J.D. Moyer

sci-fi writer, beat maker, self-experimenter

Month: May 2011

3 Idiotic Nutrition Myths That Won’t Die

The most fattening graphic in the history of the universe.

The other day my wife came back from a PTO meeting at our local school and noted (with a bewildered look on her face) that “The low-fat thing is alive and well, isn’t it?”  Since the nutritional thinking in our household is more along the paleo/Weston Price lines of thinking, it sometimes comes as a shock that the rest of the world still thinks that Wheat-Thins and fruit juice is a “healthy snack.”

Poorly designed and haphazardly analyzed studies like The China Study reinforce the conventional thinking that has led to a national obesity epidemic.  Food alone isn’t to blame, so are too much sitting, too much driving, not enough exercise, and environmentally pervasive chemicals like bisophenol-A.  But poor food quality and misinformation about food are mostly to blame.

Here are a few dietary misconceptions that annoy the hell out of me:

Read More

Beauty Is a Vibe (Ratios, Frequencies, Aesthetics, and Smell)

Making the air make notes.

I’m fascinated by the relationship between mathematical ratios and what people perceive to be beautiful or pleasing.  In music, simple ratios played as intervals like 2:1, 3:2, and 4:3 (an octave, fifth, and fourth, respectively) are generally considered to be pleasing (or boring, depending on your ear).  Ratios that contain higher integers, like 5:4 (major third) and 9:5 (minor seventh) are consider more dissonant, complex, or “challenging,” depending on your personal taste and cultural background.

Read More

Creative Output — Setting an Effective Quota

Ideal distraction.

Creative work is like sex.  If you always wait for the perfect conditions, you just won’t end up doing it very often.  Are you and your lover both incredibly horny, fully awake, and have unlimited time, a comfortable bed, and total privacy?  Excellent — you’ll have some great sex.  But if those are your prerequisites for doing it, you’ll have sex a lot less than the couple who goes for it even when one or both are sleepy, there’s a loud truck outside, somebody’s parents are stopping by any minute, and the only available surface is the kitchen table.

While there are plenty of possible reasons for regretting having sex, lack of perfect conditions is rarely one of them.  You’re almost always happy you did it, right?

Same thing with creative work.  If you wait for massive inspiration, a giant stretch of free time, complete funding, and a perfect workspace, you’re going to reduce your productivity by 99%.  Waiting for all the stars to align is a crap strategy.  To produce on a regular basis, you need to be able to push through less-than-ideal conditions (both external and internal).

Hemingway -- mirror boxer and quota user.

Work Ethic

Ideally, you’re so inspired by your idea that you lose track of time and the work flows like a cold mountain brook.  You wake up at 6am, get right to work, and are pulled away from your desk only by loud grumblings of your stomach or a fierce need to pee.

That happens to me a few days a year, but more often I have half an idea that I’m halfway interested in, and I need to push myself to poke around the space of possibility (to see if there’s anything in there worth pursuing).

Why push myself at all?  Why not take the path of least resistance and work only when I’m totally inspired?  After all, it’s not the like the world needs more electronic music, or novels, or blog posts.

The answer is simple and selfish.  I feel better when I produce.  Creativity is part of my identity.  It’s part of who I am and who I want to be.  Also, when I go too long without doing any creative work, I go nuts.  I become less fun to be around, and less fun to be.  I get irritable and cynical.

If you’re happy and fulfilled without pushing yourself to do the art (whatever it is), well, lucky you.  For the rest of us, it’s worth coming up with a system for not going crazy.

Creative Quotas

I’ve been experimenting with a new quota system for personal creative output.  Is it jarring to see the words “quota” and “creative” in the same sentence?  Many artists and writers use a quota system to help motivate themselves and set a standard and expectation for daily production.  Stephen King has used a 2000 word daily quota.  Hemingway’s was only 400 to 600 (but with his terse style that was enough).  Other writers (and artists and musicians) set a time quota — work for x hours a day.

I’ve tried both methods, and for me the productivity quota works better than “time worked.”  For a couple months I carefully tracked how many hours I was spending writing and working on music.  The result was interesting (I wasn’t working as many hours as I would have guessed), but not motivating.

