text:
# Quantum Physicist Offers Solution To Global Market Meltdown

I briefly met John Hagelin when I was an undergraduate. At the time he was a Harvard particle theory graduate student, soon to get his degree and start a quite respectable career in the subject. His biography on his web-site claims that:

His scientific contributions in the fields of electroweak unification, grand unification, super-symmetry and cosmology include some of the most cited references in the physical sciences. He is also responsible for the development of a highly successful Grand Unified Field Theory based on the Superstring. Dr. Hagelin is therefore at the pinnacle of achievement among the elite cadre of physicists who have fulfilled Einstein’s dream of a “theory of everything” through their mathematical formulation of the Unified Field—the most advanced scientific knowledge of our time.

Hagelin moved on from doing physics research, first to help run the Maharishi International University (now the Maharishi University of Management) in Fairfield, Iowa, then to run for president as the candidate of the Natural Law Party (it seems that “Joe the Plumber” was a member of this). Nowadays, the Maharishi has passed away, and Hagelin has moved to New York, where he is Executive Director of the Global Financial Capital of New York.

Soon after Hagelin moved to New York, his organization bought an impressive building down near Wall Street (chosen because “It’s one of the very few buildings in all of New York City that’s oriented due east”), with the goal “to inspire financiers to come forth to support the creation of Heaven on Earth”. They also are buying up land near Princeton “where, with the support of the township, a university for 5,000 Yogic Flyers is to be established.” Part of the plan seems to be to raise $3 billion or so from the financial industry, by offering 10% interest on 15 year loans. Last year they held a news conference to explain how the a “surging stock market” was one of the concrete signs of the success of the Invincible America Assembly in Iowa—the largest-ever scientific demonstration project to document the effects of large group meditations on the economic and social trends of the nation, according to Dr. John Hagelin, world-renowned quantum physicist, executive director of the International Center for Invincible Defense, and President of the Global Union of Scientists for Peace, who is leading the Assembly. This year the story is a bit different, with a recent press release entitled Quantum Physicist Offers Solution to Global Market Meltdown explaining that: a group of nearly 2,000 advanced experts is now in place at Maharishi University of Management in Fairfield, Iowa. He said the influence of coherence generated by this group is helping to calm the nation in the midst of the global crisis, but a larger, more powerful group of 8,000 experts (the square root of one percent of the world’s population) is needed to neutralize worldwide fears and re-establish confidence in the global markets. The cost to establish this group on a permanent basis, Dr. Hagelin said, would be negligible compared to what has been lost in a single hour during the current financial crisis. In a recent Open Letter to the Yogic Flyers of the Nation, Hagelin, the Raja of Invincible America, urges them on as follows: I am writing you from Wall Street, where I am living and working with members of my national team at the Global Financial Capital of New York, one block from the New York Stock Exchange. We are starting to make remarkably good progress in our efforts to bring Maharishi’s knowledge of enlightenment and invincibility to leaders here whose thinking and actions vitally impact the whole world. However, ultimately, our success is dependent on you. We will be successful when the leaders are receptive to our message. But their openness is 100% dependent upon the numbers in the Domes. Why? Because a rise in national consciousness directly translates into a rise in openness among leaders of business, health, education, defense, government, etc. At this critical time I urge everyone to fly together in large groups Maharishi said we need 2500 experts flying together to guarantee invincibility for America. This requirement is because the turbulence in the collective consciousness of one country can easily spread like a wildfire to create a similar turbulence in another country. And this is why, at this critical time, with the economic stability of the world hanging in the balance, I urge everyone in Iowa and everyone in the country to recommit to fly together in large groups. Update: Today was a beautiful day, and on a bike ride downtown I stopped to take a look at 70 Broad Street, the headquarters of Global Financial Capital of New York. Looking in the windows of the below ground level and the lobby level, the place looked pretty much abandoned. The building has some floors upstairs, maybe there is some activity up there. They did just put out this press release, announcing a press conference to be held in the lobby at 11am on Tuesday and webcast. Hagelin will be announcing a$1 billion plan to fund 1000 experts in New York and 8000 experts in Iowa who will “create coherence for the whole world—the basis of an invincible, prosperous global economy.” No word in the press release about where the $1 billion was going to come from. Update: Video of the press conference is here. The plan is simple: just give Hagelin and his followers$1 billion, and they’ll have this financial crisis all sorted out soon, by means of experts using the unified field.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

### 87 Responses to Quantum Physicist Offers Solution To Global Market Meltdown

1. Joe the Physics Student says:

Hi Peter,

How does this individual’s activities have anything to do with current physics research?

Thanks.

Joe the Physics Student

Simply hilarious!

(At least he is making a prediction, though.)

3. Vishal says:

Is this for real?? Seriously? Is our science education not doiing its job well?

4. Chris Oakley says:

Rather than committing to yogically fly together in large groups, I would recommend

(i) Not allowing banks to pay big bonuses to their employees. These seem to end up being funded from my and your pension fund.

(ii) Ensuring that there is no such thing as an “off balance sheet” transaction … anything that could harm the ability of a bank or investment institution to pay its debts is, AFAIC, on balance sheet

5. chris says:

hmm.. i guess the square root of one percent of the worlds population is more like 8000 sqrt(people). how can such a renowned quantum physicist not get the units correctly?

6. Funny stuff. Let him get his numbers, if it works, it’s nice.
@Chris: Looks like the units are OK. If you square an expert you get a normal person. Sounds about right to me 😉

7. ObsessiveMathsFreak says:

If I have learned one thing about “invincibility” it is that it always wears off a few seconds after you get the star, and if you weren’t thinking ahead you’ll probably have landed yourself in a very sticky situation by the time this happens.

You cannot apply physics to economics. I think that the only reason physicists migrate to this field is hubris, thinking they can “solve” the stock market. Ironic considering they have been essentially unable to solve/resolve the existing problems in their original field.

8. andy.s says:

Jesus, these guys are loaded with cash. All of it from thousands of saps who think they can fly by flapping their legs.

I am in the wrong business.

9. Thingumbob says:

I believe that it might be possible to get the Boltzman brain to astral project into this corner of the landscape to overcome our financial crisis. Has Professor Hagelin considered this?

10. Bee says:
11. A says:

Actually, quite sadly this is an example of where a physicist has become a crackpot and is now conning a bunch of spiritual people who try to understand meditation and consciousness through what appear to be honest means.
It’s a disgrace.
Joe the physics student, the relevance here is that he has risen to a position of power because he has sold himself as the world expert on The Grand Unified Theory. He has sold his GUT research as being The solution. Frankly, the Maharishi people are being scammed by Hagelin and his ilk.

12. Joao Leao says:

Hum! I wonder what kind of golden parachute Global Financial Capital of New York will provide for Hagelin given that his flying days may be about to end soon and abruptly. On the other hand that 3 Billion raising proposal looks to me quite like an “airplane” (Ponzi) scheme…

13. Aaron Bergman says:

I think that the only reason physicists migrate to this field is hubris, thinking they can “solve” the stock market.

Hubris had nothing to do with it. The reason physicists migrated to finance is because they paid lots and lots of money.

14. Yatima says:

“The reason physicists migrated to finance is because they paid lots and lots of money.”

I can feel that in my bank account.

Ok guys, you had a good laugh, now how about getting back to doing some serious, honest-to-god work?

15. Covariant says:

I think I am beginning to appreciate Peter’s opinions on things

16. Sakura-chan says:

Thanks for the laugh Peter. You presented the info beautifully, and with a straight face. =)

17. gasp says:

Imagine if we had to choose between Hagelin and Bush. I honestly don’t know who I would choose.

18. Peter Woit says:

Please, no more off-topic comments about quants and Wall Street,especially because no one seems to have anything new to say about that topic.

19. I think assuming that John Hagelin is conning the group is jumping to conclusions. Never underestimate the power of belief, just because someone got a PhD at Harvard that doesn’t mean they are susceptible to it. Spiritual belief is a powerful force, and although the ideas may seem nutty to some of you they speak loudly to lots of people. In fact spiritual beliefs are more powerful than science because it taps into emotions. Emotion is all to often stronger than logic. Think about it-emotion comes from the deep-seated more ancient part of the brain, the limbic system. Spirituality is something people feel in their gut, but analyzing something scientifically is something you do with your cortex. So what I am saying is I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if Hagelin believed every last word of this. Doesn’t matter if he was a particle physicist or not.

20. Covariant says:

David McMahon said

“Spiritual belief is a powerful force”

So should we quantize and study it? Who gets to be Yoda?

