteroid, a yet-unreleased product which Apple Inc., claims is its trade secret. The big question was thrown to the public openly for the first time recently when three blogs, PowerPage, AppleInsider and ThinkSecret carried articles on the product which was never supposed to have fallen to public eyes. The catch? Can the bloggers take cover under laws protecting journalists and legally keep their sources confidential? Read more →

On the honourable Indian road laws

The reason why Indian road laws are so honourable is because, to a new visitor, they humbly make themselves inconspicuous, bordering on invisibility. On further examination it becomes clear that they do not exist. At least they are no longer in active practice. Read more →


Join over 15,000 subscribers for free monthly updates

  • No annoying monthly e-mails
  • Only occasional important updates
  • Unsubscribe with one–click, anytime

We respect your privacy and hate spam.