In terms of music composition and production, I’m capable of spending many hours on a track making minor edits and tweaks, while not getting any closer to a workable draft.  On the other hand, if I have a clear quota to meet, I’m motivated to make the major changes that need to be made (writing new parts, working on the arrangement).  Even if the end result isn’t usable (I don’t publish everything I write), at least I can call it done and move on to the next project.

My current creative quota is to finish or draft a track or chapter a week, plus one blog post.  I’m in between novels at the moment (I’m outlining, but not yet writing), so my main focus is music.  My current project is a solo EP with apocalyptic and transcendent themes.  I’m also finishing up a Momu album, and working on some dance singles with Spesh.  Each week, either a rough draft or final master of a track gets done.  It’s a fairly easy quota to meet, but so far it’s been effective.  It helps me both in terms of getting started, and also not engaging in endless noodling once I have started.

A good guideline for setting a quota is to consider how much work you can get done under ideal circumstances (abundant inspiration, plenty of free time, a great studio with no interruptions) and then cut it in half (or one-third, or less).  Don’t set your quota at your maximum output — it’s unsustainable and you’ll just end up feeling discouraged when you don’t hit it.

Put in your time.

The Other Side of the Equation

A quota system will help on the quantity side of things, but a quota does nothing for quality.  How to keep the bar high?

1.  You might find that you make better work at a certain time of day.  Work then and only then.  Neal Stephenson noticed that his writing was good in the morning, and crap in the afternoon.  He stopped writing in the afternoon.

2.  Don’t make crap and try to fix it later.  Make it as good as it possibly can be, from the very start.

3.  Shoot for great, not good.  You may not hit it, but you may manage to avoid making crap.

4.  Show your work to just a few people with impeccable taste.  Pay attention to what they say.  If they note problems, those problems are probably real, and you need to deal with them in your work.

No One System

This post isn’t meant to be prescriptive.  Quotas may not work for you.  There are a million ways to kick yourself in the ass.  It’s also perfectly legitimate to refuse to game your own motivational system, and simply work when and if the urge strikes.  You may get less done, but maybe you’ll make better work.

The risk of waiting for inspiration is that the gears do get rusty.  If you work every day (or at least multiple times a week), then everything is lubed up.  It takes less time to get from a blank page (or sequencer, or canvas) to something halfway cool.

What’s the big payoff?  For me it’s that feeling when I look at or listen to what I’ve created and I’m surprised.  I made that?  Really?  Chasing that feeling is worth a little auto-ass-kicking.

How to See Magnetic Fields — Quantum Entanglement in Biological Systems

Navigation via flag manifold?

In the science fiction novel I’m currently outlining, human beings harbor “wildstrains” of genes and gene-groups that enhance or alter human function.  Some of these variants have occurred naturally in a small number of human beings (“human calculator” ability, “photographic” memory, temperature regulation in extreme environments, prodigious musical or mathematical creativity, incredible strength, lightning reflexes, etc.) and others have been “borrowed” from other species (infrared/night vision, chameleon-like skin color changes, glow-in-the-dark skin, limb regeneration, photosynthesis, no biological aging, etc.).

One “superhuman” ability I wouldn’t mind having is the ability to see or otherwise sense compass directions, via direct perception of magnetic fields.  If you were playing devil’s advocate you might say “just get an iPhone.”  It’s true — GPS does the job pretty well.  Still — it would be nice to have such an extra sense “built in.”  The cognitive scientist Peter König has invented a device — the “feelSpace belt” — that allows human beings to perceive magnetic direction via vibrating pads on a belt.  One of the volunteers who tried out the belt — Udo Wächter — described his experience:

“I suddenly realized that my perception had shifted.  I had some kind of internal map of the city in my head.  I could always find my way home.  Eventually, I felt I couldn’t get lost, even in a completely new place.”

Writer Quinn Norton implanted a magnet into her finger to give her the ability to directly feel electromagnetic fields.  While the implant didn’t give her any powers of navigation, it did allow her to directly perceive live wires, active electric outlets, and any strong source of EMF radiation.