21. Marty says:

Actually when you go beyond a natural gut reaction to be skeptical and dismissive, there is a lot of absolutely amazing (and published) research behind what John Hagelin is saying. Take a few minutes and check out http://permanentpeace.org/
In more than fifty studies published in scientific journals, including the Journal of Conflict Resolution and the Journal of Mind and Behavior, the method of sustained large group meditations has been documented to powerfully reduce violence and criminal activity and even calm open warfare. It is a technique that is currently also being used in some of the most troubled inner-city schools in the country to defeat the stress and violence that plague the learning process.
Please don’t laugh at it. Inform yourself about it. Then decide whether it is hokum or a new paradigm that presents consciousness as a magnificent and unbounded existential frontier full of all possibilities. Practiced individually, Transcendental Meditation reduces mental stress and increases personal wellbeing, harmony, productivity, creativity, and happiness. When practiced together in a group, the “good vibes” radiate outward into the unseen field of collective consciousness, creating the same effects on a societal scale. The bigger the group the better, and the further the effects spread, like ripples in a pond. Another analogy is to think of radio or TV transmitters that beam signals through an unseen electromagnetic field. Instead of picture or sound signals, groups of meditators generate a strong wave of coherence and positivity through an underlying field of collective consciousness. Stress and tension diminish.
Scientists are beginning to recognize a “non-local” field of global consciousness into which intentions can have effects at great distance. A field effect. We should explore this territory, for it may hold the secret for planetary peace and harmony. We’ll never know unless we are bold and courageous enough to put it to the test.
Obviously, I am one of Dr. Hagelin’s admirers, and a practitioner of meditation. But I am also a professional medical writer who writes about many so-called “breakthroughs.” Most are far from breakthroughs. This is the real thing.

22. gasp says:

Marty, religious and cult-like memes are not transmitted by telepathy. They use more mundane forms of communication, such as you typing a reply on a blog.

23. Thingumbob says:

This non-local TM stuff sounds like spooky action at a distance to yours truly. Ahem.

24. gasp says:

David McMahon, emotional experiences exist. Spiritual experiences do not. So they should not be equated.

25. Marty says:

Gasp and Thingumbob:
I understand your reactions. Take a few minutes though to check out the science. It is very strong. So strong that public educators from around the country are introducing TM in their schools. If it was based on a religious or cult-like meme they would have none of it.
Gasp…I like that word meme…hadn’t heard it before.
Meanwhile, the memes of the Wall Street cult have been a disaster.
Cheers.

26. Marty says:

gasp
what’s interesting about the subjective spiritual experiences in meditation is that they have measurable physiological effects. studies have shown, for instance, that cortisol levels improve through meditation and that high blood pressure is knocked down. In fact, the National Institute of Health has funded a number of studies showing how TM has been as effective, yet without any negative side effects, as medication in improving blood pressure among african-americans with refractory hypertension. One of the reasons that I am such a believer is that the practice normalized my blood pressure after a couple of months. The doc wanted to put me on medication. I said I would rather try something natural. It worked great.
Regards

27. You guys completely miss the point. Spirituality is a powerful force IN PEOPLES LIVES and the EMOTIONAL STATES they have. Spiritual experiences exist through the emotional experiences people have. There was an implication that Hagelin was conning the TM crowd because he had a PhD in physics and “should know better” and I am saying no, Hagelin probably really believes what he says. Spiritual belief (and the accompanying emotion) is more powerful that logical thought for most people.

28. Marty says:

David…you are correct. Spirituality is indeed a powerful force in peoples lives and their emotional states (e.g., symapthetic vs. parasympathetic mode).
The implication that Hagelin is conning us in the TM crowd is based on some outside speculation with no basis in fact. If I am being conned, so are a lot of Ph.Ds, doctors, lawyers, scientists, students, investment managers, principles, actors, writers, etc., who are a whole lot smarter than me. They ain’t stupid and they ain’t gullible. They see the results. They see the science.
Hagelin not only believes what he says, but he has participated in the published scientific studies that explain or validate very fascinating explorations into consciousness.

29. Covariant says:

David McMahon said

“Spiritual belief (and the accompanying emotion) is more powerful tha(n)t logical thought for most people.”

I think that is a valid observation, but what happens when one group’s beliefs are different from another’s and both groups “know” they are correct in their beliefs?

I think Hagelin hasn’t thought about that too much.

30. Marty says:

Covariant:
I think Hagelin has thought about that a lot and has attempted to prove the value of spirituality (and specifically a spiritual practice such as meditation) on personal and societal scales through science. Could it be that the fundamental basis of subjectivity (call it emotions, spirituality, belief) and objectivity (science, matter, the physical world) are one and the same: an unseen universal field of intelligence.
Why don’t you invite Hagelin to speak to you. He lives in the neighborhood. You can throw all your implications, doubts, and questions. I am sure you would find it very informative and it would open your awareness to a very cool world that begs exploration by bright minds such as yours.

31. a.k. says:

..one should add that the intertwinement of obscure reasoning (I am not denying any effect of meditation etc. on physical and mental health) and financial power, especially the entanglement of irrational methods in physics and political and economic power manifested in one single person, seems to shed light onto some well-known ‘dialectic’ aspects concerning the role of quasi-religious movements, esoteric ‘enlightment’ opposed to those methods which were in europe once called ‘enlightment’, in the western society. ‘Esoteric enlightment’- this also stands for non-rational analysis of the financial market (solving problems by ‘flying together in large groups’), for ethnocentric views of human societes and for poorly reflected boundaries of the scientific method. To cut it short, Hagelin manifests one of the reasons why I quit thinking about physics a long time ago.

32. Thingumbob says:

I would invite him, sure, but just now I have brought back from other side Monsieur Mesmer, and he confides in me that I need beware: there may be many hoaxers who only want the great and mighty of this world to supply their unspiritual monetary wants. Of course, if all this could be done without any need for money…

33. Covariant says:

Marty

I have no doubt that meditation is great; I have no doubt that a lot of people of common beliefs meditating together is even better.

I also have no doubt that there are a number of people who absolutely don’t feel that way, and some of those never will feel that way.

34. Marty says:

Thingumbob:
You folks are delightful to chat with. But my garden overfloweth with weeds and I must leave you.
Please look at the science. And then draw your conclusions and critiques. At least then you will be armed with more than mere opinion and suspicion. And then invite him.

35. Marty says:

Covariant
You are absolutely right about a lot of people never changing their minds, and never will. No problem.
One of the neat things about this whole concept is that MOST people are skeptical….it is some mystical hogwash…etc. That’s what they thought about meditation when it first became popular forty years ago. Now doctors prescribe it for patients, and school principles are using it to transform the most stress-ridden schools into the learning facilities they were meant to be. Science has shown it is very valid and relevant for our modern conflicted society. It is not a matter of belief.
The greater concept of group meditation on a societal scale that Hagelin advocates is a exploration and exploitation of the unchartered and unbounded possibilities of consciousness. It is amazing to me that psychiatry and psychology spend so much time groping around in the darkness of mental illness, when there is this huge and untapped universe of consciousness and mental potential to explore.
Over and out.

36. Vishal says:

I am pretty sure the Buddha would have been “horrified” to hear people talk about TM and stuff like that. There is nothing inherently “spiritual” about meditation, which is a wonderful and beneficial way of exploring phenomenon and events from a phenomenological perspective. There is no doubt that meditation confers great benefits (physiological, mental) to the practitioner, but people like Hagelin, not to put too fine a point on it, simply delude themselves into believing the esoteric or anything that is out of this world. Frankly, with so many “gurus” coming out of India, it tends to create more often than not a wholly incomplete and distorted picture of that country.

37. Marty says:

Vishal
To speak for Buddha is purely speculative on your part.
In India, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the founder of TM, is revered for having put into motion a great revival and “cleanup” of the massive distortions that have crept into the vast body of Vedic knowledge.

38. Peter Woit says:

Enough with repetitious comments on the pro/anti meditation topic, which in any case seems to have little to do with Hagelin’s venture into the financial industry.

39. A says:

David McMahon, I think in fact you missed my point. The fact that Hagelin may or may not believe in the beliefs of the Maharishi is by the way side. He is SELLING them grand unified field theories. He is using his status as a physicist, his PhD from Harvard in his position with them. It is not his spirituality that is relevant but rather the fact that he attained that position using physics. It is not that a physics PhD taught him to be well reasoned and solve problems and so he has gone into the world and applied general principles to other work, like for example physicists have in finance. He is telling the Maharishi people that grand unified theories and string theory are the solution to what the search for. Hence he has conned them. He has told that that the grand unified field is itself the field of consciousness ( notice the trick by using the world field here ). They are trying to understand consciousness which is a perfectly respectable goal. And they have tried to speak to scientists to describe their experiences in the hopes of understanding and recording more scientifically what they have done. Hagelin and his ilk have conned them – in that they use fancy physics words to convince these people that they are experiencing the string field of consciousness blah blah blah. They translate basic human experience into fancy vacuum landscape language that is frankly just junk.

40. Vishal says:

In India, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the founder of TM, is revered for having put into motion a great revival and “cleanup” of the massive distortions that have crept into the vast body of Vedic knowledge.

Marty,
It is amazing to see how much people (especially non-Indians) buy into this whole “Vedas contain all knowledge” idea! They tend to miss the point that the resurgence of interest in the “Vedas” and other “ancient scriptures” of India is closely connected with right-wing politics and nationalist ideology, today. A lot of the Vedas contain purely speculative knowledge – now that sounds almost like an oxymoron. The Buddha had thoroughly and rationally debunked a lot of the core beliefs of the Vedas more than two thousand years ago, and the fact that those debunked beliefs are regurgitated again and again, to me, is an indication of how powerfully those ideas grip the minds of people throughout history and even to this day.

Peter,
Please forgive me if my comments are totally off-track. But I do want to point out that some of the huge confusion people have about modern physics, “field of consciousness” and so on, clearly spring from the misinformation that is spread vis-a-vis “Vedic knowledge”. The fact that Indians themselves don’t know what to make of the claims about Vedas but that quite a few non-Indians readily accept whatever is told them about the Vedas should immediately raise a red flag. Anyway, the end result, as A correctly pointed out above, is that a lot of ordinary people get conned in a subtle way without even their knowing what hit them.

41. If you are conning somebody, you are misleading them with something you know to be false. I don’t necessarily buy that Hagelin believes these ideas are false but is selling them off on people anyway. So that is why I don’t think Hagelin is necessarily a con.

42. Covariant says:

Well, its a free country, and as long as Hegelin and crew use the money they raise as intended, and as long as they make their payments to whoever feels inclined to invest, then there really isn’t much one can do or say.

I will be curious if they can pay it all back in 15 years at 10%. I doubt they will raise \$3 billion, not without posting some significant collateral. If they have market research that supports their claim about the amount of money they’ll make, then I think they will have a number of businessmen interested.

43. Steve says:

it may be a challenging stretch (which is sometimes a very good thing), but it definitely isn’t completely off base and unsupported:

“Consciousness & Superstring Unified Field Theory”

…give a listen (or not) and then critique the substance, and not just the superficial notion

44. Thanks for posting the videos. I would say his claims about what string theory says are a bit of a stretch.

45. Hi Steve,
I think the videos are pretty good, and I don’t think Hagelin is completely wacky (wish I could use italics). Who knows, there may be something to his explanations. Afterall consciousness is something hard to grasp for science as it stands now. I would say explanations that its an “emergent” property from the “complexity” of the brain are non-explanations when you get right down to it. The fact is no scientist alive has any idea how the brain gives rise to awareness. Its the biggest problem in science-far bigger and more complex than anything in particle physics. But it would be an interesting twist if Hagelin’s musings (and lets call them musings, they are not much more) about string theory (or lets say any unified theory since string theory is frowned upon here) had something to do with why life is conscious. David

David

46. David H. Miller says:

David McMahon wrote:
>Afterall consciousness is something hard to grasp for science as it stands now. I would say explanations that its an “emergent” property from the “complexity” of the brain are non-explanations when you get right down to it. The fact is no scientist alive has any idea how the brain gives rise to awareness. Its the biggest problem in science-far bigger and more complex than anything in particle physics.

Dave, I agree with everything I just quoted from you. And, so do many sensible scientists and philosophers: the late Nobel laureate in neural science Sir John Eccles and the philosopher Karl Popper (see their book “The Self and Its Brain,” physicists such as Schrodinger and Penrose, serious contemporary philosophers such as David Chalmers (“The Conscious Mind”) and Colin McGinn (“The Mysterious Flame”), etc.

At some level, this should not even be controversial: after all, no neural scientists that I’ve heard of claims to have fully explained consciousness. I myself won’t be surprised if the full explanation of consciousness shakes science just as much as quantum theory or evolution did.

However, I see no evidence that Hagelin is moving us towards such an explanation. I suspect that he does believe his own nonsense, but most of what Peter quoted from Hagelin is, indeed, nonsense.

To use one’s standing as a scientist to point out that there is much we do not yet know and, probably, some big surprises in store is perfectly fine. In a sense, that is what Peter is doing in theoretical physics: he maintains that the future of theoretical physics is much more open than some of the superstringers think.

But to claim to have answers that you do not have, as Hagelin does, is dishonest, even if it is the sort of dishonesty that consists of deceiving oneself.

Dave Miller in Sacramento

47. Thingumbob says:

I guess perhaps I need to be less satirical to attempt to bring home my point here. There have been all sorts of spiritualists that have used many different varieties of scientific sounding gobbledygook to gull rubes out of their fortunes. For instance, the Rosicrucians, Annie Besant, Aleister Crowley, and on and on. This stuff is as old as dirt. The problem today is when it comes to this or that variety of GUT, its very hard to know the difference. (As far as the notion that consciousness has a physically mechanistic causality, I would remind you that this quixotic idea led Descartes to the absurdity of believing that the pineal gland was the seat of the soul.)

48. Jeff McGowan says:

OK, why do so many scientists seem to think it is inevitable that scientists will one day “explain” consciousness. I have no doubt that consciousness is a physical phenomenon, but that doesn’t mean that anyone is ever going to explain it (whatever exactly that might mean). It seems to me there might very well be a metalanguage problem here of the highest order.

49. Covariant says:

After watching the videos two thoughts struck me:

1) I am even less inclined to believe that there really is such a thing of self awareness or consciousness. As against the grain that might be; although I manifest thoughts, I can observe that those thoughts are not entirely dependent on me. (Or as a mathematician I know stated, similar people tackling similar problems tend to come up with similar solutions).

2) The “unified field” as described by Hagelin, really seems to leave out the observed randomness in nature. He seems to describe a unified and interlinked universe that has no room for independent random events. There is a lot of randomness in how our brains actually function, and this can best be captured by the observations of Ebbinghaus in 1885.

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

50. kuhn dog says:

It is said above (by Dave): “…to claim to have answers that you do not have, as Hagelin does, is dishonest, even if it is the sort of dishonesty that consists of deceiving oneself.”

Many of the posters on this blog make this heavy judgment and denouncement of Hagelin, but based on what? How do you actually know that he is wrong? (Really, how would you KNOW this? On what epistemological grounds?) Granted, it may be your personal belief, your knee-jerk reaction. But, what answers does Hagelin claim to possess that are counter to empirical evidence, or even counter to current physical theory? And specifically, what claims does Hagelin make that are not supported by empiricle evidence or physical theory? (not counting the theory in neuroscience that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain, which, as mentioned above, is a non-theory anyway…)

Hagelin’s fundamental assertions seem to be
1. that there is a unified field (a claim made by many physicists)
2. that the u.f. is, in essence, a field of consciousness (perhaps a surprise to many, but, not without precedence in Eastern and Western thought)
3. that the u.f. as a field of consciousness can be subjectively experienced and thereby validated. (again, not without extensive scholarly precedence…)
4. that large groups of people experiencing the u.f. together at the same time (i.e., “group practice of the TM and TM-sidhi programs”) influences the environment in a measurable way through the “field effect” of consciousness…yes, spooky action at a distance (which seems to be something that physicists are no longer so spooked by…yes?).

This fourth point seems to be the crux of the matter, as far as empirical testing of Hagelin’s theory. (Not that subjective experience of the u.f. is without merit—the Upanishads, Gita, Yoga Sutras, etc. uphold the necessity of directly experiencing the unified state of consciousness in order to truly KNOW the underlying reality.)

Can group meditation really influence the environment? Is there a level of life where we’re all interconnected?

I remember reading years ago in Yale Journal of Conflict Resolution, which published one of the research studies on what Hagelin calls “the Maharishi Effect”—the proposed “influence of coherence” that results from large group meditation. (I know, some of you are wondering why such a topic as this is even being discussed on this blog—how “out there” can one get? But, please, bear with me..) The editors interjected a caveat, as if to justify why they, a highly reputable sociological journal, would publish a study on something so outside the box. I paraphrase the journal’s editors: “While we consider this research study on the extended sociological effects of meditation to be worthy of publishing because of it is solid research with sound statistical analysis, we must also acknowledge that the theoretical explanations of the findings are well outside the current paradigm of current sociological research.”

My thoughts were, no kidding. It’s BECAUSE the research is outside the current paradigm that Hagelin’s group may be on to something—perhaps they’ve found a far better way of improving society than anything we’re currently doing.

If Dave or any of you haven’t actually looked at the research, read through the studies, duly considered the theory that Hagelin is proposing, and determined scientifically whether or not any of the 50+ research studies on the Maharishi Effect are valid science, if you haven’t considered the design and controlls of the experiments and looked closely enough to discern whether or not the data supports the findings, then how can you dismiss the theory out of hand? Just because it’s “outside the current paradigm of sociological research”?

My man Thomas Kuhn has a word for those who refuse to examine the data and cling to their old paradigm, despite overwhelming evidence: NON SCIENTISTS. “They have ipso facto ceased to be scientists.” —TK.

In all fairness, maybe some of you didn’t even know there was empirical evidence to support Hagelin’s approach. I’ve actually read through most of these research studies (there are dozens of peer-reviewed studies on the Maharishi Effect). The data and findings seem to strongly support the theory that group mediation can influence crime, violence, and yes, even the stock market. There may be people on this site more qualified than me to ascertain statistical significance; if so, perhaps you should examine the studies. People often say, why take the time, the theory is so outside the box… Why bother? Because everything else has failed, and these peer-reviewed studies support the theory. Because if it’s true, it would alleviate much suffering.

Instead of ridiculing Hagelin, perhaps consider the possibility that this is all he’s is trying to do—make our world a better place. Have we become too cynical to listen to such a voice of hope? Not all of us have. I’m not talking about gullibility, but mere open-mindedness. Rake it across the burning coals of scientific scrutiny, but first give it a chance.

Patanjali said thousands of years ago: “In the vicinity of yoga (unified awareness) hostile tendencies disappear.”

Maybe he was right. There are many ancient texts, passed down from the Vedic rishis (scientists of consciousness. perhaps?) that record experiences of a fundamental, unified field at the basis of nature’s functioning. They called it Atma, Brahman, Samadhi, and had many precise technical terms for various levels of the experience. But the experience is universal and is recorded in every culture.

And I’d like to hear from Vishal: what specifically was overthrown by Lord Buddha, as far as the fundamental principals of Vedic knowledge? I don’t mean, what were the points of misinterpretation that Buddha debunked, but what actual expressions of Vedic texts did Buddha prove (didactically or through other means) to be invalid?

Just because fundamentalist Hindu nationalists have appropriated certain Vedic teachings does not invalidate the fundamental principles of Vedic knowledge that pertain to the development of consciousness. The Vedic tradition of knowledge and what today is known as Hinduism are two different things. The Vedic tradition and it’s methodologies predates the Hindu religion by several thousand years. But this is another discussion that would probably take more explaining than people here have patience for, at the moment.


text:
# Useful Constants, Units, and Approximations

• Wendell Potter and David Webb et al.
• UC Davis

These constants are provided for your convenience. You should know the SI unit conversions and SI prefixes, as well as be familiar with approximate values of common units. Do not memorize anything else; physics is not rote memorization (important values of constants will be given to you for quizzes and tests). Instead, engage with these values by practicing problems that use them, like in your DL or on your homework.

# SI Prefixes

Name Symbol Meaning Example
femto

f

$$\times 10^{-15}$$ 1 fm = 10-15 m
pico p $$\times 10^{-12}$$ 1 pm = 10-12 m
nano n $$\times 10^{-9}$$ 1 nm = 10-9 m
micro µ $$\times 10^{-6}$$ 1 µm = 10-6 m
milli m $$\times 10^{-3}$$ 1 mm = 10-3 m
kilo k $$\times 10^{3}$$ 1 km = 103 m
mega M $$\times 10^{6}$$ 1 Mm = 106 m
giga G $$\times 10^{9}$$ 1 Gm = 109 m
tera T $$\times 10^{12}$$ 1 Tm = 1012 m
peta P $$\times 10^{15}$$ 1 Pm = 1015 m

# Fundamental Constants

Quantity Symbol Value
Magnetic permeability of a vacuum

$$\mu_0$$

$$4 \pi \times 10^{-7} \text{ N s}^2 \text{/C}^2$$
Stephan-Boltzman constant $$\sigma$$ $$5.67 \times 10^{-8} \text{ W m}^{-2} \text{K}^{-4}$$
Speed of light (in a vacuum) $$c$$ $$3.00 \times 10^8 \text{ m/s}$$
Fundamental (electron or proton) charge $$e$$ $$1.602 \times 10^{-19} \text{ C}$$
Gravitational constant $$G$$

$$6.67 \times 10^{-11} \text{ N m}^2/\text{kg}^2$$

Planck's constant

$$h$$

$$6.63 \times 10^{-34} \text{ J s}$$

$$4.14 \times 10^{-15} \text{ eV s}$$

Boltzmann's constant

$$k_B$$

$$1.38 \times 10^{-23} \text{ J/K}$$
Coloumb's constant $$k$$ $$9 \times 10^9 \text{ N m}^2 \text{/C}^2$$
Avagadro's number $$N_A$$ $$6.02 \times 10^{23} \text{ atoms/mole}$$

# Refraction Indices (Optics)

Different frequencies of light have different refractive indices. This table gives the approximate value of the refractive index for light in the visible part of the spectrum. The exact values depend on the sample used and the frequency of light.

Medium $$n=c/v_{medium}$$
Vacuum 1.0 (exactly)
Air 1.0003
Water 1.33
Glass (crown) 1.50 - 1.62
Glass (flint) 1.57 - 1.75
Silicon 3.5
Germanium 4.0
Diamond 2.42
Eye 1.33
Eye Lens 1.41

# Particles

Particle Mass Charge
Proton

$$1.67 \times 10^{-27} \text{ kg}$$

$$1.602 \times 10^{-19} \text{ C}$$
Electron $$1.67 \times 10^{-27} \text{ kg}$$ $$-1.602 \times 10^{-19} \text{ C}$$
Neutron $$9.11 \times 10^{-31} \text{ kg}$$ $$0 \text{ C}$$

# Approximate Values

These figures provide a rough approximation for the value of various common physical quantities.

Quantity Approximate Values
Mass of an atom between $$10^{-27}$$ and $$10^{-25} \text{ kg}$$ between 1 and 200 atomic mass units (amu)
Size of an atom $$\sim 10^{-10} \text{ m}$$ 1 Å
Depth of the Lennard-Jones potential energy well $$10^{-21} \text{ J}$$ $$10^{-3} \text{ eV}$$
Ionization energy

between $$10^{−20}$$ and $$10^{−18} \text{ J}$$

between 0.1 and 10 eV
Frequency of visible light

$$\sim 6 \times 10^{14} \text{ Hz}$$

Energy of one photon in the visible spectrum $$\sim 3 \times 10^{-19} \text{ J}$$ ~2 eV
Tallest building 829.8 m
Height of Mt. Everest 8850 m
Radius of the Earth 6380 km
Circumference of the Earth 40,000 km

# Electromagnetic Spectrum

The electromagnetic spectrum, partitioned into different types of light based on frequency, is presented below:

Light is often characterized by wavelength, but as we learned in 7C the wavelength of light depends on the medium it travels through. However, the frequency does not; red light for example always has the same frequency. When someone says that “red light has a wavelength of 700 nm” this is understood by convention to mean the wavelength in a vacuum.

Color $$\lambda$$ range (nm) $$\lambda$$ midpoint (nm) Frequency ($$10^{14} \text{ Hz}$$) Energy of one photon (eV)
Red 620-750 700 4.3 1.8
Orange 590-620 600 5.0 2.0
Yellow 570-590 580 5.1 2.1
Green 495-570 540 5.5 2.3
Blue 450-495 470 6.4 2.6
Violet 380-450 400 7.5 3.1

This page titled Useful Constants, Units, and Approximations is shared under a not declared license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Wendell Potter and David Webb et al..

format: plain


text:
1. Jan 21, 2008

### MathsIsPoo

In college we have been given an exercise about Quadratic Equations, before the actual assignment.

We have been told that we need to use three different methods for three different equations. The methods are: The Quadratic Formula, Factorization and Graphical.

We have been given three formulas for practice before the actual work, I was hoping possibly somebody could demonstrate how to do them because I do not fully understand them. These are the formulas:

X=2x² - 3x – 20

X=2x² - 6x – 5

X=2.5x² - 7.9x + 1.341

All help would appreciated, if someone could complete the equations for a demonstration would be very much appreciated.

Thanks.

2. Jan 21, 2008

### Feldoh

First off I'd like to say that when you use any of these three methods you're finding values of x where the function crosses the x-axis.

An example of factorization would be this:
f(x)= x^2+4x+4

If we set this equal to 0 (because this means the function is on the x-axis) we get:
0 = x^2+4x+4

To factor this we are just looking for a way to essentially make it easier to find the zero's or x-intercepts.

This particular equation factors into (x+2)(x+2) so we have
0 = x^2+4x+4 = (x+2)(x+2)

So the value of x where this quadratic will cross the x-axis happens when x= -2

Because then we get 0 = (-2+2)(-2+2)

---------------------------------------------

If we use the quadratic formula for the same problem f(x)=x^2+4x+4 we will indeed get the same answer.

The quadratic formula itself goes like this:
For some function f(x) = ax^2+bx+c

$$x = \frac{-b \pm \sqrt{b^2-4ac}}{2a}$$

So we can go back to our problem f(x) = x^2+4x+4 and we get

$$x = \frac{-4 \pm \sqrt{4^2-4(1)(4)}}{2(1)}$$

$$x = \frac{-4 \pm \sqrt{0}}{2}$$

$$x = \frac{-4}{2} = -2$$ Which is exactly what we got above by factoring.

---------------------------------------------

To find the zeros graphing requires a graphing calculator.

---------------------------------------------

Now see if you can solve those three equations you posted. I'll give you a hint: the first can be factored and the quadratic formula would be really easy to use on the second problem, and the third you can graph.

Last edited: Jan 21, 2008
3. Jan 21, 2008

### symbolipoint

Why is each expression equated to X ?

You already learned about factoring trinomials quadratic expressions (unless you are being taught things out of order in introductory algebra). Try that on each of the three equations, but you might find the last equation difficult to factor.

for graphing, you can simply create tables for points (x, X) (why are you using capital X on the left side?); and from the table, plot points on cartesian system. Finding the zeros might be difficult this way, but if you have the factorization, then set 0=binomial*binomial, and find the x value fow which each binomial is 0.

For quadratic equation, Feldoh gave you the right method, so just reread that.


text:
## CryptoDB

### Paper: Parameter-Hiding Order Revealing Encryption

Authors: David Cash Feng-Hao Liu Adam O'Neill Mark Zhandry Cong Zhang DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-03326-2_7 Search ePrint Search Google Slides ASIACRYPT 2018 Order-revealing encryption (ORE) is a primitive for outsourcing encrypted databases which allows for efficiently performing range queries over encrypted data. Unfortunately, a series of works, starting with Naveed et al. (CCS 2015), have shown that when the adversary has a good estimate of the distribution of the data, ORE provides little protection. In this work, we consider the case that the database entries are drawn identically and independently from a distribution of known shape, but for which the mean and variance are not (and thus the attacks of Naveed et al. do not apply). We define a new notion of security for ORE, called parameter-hiding ORE, which maintains the secrecy of these parameters. We give a construction of ORE satisfying our new definition from bilinear maps.
##### BibTeX
@inproceedings{asiacrypt-2018-29142,
title={Parameter-Hiding Order Revealing Encryption},
booktitle={Advances in Cryptology – ASIACRYPT 2018},
series={Lecture Notes in Computer Science},
publisher={Springer},
volume={11272},
pages={181-210},
doi={10.1007/978-3-030-03326-2_7},
author={David Cash and Feng-Hao Liu and Adam O'Neill and Mark Zhandry and Cong Zhang},
year=2018
}


text:
Dot3 woes

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure whether this is the correct forum, but anyway. Okay, I've been ripping my hair out trying to get this working over the last few days. I'm trying to get a simple per pixel dot3 shader working for a point light (no attenuation at the moment), but I just can't get it to look right :-(. It SORT of works, as in I can see the diffuse component of the dot3 operation changing as the light moves around, but it doesn't look good at all (everything looks black as the light gets closer to the polygon, and the illumination angles seem all wrong). I have a feeling that its something to do with transforming the light direction vector into tangent space. Can someone have a look at my code and see if theres any obvious (or not so obvious) flaws? Oh yeah, I'm using DX8.1.... Here is the tangent vector generation code, taken from the NVSDK:
    // Calculate the tangent vector for each vertex
for (uint32 iTri = 0; iTri < nNumTris; iTri++)
{
Vector edge01, edge02, cp;
uint16 TriIndex[3];

TriIndex[0] = pIndices[iTri];
TriIndex[1] = pIndices[iTri+1];
TriIndex[2] = pIndices[iTri+2];

assert((TriIndex[0] < nNumVertices) && (TriIndex[1] < nNumVertices) && (TriIndex[2] < nNumVertices));

Dot3Vertex& v0 = pVertices[TriIndex[0]];
Dot3Vertex& v1 = pVertices[TriIndex[1]];
Dot3Vertex& v2 = pVertices[TriIndex[2]];

// x, s, t
edge01 = Vector( v1.m_vPos.x - v0.m_vPos.x, v1.m_fU - v0.m_fU, v1.m_fV - v0.m_fV );
edge02 = Vector( v2.m_vPos.x - v0.m_vPos.x, v2.m_fU - v0.m_fU, v2.m_fV - v0.m_fV );

cp = edge01.Cross(edge02);
if ( fabs(cp.x) > SMALL_FLOAT )
{
v0.m_vTangent.x += -cp.z / cp.x;
v1.m_vTangent.x += -cp.z / cp.x;
v2.m_vTangent.x += -cp.z / cp.x;
}

// y, s, t
edge01 = Vector( v1.m_vPos.y - v0.m_vPos.y, v1.m_fU - v0.m_fU, v1.m_fV - v0.m_fV );
edge02 = Vector( v2.m_vPos.y - v0.m_vPos.y, v2.m_fU - v0.m_fU, v2.m_fV - v0.m_fV );

cp = edge01.Cross(edge02);
if ( fabs(cp.x) > SMALL_FLOAT )
{
v0.m_vTangent.y += -cp.z / cp.x;
v1.m_vTangent.y += -cp.z / cp.x;
v2.m_vTangent.y += -cp.z / cp.x;
}

// z, s, t
edge01 = Vector( v1.m_vPos.z - v0.m_vPos.z, v1.m_fU - v0.m_fU, v1.m_fV - v0.m_fV );
edge02 = Vector( v2.m_vPos.z - v0.m_vPos.z, v2.m_fU - v0.m_fU, v2.m_fV - v0.m_fV );

cp = edge01.Cross(edge02);
if ( fabs(cp.x) > SMALL_FLOAT )
{
v0.m_vTangent.z += -cp.z / cp.x;
v1.m_vTangent.z += -cp.z / cp.x;
v2.m_vTangent.z += -cp.z / cp.x;
}
}

// Normalize all the tangents
for (uint32 iVert = 0; iVert < nNumVertices; iVert++)
{
Dot3Vertex& v = pVertices[iVert];
v.m_vTangent = v.m_vTangent.Normalize();
}

Here is my vertex shader:
vs.1.1

// c0-c3        - world*view*proj
// c8           - light position(In object space)
// c9           - 1 / lightRange
// c10			- view position

// v0    pos
// v1    normal
// v2    tangent
// v3    colour
// v4    uv

// r3 reserved for light dir
// r4 reserved for camera dir
// r5 reserved for half angle
// r6 reserved for binormal

def c30, 1,1,1,1
def c31, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5
def c32, 0,0,0,1

// Get direction to the light and normalize
sub r3, c8, v0
dp3 r3.w, r3.xyz, r3.xyz
rsq r3.w, r3.w
mul r3.xyz, r3.xyz, r3.w

// Get the direction to the camera and normalize
sub r4, c10, v0
dp3 r4.w, r4.xyz, r4.xyz
rsq r4.w, r4.w
mul r4.xyz, r4.xyz, r4.w

// Generate the binormal S by cross product
mov r7, v2
mov r8, v1
mul r1,-r7.zxy,r8.yzx

// Transform the light vector
dp3 r10.x, r6, r3 // binormal
dp3 r10.y, v2, r3 // tangent
dp3 r10.z, v1, r3 // normal
mov r10.w, c30.w
mov r3, r10

// Multiply by a half to bias, then add half
//mad r3,  r3,  c31, c31

// Output everything
mov oT0, v4		  // texture coord
mov oT1, v4
m4x4 oPos, v0, c0 // Position
mov oD0, r3       // light dir

And finally the pixel shader (no base coolour texture yet, just outputting the diffuse):
ps.1.1

tex t0 // normal map

dp3	r0, t0_bx2, v0_bx2  // Dot(normal, light direction)

Any help to regain my sanity is muchly appreciated :).

Share on other sites
I've seen the algorithm you're using to compute your tangent space before, but I can't remember all the details. Inside all the "if" statements, you have something like this:

m_vTangent.x += -cp.z / cp.x;

Are you sure that it's always supposed to be -cp.z??? I thought I remembered that a few of those should be different. I could be mistaken though.

As far as your shaders are concerned, first make sure that your normal map is correct. If you really do have a tangent space normal map, then it should look mostly blue when you open it in some viewer. If you see a rainbow of colors, then your normal map is in object space and not tangent space.

Also, comments in your vertex shader say that the light is defined in object space. Are you sure about this? In your application, did you transform the lights position by the inverse of the world matrix for this particular model and then set that value as the constant to the vertex shader? I ask because it's possible to have missed that part.

The part in your vertex shader that transforms the light vector into tangent space; try swapping the tangent and binormal. What I mean is try this:
// Transform the light vectordp3 r10.x, r2, r3 // tangentdp3 r10.y, v6, r3 // binormaldp3 r10.z, v1, r3 // normalmov r10.w, c30.wmov r3, r10

It is also possible that one (or both) of either tangent or binormal are pointing in the opposite direction than they're supposed to. Make sure that that is not the case.

Hope this helps,
neneboricua

Share on other sites
Oh, crap. I was indexing the vertices wrong in the triangle loop :P.

ie.

TriIndex[0] = pIndices[iTri];
TriIndex[1] = pIndices[iTri+1];
TriIndex[2] = pIndices[iTri+2];

should be

TriIndex[0] = pIndices[iTri*3];
TriIndex[1] = pIndices[(iTri*3)+1];
TriIndex[2] = pIndices[(iTri*3)+2];

I'm testing on a horizontal flat quad, with the normal map UV'ed to fit exactly. The tangent vector is being computed to be (0,0,1) on each vertex, which seems to be correct (all surface normals are (0,1,0)). So as far as i can tell, the tangent should be fine. But it still don't look right :(.

Regarding the light being in object space, yes I'm pretty sure thats correct, because this is in my static geometry rendering code and all static geometry is pretransformed in world space :). (ie. the world matrix is being set to identity for all static geometry).

And yeah, the normal map is in tangent space (i'm borrowing a map from the NVSDK -_^).

I'll try your other suggestions now.....

Thanks.

Share on other sites
Whee! I got it working :). The biggie was that i was accidentally blatting out all the constants defined in the shader by setting them in the app -_^. Then i just had to reverse the order of the cross product, 'cause it was getting lit from the wrong direction...

Now, I just need to implement per pixel attenuation and specular.

Should I do attenuation in a separate pass, or in the same shader? I'd prefer to do it all in one pass. Any info on doing attenuation in the shader at PS1.x level would be great. :)

Thanks.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account


text:
## watermelon26 3 years ago Solve sqrt(x^2 + 4) = 4x

1. thomasj

square both sides

2. thomasj

$x^{2}+4=16x ^{2}$

3. thomasj

can you solve this?

4. RedPrince

$\sqrt(x^2+4)=4x$ taking square on both sides $x^2-4=16x^2$ $16x^2-x^2=4$ $15x^2=4$ $x^2=4/15$ $x=\pm2/\sqrt(15)$

5. pfenn1

@RedPrince, how did you go from$x ^{2}+4=16x ^{2}$to$x ^{2}-4=16x ^{2}$?

6. RedPrince

@pfenn1 by mistake correct it it is now 17 instead of 15 thanks for this


text:
# Statement of Stephen Hickman, Director of the Earthquake Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey

May 31, 2018

before the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

Statement of

Steve Hickman

Director of the Earthquake Science Center

U.S. Geological Survey

before the

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

May 31, 2018

Thank you, Congressman Rohrabacher and colleagues, for inviting the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to participate in this hearing to discuss the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.  I am Steve Hickman, Director of the Earthquake Science Center.  Our center has been a flagship USGS research center in the West for over 50 years.  We have offices in Menlo Park, Pasadena, Seattle, Anchorage, and Albuquerque.  The USGS also hosts the National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC) in Golden, Colorado.

The USGS is a committed partner in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, or NEHRP, which is led by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and includes the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Science Foundation (NSF).  That commitment involves collaboration going beyond the four agencies to include other Federal partners, State, Tribal and local governments, academic institutions, and the private sector.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with an update on the program.  Federal, State, and local agencies have continued to work together closely since the appropriations authority for NEHRP expired in 2009.  Understanding earthquake hazards, quantifying earthquake risk, and helping to build more resilient communities is a part of each of our missions.

NEHRP was founded on the belief that while earthquakes are inevitable, there is much that we can do as a Nation to improve public safety, reduce losses and impacts, and increase our resilience to earthquakes and related hazards.  There is a technical distinction between “hazards,” which are the physical phenomenon of the earth shaking, versus “risks,” which are the potential consequences from that shaking.  While earthquakes do happen all across the country, about 80 percent of the risk they pose is in California—50 percent just in southern California.  Within NEHRP each agency performs a distinct and complementary role essential for the overall success of the program.  It is conducted with a high degree of cooperation and collaboration, avoiding overlap and competition for responsibilities or resources. The heart of this partnership is a broadly shared commitment to translate the results of research, field studies, and seismic monitoring into implementation actions that can reduce earthquake losses.

The USGS role within NEHRP is to deliver the data and information tools that engineers, emergency managers, government officials, and the public need to prevent earthquake hazards from becoming disasters.  USGS activities under NEHRP are implemented through the Earthquake Hazards Program and the Global Seismographic Network (see below).  Along with its partners, the USGS provides rapid, authoritative information on the magnitude, location, shaking intensity and potential impacts of earthquakes, both in the United States and around the world.  The Survey also develops national and regional hazard assessment maps and supports targeted research to improve these products.  Lastly, the USGS works with a wide range of partners to help grow public awareness of earthquake hazards.  I will share some examples of each of these activities and elaborate on the importance of NEHRP to making them possible.

As for the Global Seismographic Network, this Network enables fundamental geophysics research, and also supports national security objectives by monitoring and characterizing nuclear test detonations.  It represents an important international component of NEHRP.

Earthquake information: The USGS NEIC, is a 24/7 operation, generating a broad suite of near-real time earthquake information products to provide situational awareness for emergency responders and the public.  Over 409,000 users are signed up to receive USGS earthquake notifications.  The Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response, or PAGER alerts, provide rapid assessment of potential economic impacts and fatalities, while ShakeMap graphically depicts the intensity of shaking, which is useful for many applications, particularly post-event engineering assessments.  These products are made possible by the earthquake monitoring networks that make up the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS), including regional seismic networks that the USGS supports with its academic partners. Lastly, Did-You-Feel-It? is a widely used web-based crowd-sourcing tool that allows members of the public to describe their experience of an earthquake in a scientifically useful format.  This citizen science data augments seismic data that the USGS collects from its monitoring networks.  When you do feel an earthquake, please search for Did-You-Feel-It? online and provide the USGS with your own data.

Significant modernization improvements to the ANSS were made in 2010 and 2011, such as replacing outdated analog equipment and upgrading communications software.  In FY18, we are continuing this by directing $5 million for deferred maintenance on the ANSS system and$23 million for the build-out of ShakeAlert, according to congressional direction.  The ANSS includes instrumentation in buildings and other engineered structures to support research on their response to seismic shaking.  The resulting data and models help structural engineers to design buildings with improved earthquake resistance.  This Administration has emphasized the importance of infrastructure to our national economy, and the ANSS is one such example of critical scientific infrastructure.

Assessments of earthquake hazards: About 142 million Americans live in areas with moderate to high earthquake hazards. In addition to national assessments, the most recent of which the USGS published in 2014[1] and will update again in 2018, we also publish more detailed urban assessments.  The most recent maps were published for St. Louis, following on urban seismic hazard maps prepared for Seattle and Los Angeles, and new maps are expected for Salt Lake City in the next few years.  These assessments are based on models that incorporate the best available science about faults, and prehistoric and historical records.  The assessments in turn are used to inform building codes and community planning. In 2017 the USGS incorporated induced seismicity hazards into an assessment of short-term hazard from earthquakes in the Central and Eastern United States.  There is significant domestic energy development potential in this region, and better understanding of this phenomenon enables states and the private sector to develop methods for improving safety.

Targeted research: USGS research is supplemented by external research which the USGS supports through grants and cooperative agreements, and it serves as a bridge from fundamental research supported by NSF into applications by the USGS and its other NEHRP partners.  The Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) is an example of such research partnerships.  Led from the University of Southern California, SCEC has received support from both the USGS and NSF for over 25 years, fostering a new generation of earthquake researchers.  In the next few years, we expect USGS-supported research to tell us more about earthquakes in Puget Sound, near Reno, Las Vegas and Lake Mead, and develop methods to rapidly estimate damage from liquefaction.[2]

Public awareness: All the best earth science cannot guarantee that people are able to use the information to make informed decisions that will keep their families, their businesses, and their communities safe.  Since 2003, the USGS has supported publication of Putting Down Roots in Earthquake Country, now available for eight different regions, including Alaska, Utah, Nevada, and the Central United States.  These publications provide information about the threat posed by earthquakes in their respective regions and explain how residents can prepare, survive, and recover from these inevitable events.  They have also been translated into Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Korean. Since 2008, the USGS has supported the annual Great ShakeOut exercise, which I will mention below.  Last year, several thousand organizations, including local governments, hospitals, schools, places of worship, and businesses, have signed up, representing 20 million participants in the United States.

Close coordination among scientists, engineers, and emergency managers has clearly made the United States safer from earthquakes, however USGS offers several new considerations to improve the program going forward.  For example, earthquake prediction was an original goal of the program, but is today considered scientifically unfeasible.  Today, however it is possible for the USGS to issue early warnings of impending shaking from earthquakes that have already begun.  Pursuant to USGS authority to develop an earthquake early system, Congress has appropriated funds in recent years to continue development of this system. The USGS is committed to working with Congress to determine the appropriate federal, state and local cost share associated with any future ShakeAlert developments.

Earthquake hazards here in California are well-known but, before I focus on California, I would like to highlight other earthquake hazards around the country.  In recent decades, research[3] on the Cascadia Subduction Zone has highlighted the exceptional hazard in the Pacific Northwest. Subduction zones are areas where an oceanic tectonic plate is being forced under a continental plate thus forming a broad zone of seismic activity, in contrast to the plate boundary in most of California where the plates mainly slip horizontally.  Subduction zones produce the largest earthquakes.  For example, the Tohoku, Japan, earthquake of 2011 occurred on a subduction zone fault and it was over magnitude 9, making it one of the largest earthquakes ever recorded. Similarly, the largest recorded earthquake in North American history also occurred on a subduction zone fault off the coast of Alaska in 1964.  These and other subduction zone earthquakes also have the potential to generate tsunamis that propagate across the ocean and can impact communities far from their epicenters.

Our Nation’s exposure to earthquake hazards is not limited to the Pacific coast.  Very large earthquakes have occurred in Virginia, South Carolina, Indiana, and the New Madrid zone in Missouri.  The New Madrid zone deserves special mention. In 1811 and 1812, several earthquakes as large as 7.5 magnitude occurred there.  At the time, human settlement in the area was relatively sparse, but today this represents an immediate hazard to over 200,000 people and a potential hazard to the Memphis region of 1.3 million people.  Large earthquakes in this region happen infrequently, and most of the older buildings and infrastructure elements were not designed to resist strong shaking.  In Delaware, in a region not previously known for active seismicity, a 4.1 magnitude earthquake struck in November 2017.  This reminds us that earthquakes do happen nationwide.

Turning to California, since the great California earthquakes of 1868 and 1906 in the San Francisco Bay Area, we have learned much about earthquakes in California and translated that knowledge into better building codes, better emergency response plans and, in response to Congressional direction, into a world-class early warning system called ShakeAlert.  We know that very large earthquakes happen here and, due to the complex nature of California’s fault systems and geology, they have especially dangerous potential.  While many critical pieces of infrastructure, such as hospitals, highway interchanges, and bridges, have been retrofitted to meet the highest earthquake engineering standards, other infrastructure has lagged, particularly the infrastructure of water and data distribution systems.  Many seaports and some airports are built on land that is susceptible to liquefaction, where shaking causes the soil to temporarily lose strength and cohesion and flow laterally (temporarily behaving somewhat like quicksand). Additionally, there have been proposals to upgrade codes for residential and office buildings to make them not only “life-safe,” that is, less likely to collapse, but also usable after the earthquake.  This would reduce the time and costs of recovery and make communities more resilient.

The USGS has had an earthquake studies field office at Pasadena for over 40 years, working closely with partners at Caltech and elsewhere to develop and maintain state-of-the-art seismic and geodetic monitoring systems throughout southern California.  The USGS has supported individual research projects at various academic institutions including Caltech, USC, UCLA, U.C. Irvine, U.C. San Diego and elsewhere.  In 2017 the USGS commitment to these and other activities in the region was \$4.5 million.

In northern California, the Hayward fault, which slices through the highly urbanized East Bay region, is one of the most dangerous faults in the state, with an estimated 1-in-3 probability of generating a damaging earthquake in the next 30 years.  Last month, the USGS, along with approximately 60 partners, released a new assessment of such an earthquake, called the HayWired scenario.[4]  It provides a realistic, highly detailed depiction of what may happen during and after a magnitude 7 earthquake with an epicenter in Oakland.  This is an impact assessment, however, not a prediction.  A real earthquake on the Hayward Fault could occur at any time and with a different pattern of shaking.  Understanding the risk and getting ready for a large earthquake on the Hayward Fault like the one depicted in this scenario can help other at-risk communities prepare for similar events that are possible in their area.  Overall, given the population and economic importance of California, and the known seismicity of the region, earthquake hazards remain a serious threat to all Californians’ lives and livelihoods.

I would like to discuss a few other NEHRP activities that are of interest to Californians.  The first and perhaps most relevant to California right now is the impending first stage roll out of ShakeAlert, the earthquake early warning system for the West Coast of the United States.  Earlier, I called it “world-class” because the goal of the USGS and its partners is not to simply duplicate the early warning efforts of other countries, but to build the most advanced earthquake [early] warning system in the world.  To that end, Congress and the state of California have supported work to dramatically densify seismic and geodetic monitoring networks.  Such dense network coverage is the backbone of ShakeAlert.  The USGS has also worked with both public and private partners to develop notification delivery methods and automated response systems.  For example, BART in northern California has integrated ShakeAlert into systems that automatically slow trains during earthquakes.  Other users are developing similar operations for their infrastructure in many sectors including utilities, transportation, health care, and schools.

Cities and counties are also considering the best way to integrate early warning data into their own emergency response plans.  Broad public notifications through wireless phones, similar to the weather alerts made possible by the NOAA National Weather Service, face technical challenges, but could possibly be available by the end of the year.  Most importantly, when the first stage is announced, more users will be motivated to develop products and services to take concrete actions based on USGS early warning data, rather than only experimental or test actions.  It is crucial that we roll out a system with minimal false alarms and that partners have done their due diligence to operationalize real-time seismic data.  We want users to have confidence in the system and ensure that the USGS releases only the highest quality data and notifications.  The long-term possibilities include an earthquake early warning across the West Coast, including Alaska.

Lastly, I want to remind the committee of the annual Great ShakeOut, which began in 2008 as part of a scenario for a major earthquake on the southern San Andreas Fault.  This year’s ShakeOut event happens on 10/18 at 10:18 am.  People around the country and the world participate in drills to practice safe responses to an earthquake.  Please consider enlisting your offices as participants at ShakeOut.org.

In summary, the Department of the Interior supports reauthorization of NEHRP, because it has been a successful interagency partnership that continues to make valuable contributions to the Nation's resilience to earthquakes and other hazards.  On behalf of the USGS, thank you for this opportunity to testify today. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[1] USGS Open-File Report 2014-1091 available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20141091

[2] 2018 research available at https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/external_grants/research.cfm

[3] USGS [Professional] Paper 1661-F available at https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1661f/

[4] USGS Scientific Investigation Report 2017-5013 available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20175013


text:
Dielectric in a Capacitor

1. Feb 23, 2016

mattbeatlefreak

1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
You want to maintain a potential difference of 5000 V between the plates of a parallel-plate capacitor.
What is the minimum value of the plate separation if the space between the plates is completely filled by a slab of mica?

2. Relevant equations
V=Ed (parallel plate capacitor)
Dielectric constant κ = 5 for mica
κ=V0/Vd
E=σ/ε0

3. The attempt at a solution
I know that the voltage of the capacitor needs to stay constant, so since the voltage decreases by a factor of five, the distance must increase by a factor of five. However, the dielectric also lowers the field. Whenever I try to approach the problem, I end up getting stuck because I do not know the charge density or any charge values.
Any help would be greatly appreciated!

2. Feb 23, 2016

Staff: Mentor

Besides the dielectric constant κ, dielectrics have another property that describes their ability to resist electric breakdown, which is what occurs when the applied electric field becomes strong enough to free the bound electrons in the dielectric material. Essentially, it's when its insulating property is overcome and current can flow through the dielectric. Usually the capacitor is destroyed when this happens.

So, look up the term "dielectric strength".

3. Feb 23, 2016

mattbeatlefreak

Thank you! As a follow up question, I am supposed to find the ratio of the maximum charges that could be put on a plate of the capacitor in part B to the capacitor in part A. Part A used mica, and part B used barium titanate as the dielectric. I know qfree = Vd*Cd. If we use the same capacitors as in the previous parts, then their voltage would be the same (5000 V). This leads me to believe that the only thing that would change the charge would be the capacitance. Since the κ for mica is 5 and the κ for barium titanate is 1200, I did 1200/5, which is 240. However, the program wants only one significant digit in the answer, and 200 was incorrect. What am I doing wrong here?

4. Feb 23, 2016

Staff: Mentor

Will the spacing of the plates be the same for both capacitors? (Did you take the available dielectric strengths into account as a contributing factor to the difference in capacity?)

5. Feb 23, 2016

mattbeatlefreak

So then, you can write the capacitance with a dielectric as C=κε0A/d. Do you assume that the plate area is the same for both? If so then I get that the charge q on the capacitor plates is q=κV/d. I then used the dielectric constants for each, used 5000 V in both, and used their respective distances found from the previous problems. Doing this I get a ratio of 120. Is this method correct?

6. Feb 23, 2016

Staff: Mentor

I would presume so. It seems that only the dielectric and plate separation are changed.
Strictly speaking it's not true, since the actual charge depends upon the area and the constant $\epsilon_o$. Replace the "equals"with "proportional to" and I'd agree. Since you're looking for a ratio then that's fine.
It looks correct. I can't confirm your result because you haven't supplied all the data that you've used for the materials involved.

7. Feb 23, 2016

mattbeatlefreak

It worked out, thanks again for all the help!


text:
# Gravitational Potential Energy

1. Oct 28, 2005

### Lemmy

Okay I understand somewhat of this topic of grav potential energy but i got stumped on this one question. I am to find the mass of a satellite orbiting earth with the given variables of (F)(units: kN) which is the force the sattelite attracts the earth, and given the gravitational potential energy (-U). You are also givin the gravitational constant (G), and the earth (m_e)

How could you find the mass (m) of the sattelite without a given radius in the equation U=-(G*m_e*m)/r ?

How would i rewrite this equation

any help would be great thanks
lemmy

Last edited: Oct 28, 2005
2. Oct 28, 2005

### Physics Monkey

Hi Lemmy,

You are correct that if you were given only gravitational potential energy (and the mass of the Earth and G) then you couldn't figure out m or r separately but only in the combination m/r. However, you have an extra piece of information: you know the force. Write out what the force is and see if you can find a way to solve for m and r using both F and U.


text:
# PopED 0.6.0 Unreleased

• Added the options allow_replicates=TRUE/FALSE, allow_replicates_xt=TRUE/FALSE and allow_replicates_a=TRUE/FALSE to poped_optim. This allows the optimization algorithm to avoid replicates (or not) in the design components. Currently only works for discrete variable optimization. Future versions will also handle continuous optimization.

• Exported a function for the computation of the Bayesian Fisher information matrix for individual parameters of a population model based on Maximum A Posteriori (MAP) estimation of the empirical Bayes estimates (EBEs) in a population model. See ?evaluate_fim_map for more details.

• Allowing for no covariates in the function that automatically builds a PopED parameter function from a model function (?build_sfg).

• Updates to documentation and package testing.

• Minor bug fixes.

# PopED 0.5.0 2020-06-13

• Added the ability to incorporate limit of quantification information into FIM calculations (both upper and lower limits). See the new vignette on the webpage https://andrewhooker.github.io/PopED/articles/handling_loq.html

• Adding functionality to optimize groupsize and total size of the study. See ?optimize_groupsize, ?optimize_n_eff and ?optimize_n_rse. This is also implemented in poped_optim through the opt_inds=T argument.

• Updating Vignettes, including a new one about using other tools to use as simulators for design computations. See https://andrewhooker.github.io/PopED/articles/model_def_other_pkgs.html

• Simplify RxODE syntax in the above vingette (#47, @mattfidler).

• Added the ability to predict and plot model prediction intervals by computing the expected variance (using an FO approximation) and then computing a prediction interval based on an assumption of normality. See ?model_prediciton and ?plot_model_prediction. The computation is faster but less accurate compared to using DV=TRUE (and groupsize_sim = 500) in the two functions.

• Named parameters are now passed to all calculations so that the FIM and RSE output is more readable with parameter names instead of default names.

• Allow for parallel computation in plot_efficiency_of_windows (#50).

• Make parallelization work with mrgsolve on windows (#37, #45, #46, #51, @Vincent-AC).

• Updated the function for automatic building of parameter model function (see build_sfg).

• Simplify derivative calculations (#34, @martin-gmx).

• Allow for only simulating model_switch > 1 models.

• Change the defult Ds calculation to be on log scale.

• Updated the website at https://andrewhooker.github.io/PopED

• Remove options for discontinued dplyr commands rbind_all and rbind_list.

• Minor bug fixes in shrinkage calculations (#44, #39, @martin-gmx).

# PopED 0.4.0 2018-09-10

• New and improved vignettes (#30, @giulialestini)!

• Added power evaluation script to test the power of a design to identify a parameter different than an assumed value. The function also calculates the number of individuals needed in a design to have a specific power. See ?evaluate_power for more information (#26, @martin-gmx).

• Added function to compute expected shrinkage of a design. See ?shrinkage for more information.

• Updated and added new example scripts in system.file("examples", package="PopED") (). This includes an example describing how to handle covariate distributions in optimal design, an example on how to incorporate IOV, an example on how to handle shrinkage, an example with a full covariance matrix and an example with a prior FIM (#30, @giulialestini and @martin-gmx).

• Major overhaul in optimization methods used in poped_optim() so that generic optimization routines like optim() can be easily used in optimizing PopED designs.

• Update speed of FIM calculations (#20, @martin-gmx).

• Update RSE calculations so that prior FIM is handled correctly (#22, @martin-gmx).

• Simplified code and removed duplicated code (#21, #24 and #32, @martin-gmx).

• New ways of handling inverting matricies, should be faster and work better when the matricies are ill-conditioned. See ?inv for more information (#19, @martin-gmx).

• Updated functionality of IOV calculations.

• Updates to optim_ARS() for when to stop search.

• Extended functionality of plot.model.prediction() (#23, @martin-gmx).

# PopED 0.3.2 2016-12-12

• Exported the summary method for the results of poped_optim in the PopED NAMESPACE, so that the method can actually be used! Just use summary(output).

• Fixed some old bugs that used return as a varible in functions, a la MATLAB.

# PopED 0.3.1 2016-10-19

• Added a vignette to introduce PopED!

• Improved optimization with poped_optim, plus all example scripts now running with poped_optim.

• Update to more easily allow discrete optimization of xt and a variables. See the example scripts.

• Added a summary method for the results of poped_optim. Just use summary(output).

• changed handling of seed numbers in optimizations.

• more robust handling of non-population models

• more natural handling of NA values in design vectors

• NAMESPACE: removed ggplot2 from “Depends” and added to “Imports”

• Added mean line to efficiency plots.

• Update to computation and error handling for Laplace approximation to ED objective function.

• Added more intuitive cost function input. See examples in ?poped_optim

• Various small changes and bug fixes.

# PopED 0.3.0 2015-12-29

• Added new optimization methods and tools, see ?poped_optim(). This function incorporates the new optimization routines optim_ARS() and optim_LS which are optimized versions of previous optimization algorithms used in PopED. Both can be run with parallelization. poped_optim() also incorporates the genetic algorithm from GA::ga(), which can also be run with parallelization, and the “L-BFGS-B” method from stats::optim(). poped_optim() should be more efficient and faster than poped_optimize().

• Changed the default objective function to be the log of the determinant of the FIM. create.poped.database(ofv_calc_type=4)

• Various small changes and bug fixes.

# PopED 0.2.0 2015-03-20

• Fixed plot_efficiency_of_windows() bug that had wrong headers on each subplot.

• Fixed bug in plot_model_prediction() that did not plot the optimized design, but instead the initial design

• Reorganized the database created from create.poped.database(). The output from this function is now a list with 5 sub-lists: design, design_space, model, parameters and settings. Also removed duplicate entries in the database for easier manipulation. This will cause some back compatibility issues when referring to elements in a database.

• Added example 10 describing a PKPD design of hepatitis C virus (HCV) kinetics to the system.file("examples",package="PopED")` directory of the PopED installation.

# PopED 0.1.2 2014-11-19

• Updated model_prediction() to allow for creation of NONMEM datasets.
Useful for testing of optimized designs via PsN’s (http://psn.sf.net) SSE tool, for example.

• Two new functions create_design() and create_design_space() that allow for design and design space creation without the need for a model or parameter values.

• Updated the create.poped.database() function to use create_design() and create_design_space()

• Added examples for evaluation and optimization of a one-target quasi-steady-state target mediated drug disposition model (TMDD) to the system.file(“examples”,package=“PopED”) directory of the PopED installation.

• Added a 2-compartment, oral absorption, multiple dose example to the system.file(“examples”, package=“PopED”) directory of the PopED installation.

• Updated plot_efficiency_of_windows() to allow for the plotting of the RSE of each parameter on the y-axis.

• Updated error handing for the Laplace approximation of the ED OFV.

• Fixed bug when computing FIM with only one BSV term present in model (calculation gave an error).

• Fixed a bug in plot_model_predictions where an error was returned if not all time values in the xt matrix were to be used for the design calculation (ni is different from size(xt,2), see ?create_poped_database).

• Various small bug fixes.

# PopED 0.1.1 2014-05-27

• Updated package author list

• New functionality to compute the ED OFV using the Laplace approximation. This can be orders of magnitude faster than the standard MC integration approach. See ‘?ed_laplace_ofv’ and ‘?evaluate.e.ofv.fim’

• Added a general function to compute the FIM and OFV(FIM) for all available methods in PopED. See ‘?calc_ofv_and_fim’.

• Added a general optimization algorithm ‘RS_opt_gen()’ that works for both D-family and E-family optimization.

• Added optimization of E-family designs to ‘poped_optimize()’.

• Changed distribution tests for package building

• Fixed bug where correlations between BSV (between subject variability) terms in the model gave an error when creating a PopED database

• Fixed a bug where get_rse failed when a parameter had a value of 3.

# PopED 0.1.0 2014-04-28

• PopED has been translated to R from MATLAB and this is the initial release.