Many animals, including birds, bees, cows, and salmon, have demonstrated the ability to perceive magnetic fields, and direct their behavior accordingly.  A group of cows will align themselves along the north-south axis — unless a power line disrupts the local magnetic field.  In that case, they’ll all stand willy-nilly (interestingly, the researchers initially noticed the north-south alignment from looking at satellite pictures of cows and deer via Google maps).

Cow de-aligner.

So how do these animals do it?  This experiment confirmed that birds do not use magnetic particles in their beaks (an earlier hypothesis), but rather information from their eyes to navigate via magnetic fields.  More recent research has isolated the flavoprotein cryptochrome as being key to the process.  How does cryptochrome work?  This article explains the “radical pair” hypothesis.  In short, a radical pair is a pair of molecules, each with an unpaired electron.  If the spins of the two unpaired electrons become entangled, this reaction can potentially interact with the visual system of the bird (or other animal).

In other words, birds (and possibly other animals) use quantum entanglement to see magnetic fields.  Biologically, robins can maintain the entangled state for longer than humans have been able to do, even in the most highly controlled laboratory experiments.

Hope For Humans?

Crytpochrome is also found in the human eye, but its function there appears to be related to circadian rhythms, not magnetoreception.  Can the human eye detect quantum entanglement in other ways?  The retina won’t send a signal to the brain unless it is hit by at least seven photons, so there is no way a human eye could detect the entangled state of a single photon.  However,  two independent groups of Swiss and Italian researchers have been working to connect a pair of entangled photons to thousands of other photons (with a technique called micro-macro entanglement) so that the entangled state (or lack thereof) can be perceived by the human eye.  Initial experiments showed promise, but the entanglement test used was later shown to generate false positives.

If our eyes could be somehow modified to contain the same crytochrome-based biological mechanism as the robins, we might perceive a dark (or light) spot or line in our field of vision that would maintain its orientation as we moved our heads (in the same way a compass arrow always points north, even as you rotate the compass).  That would be cool.

I know, I know … just get an iPhone.

The Mysterious “Quantum” Dance of the Bees

Dr. Barbara Shipman

In the mid-90’s, mathematician Barbara Shipman was working on her PhD thesis at the University of Arizona, on the dynamics and geometry of flag manifolds.  Part of her work involved creating 2-dimensional projections of the 6-dimensional manifolds (in the same way a circle is a 2-dimensional projection of a 3-dimensional sphere).  Looking at the projections, she noticed an eerie similarity to the “waggle” and “circle” dances that honey bees use to communicate food locations to fellow workers (Shipman’s father was [is?] an agricultural scientist and bee researcher, so she had grown up with a familiarity with the bee dances).  Shipman knew that depending on the distance of the food source, the “waggle” dance would change its pattern, and then suddenly shift to a “circle” dance.  Shipman found that the bee dance patterns exactly matched the 2-D projections of the 6-D flag manifold space she was researching.

Imagine a torus (donut-shape) passing vertically through a horizontal plane.  If you observe the interaction of the two shapes from the perspective of the plane (two dimensions) then first you see an oval growing bigger, then suddenly two ovals getting farther apart, then two circles, then two ovals getting closer together, then one oval getting smaller until it disappears.  In the same way the oval “suddenly” becomes two ovals (as the hole of the donut passes through the plane), the bees waggle dance instantly shifted to a circle dance.

So were the bees perceiving a six-dimensional manifold of some sort?  Or were they somehow using 6-D geometry to encode location information?

Shipman’s research (and speculations) were described by Adam Frank, in an article originally published in Discover magazine in 1997.  It’s a great read.

Shipman speculated that the bees might somehow be perceiving information on the quantum level.  From the Adam Frank article:

“The flag manifold, she notes, in addition to providing mathematicians with pure joy, also happens to be useful to physicists in solving some of the mathematical problems that arise in dealing with quarks, tiny particles that are the building blocks of protons and neutrons.  And she does not believe the manifold’s presence both in the mathematics of quarks and in the dance of honeybees is a coincidence.  Rather she suspects that the bees are somehow sensitive to what’s going on in the quantum world of quarks, that quantum mechanics is as important to their perception of the world as sight, sound, and smell. “

Shipman has been criticized for such speculations.   The scientist Zac Hanley, in his response “Bees Aren’t Quantum,” tears into Shipman for daring to suggest a possible explanation for the correlation she has found between flag manifold mathematics and the dances of bees.  Hanley points out that bees don’t need to consciously “think” about math in order to actually perform the calculations (just as we don’t have to consciously “think” about the relative harmonic frequencies of sounds in order to perceive music).  However I don’t think either Shipman or Frank suggested that bees do any such thinking — the “how” isn’t addressed in Adam Frank’s article.

So can bees “see” quarks, or perceive some kind of hidden 6-D reality?  Probably not.  Do bees have molecules of cryptochrome in their bodies that are involved in their circadian rhythms and navigational functions?  They definitely do.  I don’t know if the research is there yet, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to consider the possibility that bees use cryptochrome-generated radical pairs to see magnetic fields, just as birds do.  Do bee brains contain neuron-circuits that encode locations using some kind of 6-D math?  And then decode the same information while watching another bee dance?  Could be.

Why is this important?  We all know about colony collapse disorder.  One of the many possible explanations for the dramatic decline in bee populations (especially in the U.S. and Europe) is the increase of cell phone towers and cell phone use.  One study in India (reported by CNN) attached cell phones to a hive and powered them up.  The bees did not fare well.  This study got more press than it deserved — radiation from cell phones drops off very quickly with distance.  Still — it’s possible that very weak electromagnetic fields from power lines and cell towers could be disrupting the delicate quantum-entangled state that allows birds (and possibly bees, cows, salmon, and other animals) to navigate/orient via magnetic fields.  Cows near power lines standing willy-nilly, bees getting lost, and so on.

Snowed in robins -- EMF cryptochrome disruption?

Thorsten Ritz, in his paper Resonance effects indicate a radical-pair mechanism for avian magnetic compass, found that extremely weak oscillating fields disrupted the ability of the robins to navigate.  From the paper:

In the control condition, the robins exhibited seasonally appropriate northerly orientation, but in the presence of broadband (0.1–10 MHz, 0.085 µT) and single-frequency (7 MHz, 0.47 µT) oscillating fields, both vertically aligned, the birds were disoriented.

The strength of the field used in the experiment is less than one-third of one percent of the Earth’s magnetic field (31 µT, or 31 millionths of 1 tesla, at the equator).  How much EMF radiation is just drifting about, on average?  Well, it varies greatly, but there are many source in any urban environment.  I’m not near any major power lines, but my EMF Gauss meter picks up an ambient rating in my music studio (where I’m writing this post) of between .1 and .5 mG (milligauss).  Consistent exposure to anything over .4mG is considered a possible risk factor for childhood leukemia, and possibly other cancers.  Human beings can probably avoid EMF health risks by not living next to power lines, not using electric blankets, not sleeping next to refrigerators, and limiting cell phone use.  But what about birds and bees?  10mG (10 milligauss) = 1µT (1 microtesla), so .4mG is the equivalent of .04µT.  That’s about the same as the strength of the field that disrupted the ability of the robins to navigate, in Ritz’s experiment.  So it’s possible that ambient EMF radiation in developed areas (or anywhere near power lines) is enough to disrupt bee navigation.  And if bees can’t find their way back to the hive, they die.

What Can Be Done?

There is a growing awareness of EMF pollution and its risks.  Communities pushing back against telecommunications and power companies is the only thing that will make any difference — capitalism left to its own devices will ignore all safety and environmental considerations.  Technologies do exist that either shield or cancel out electromagnetic fields.  Alcatel-Lucent’s lightRadio “cell tower in a Rubik’s cube” device uses less power and possibly emits less radiation (I can’t find a good reference re: lightRadio and EMF levels — if you have one let me know).

Keeping our crops pollinated may hinge on protecting the ability of bees to preserve quantum coherence, and we may reduce rates of childhood leukemia in the process.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén